How does PP 5W-20 stack up against M1 EP?

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: irv
Interesting, and I guess it's best I read it, but when I see elevated "wear metals" in different oil UOA's, I automatically think the oil isn't doing it's job as good as the other oil is. Elevated Wear metals, imo, when seen in UOA's, tell me the oil isn't lubricating/protecting as good as they should, especially when you see other oil UOA's that have "normal" or nil amounts of wear metals in their UOA's.

Really, with the lack of any sort of controls on vehicle operation there is no way to correlate elevated wear metal reports to the oil. Never is it a variation between (for example) 10ppm and 350ppm which might show something significant. No one here has ever shown anything that indicates the relatively minor differences are in any way significant.


This.

We are talking relatively minor variances in parts per million in conditions that are anything but controlled using a tool that isn't designed for the purpose of comparing lubricants. Trying to divine anything significant out of that circumstance is utterly futile.

 

[irv]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: irv
Interesting, and I guess it's best I read it, but when I see elevated "wear metals" in different oil UOA's, I automatically think the oil isn't doing it's job as good as the other oil is. Elevated Wear metals, imo, when seen in UOA's, tell me the oil isn't lubricating/protecting as good as they should, especially when you see other oil UOA's that have "normal" or nil amounts of wear metals in their UOA's.

Really, with the lack of any sort of controls on vehicle operation there is no way to correlate elevated wear metal reports to the oil. Never is it a variation between (for example) 10ppm and 350ppm which might show something significant. No one here has ever shown anything that indicates the relatively minor differences are in any way significant.


This.

We are talking relatively minor variances in parts per million in conditions that are anything but controlled using a tool that isn't designed for the purpose of comparing lubricants. Trying to divine anything significant out of that circumstance is utterly futile.


I respectfully disagree. Wearmetals, no matter how minute or low (PPM) were still showing up on these UOA's I am talking about. Other oils, namely the Pennzoil oils showed far less (normal), or nil wear metals.

And I am not only talking about one UOA. As a Mobil user at that time, I paid attention to them and IIRC, others were as well as it was an ongoing topic on here about how high the wear metal counts were with Mobil oils.

I joined this site back in 2006 but being a new guy then, I don't believe I commented on any/many and I might have been a lurker prior to that as well?

Regardless, from what I believed/was told, UOA's didn't lie and this is what I and others seen when Mobil oils had UOA's done on them.

Like I have said, twice now, this likely isn't still the case with the influx of many oils now from Mobil like EP, AP, AFE, etc, but there is now denying what I read, numerous times.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: irv


I respectfully disagree. Wearmetals, no matter how minute or low (PPM) were still showing up on these UOA's I am talking about. Other oils, namely the Pennzoil oils showed far less (normal), or nil wear metals.

And I am not only talking about one UOA. As a Mobil user at that time, I paid attention to them and IIRC, others were as well as it was an ongoing topic on here about how high the wear metal counts were with Mobil oils.

I joined this site back in 2006 but being a new guy then, I don't believe I commented on any/many and I might have been a lurker prior to that as well?

Regardless, from what I believed/was told, UOA's didn't lie and this is what I and others seen when Mobil oils had UOA's done on them.

Like I have said, twice now, this likely isn't still the case with the influx of many oils now from Mobil like EP, AP, AFE, etc, but there is now denying what I read, numerous times.


UOA's sample a VERY narrow window of particle sizes and there has been demonstrable proof that they are inconsistent. Different labs will yield different results. Heck, the same lab re-running your sample will result in different values. This is inherent to the nature of UOA's, they are not a tool designed to discern minute variances in metals content, their primary purpose is to monitor contamination and determine suitability for continued use, which is how they are used commercially.

"Wear metals" in UOA's do not directly correspond with actual wear for a myriad of reasons, some of which include the dissolution of pre-existing deposits that may contain suspended particulate, chemical chelation from certain components in an oil's additive package and the actual wear profile of the engine with that specific lubricant, which may result in different particle sizes being shed, only the smallest of which are picked up by a UOA. Doug Hillary's OTR testing consisted of a condemnation limit of 150ppm for iron, yet upon actual tear-down, the liners and steel parts looked like new, bearings measured "as new"....etc after 1.2 million Kilometres of testing in the Australian outback. He did actual commercial lubricant testing, backed by tear-downs, for Mobil and other companies.

I highly suggest giving his article a read, as I was of a similar mind as you when I first joined but changed my tune once I understood things more clearly.

Basically, using a UOA to determine "wear" is like using sewage concentration testing in the Atlantic to determine the contamination levels of Lake Superior. Yes, the bodies of water are connected, loosely, but you aren't actually measuring what you are looking for and there are a lot of things unaccounted for that can skew the results. The allure however, is tantalizing: being able to determine how your engine is wearing just by sampling the oil and then determining what oil the best!!??? Who wouldn't want to be able to do that! But unfortunately, you'd really need to do actual tear-down testing to measure physical wear and that's not a realistic proposition for anyone.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Overkill... so humor me here. You're trying to tell me that monitoring contamination and suitability for continued use do not tell me ANYTHING about how/if the oil is protecting the engine? So guys like Terry Dyson making specific oil and usage recommendations are really just witch doctors pulling ideas out of a crystal ball?

I'm just a simple guy, so it seems like if I paid Mr. Dyson for an analysis that didn't mean anything, and his recommendations didn't result in improvements, then I would no longer request or pay for his services. Repeat this just a couple times, and the word spreads like wildfire... hence in a short time, there would be no more oil analysts making recommendations. But that's not the case, is it?

And I argue to the contrary... in my Forester I drive a set route to and from work, same speeds, same usage, every day. When I ran RT6, I got great UOAs with 7.5k+ OCIs. I switched to M1 0W40 on a 6k OCI, my consumption went up, my wear metals went up (iron and aluminum nearly doubled); when I switched back to RT6, the numbers and consumption went back to where they were prior to M1. If that's not confirmation that UOAs give me SOMETHING that is useful about determining the better lubricant, then I give up. I'll stick with the PQIA warning oils, since hey, UOAs are pointless in telling me the oil is bad for my engine, right??

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
Overkill... so humor me here. You're trying to tell me that monitoring contamination and suitability for continued use do not tell me ANYTHING about how/if the oil is protecting the engine? So guys like Terry Dyson making specific oil and usage recommendations are really just witch doctors pulling ideas out of a crystal ball?


Firstly, Dyson isn't doing $20 Blackstone UOA's, which are the majority of the type done on this site.

Using an approved lubricant in its intended application will likely result in the engine outliving the vehicle, that's a staple tenet of this site and is factually correct. The vast, VAST majority of the motoring public hasn't even heard of oil analysis, and their vehicles hold up just fine maintained on dealer or Quick Lube junk.

Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
I'm just a simple guy, so it seems like if I paid Mr. Dyson for an analysis that didn't mean anything, and his recommendations didn't result in improvements, then I would no longer request or pay for his services. Repeat this just a couple times, and the word spreads like wildfire... hence in a short time, there would be no more oil analysts making recommendations. But that's not the case, is it?


His analysis can tell you if you have a fuel dilution problem. His analysis can tell you if you have an air filtration problem. His analysis can tell you if you have a possible internal cooling system leak. These are all legitimate uses for UOA's and part of the contamination and suitability portfolio. Where things get a bit dicey is when one looks to divine oil superiority based on small variations in PPM. Terry is a fan of RLI products, and when he was a member here, that became quite apparent.

Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
And I argue to the contrary... in my Forester I drive a set route to and from work, same speeds, same usage, every day. When I ran RT6, I got great UOAs with 7.5k+ OCIs. I switched to M1 0W40 on a 6k OCI, my consumption went up, my wear metals went up (iron and aluminum nearly doubled); when I switched back to RT6, the numbers and consumption went back to where they were prior to M1. If that's not confirmation that UOAs give me SOMETHING that is useful about determining the better lubricant, then I give up. I'll stick with the PQIA warning oils, since hey, UOAs are pointless in telling me the oil is bad for my engine, right??


When I ran AMSOIL AZO 0w-30, their flagship oil, in our Expedition, consumption tripled. I still gave it a few OCI's to settle. When it didn't, I switched back to AFE 0w-30 which didn't consume. I have no illusions that AZO was causing unnecessary wear. Your posit appears to be that one of the most highly certified oils on the planet that's the factory fill in the GTR and the entire Benz AMG lineup as well as every Porsche isn't adequate for your Forester because of what you saw on a UOA. It's that type of interpretation that's the issue here.

The PQIA warning oils are massive Red Herring, they don't meet the specs they claim, that's not even remotely close to what we are discussing.


This article from Doug Hillary spells it out quite well, and this is somebody who has performed hundreds of UOA's in professional service working with the oil companies and doing actual tear downs to measure wear:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis/

 

[irv]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
Overkill... so humor me here. You're trying to tell me that monitoring contamination and suitability for continued use do not tell me ANYTHING about how/if the oil is protecting the engine? So guys like Terry Dyson making specific oil and usage recommendations are really just witch doctors pulling ideas out of a crystal ball?


Firstly, Dyson isn't doing $20 Blackstone UOA's, which are the majority of the type done on this site.

Using an approved lubricant in its intended application will likely result in the engine outliving the vehicle, that's a staple tenet of this site and is factually correct. The vast, VAST majority of the motoring public hasn't even heard of oil analysis, and their vehicles hold up just fine maintained on dealer or Quick Lube junk.

Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
I'm just a simple guy, so it seems like if I paid Mr. Dyson for an analysis that didn't mean anything, and his recommendations didn't result in improvements, then I would no longer request or pay for his services. Repeat this just a couple times, and the word spreads like wildfire... hence in a short time, there would be no more oil analysts making recommendations. But that's not the case, is it?


His analysis can tell you if you have a fuel dilution problem. His analysis can tell you if you have an air filtration problem. His analysis can tell you if you have a possible internal cooling system leak. These are all legitimate uses for UOA's and part of the contamination and suitability portfolio. Where things get a bit dicey is when one looks to divine oil superiority based on small variations in PPM. Terry is a fan of RLI products, and when he was a member here, that became quite apparent.

Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
And I argue to the contrary... in my Forester I drive a set route to and from work, same speeds, same usage, every day. When I ran RT6, I got great UOAs with 7.5k+ OCIs. I switched to M1 0W40 on a 6k OCI, my consumption went up, my wear metals went up (iron and aluminum nearly doubled); when I switched back to RT6, the numbers and consumption went back to where they were prior to M1. If that's not confirmation that UOAs give me SOMETHING that is useful about determining the better lubricant, then I give up. I'll stick with the PQIA warning oils, since hey, UOAs are pointless in telling me the oil is bad for my engine, right??


When I ran AMSOIL AZO 0w-30, their flagship oil, in our Expedition, consumption tripled. I still gave it a few OCI's to settle. When it didn't, I switched back to AFE 0w-30 which didn't consume. I have no illusions that AZO was causing unnecessary wear. Your posit appears to be that one of the most highly certified oils on the planet that's the factory fill in the GTR and the entire Benz AMG lineup as well as every Porsche isn't adequate for your Forester because of what you saw on a UOA. It's that type of interpretation that's the issue here.

The PQIA warning oils are massive Red Herring, they don't meet the specs they claim, that's not even remotely close to what we are discussing.


This article from Doug Hillary spells it out quite well, and this is somebody who has performed hundreds of UOA's in professional service working with the oil companies and doing actual tear downs to measure wear:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis/


Well, I obviously don't know who this guy is or how much stock I should take in his opinions, but, like he mentions/alludes to a couple times in your link, I'll stick with an oil that shows less "Wear Metals" in UOA's than going with an oil that shows more, no matter how minute those results, or PPM counts might be.

In my case correctly interpreted UOAs have saved the odd engine from major problems and have proven that certain viscosities work better than others in some specific engine families. UOAs certainly optimized the service life of the lubricants in a cost effective way for many of my customers

Did he see elevated "Wear Metals" in his properly interrupted UOA's, or was it something else even though he speaks of viscosities?

Personally, and like what he states here, it would be "foolhardy" for me to continue using an oil that seen elevated wear metals in UOA's than using an oil that didn't.

People that chose to ignore the Manufacturer’s advice concerning the first oil change period and the lubricant to be used then are IMO quite foolhardy – especially if they intend to keep their vehicle for many years

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: irv
Well, I obviously don't know who this guy is or how much stock I should take in his opinions, but, like he mentions/alludes to a couple times in your link, I'll stick with an oil that shows less "Wear Metals" in UOA's than going with an oil that shows more, no matter how minute those results, or PPM counts might be.


Doug is the author of a couple of Australian publications on OTR truck maintenance and has an extensive working relationship with many of the oil majors as well as numerous vehicle OEM's, which he mentioned in the article. I actually have a copy of his book. He's a great resource and has been posting on here for a very long time. He actually provided the tear-down pictures of the 1.2 million kilometre rig as well as the details of his testing regimen.

Originally Posted By: irv
In my case correctly interpreted UOAs have saved the odd engine from major problems and have proven that certain viscosities work better than others in some specific engine families. UOAs certainly optimized the service life of the lubricants in a cost effective way for many of my customers

Did he see elevated "Wear Metals" in his properly interrupted UOA's, or was it something else even though he speaks of viscosities?


A properly interpreted UOA can inform you of coolant ingress, a leaking injector, an air intake tract leak or a change interval beyond the capacity of the lubricant. A significant change in a specific metal can signal a lubricant not doing its job, say lead or copper ticking up majorly in a tri-metal bearing engine, pointing to insufficient viscosity and rod bearing wear.

Originally Posted By: irv
Personally, and like what he states here, it would be "foolhardy" for me to continue using an oil that seen elevated wear metals in UOA's than using an oil that didn't.


It's the definition of elevated here that's the primary crux of the BITOG UOA issue. People ascribing significance to 10ppm variances in iron. That's not significant. Over a 10,000Km OCI, the difference between 10ppm of iron and 20ppm of iron is not of statistical significance. Doug's condemnation limit of 150ppm supports that.

On the other hand, if you are seeing 90ppm of something on a 5,000Km OCI, that's likely an indication that something may be going sideways and worth further investigation.

Another point is that UAO's do not differentiate between actual wear and chelation. An aggressive additive package that bonds to a surface and thus displaces iron particles from steel/iron components will show as wear in a UOA. Chelation has been covered quite a few times on here with respect to Redline oils, which often show higher levels of metals. Rust of course will also present as wear.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Overkill, regarding chelation... this is the displacement of certain ions by other charged particles, which an ester certainly can have compared to a dino or non-ester synthetic. I get it. But after a certain amount of time or OCIs, I would expect that the chelation has removed and substituted the iron particles from the oiled surfaces, and therefore iron should drop across successive UOAs using the same oil, if wear is not an issue, should it not?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
Overkill, regarding chelation... this is the displacement of certain ions by other charged particles, which an ester certainly can have compared to a dino or non-ester synthetic. I get it. But after a certain amount of time or OCIs, I would expect that the chelation has removed and substituted the iron particles from the oiled surfaces, and therefore iron should drop across successive UOAs using the same oil, if wear is not an issue, should it not?


Based on the Redline UOA's I've seen, it doesn't appear to

But you seem to be seeing my point. I'm not saying to completely disregard what one sees in a UOA, that would be silly. I'm saying there are other things in play here that have an effect on the numbers you see on the report, so trying to contrast different oils based on these small variances, as Doug has talked about, is not the proper way to go about things and can really have one chasing their tail.

The old Tri-Syn Mobil 1 formula for example, was supposed to be a blend of PAO, POE and AN's. Redline is a majority PAO lube with a dose of POE in it. One would expect these lubes would be more prone to falsely elevated iron readings from chelation due to that.

Because a UOA doesn't directly measure wear, and because there are other sources of particles that can be seen as "wear metals" in a UOA, what we can glean about wear from a normally wearing engine, that is, an engine not shedding an abnormal amount of particles, is limited. Each lubricant will have its own "signature" that corresponds to its performance in that engine and this will be a result of actual wear, the range of which in terms of particle sizes can be somewhat unique to that product, which in turn, due to the limited scope of spectrography, dictates how much the UOA "sees", as well as the interaction of the base oils and/or additive package with the components of the engine. Certain engines with copper lined oil coolers for example will, with certain oils, give high copper readings. This is of course not real wear.

Dirty_Howie's Redline 5w-30 UOA saga of high lead FOUND HERE where he switched to Mobil 1 0w-40 to bring it down is an interesting example.

In his use, I would, and did, advocate a change to another lube because he was seeing readings 10x the statistical norm for lead. We don't know the source, but we do know that a change in lubricants has resulted in lead trending down from 39ppm to 3ppm based on that change. Since lead is not a metal that normally presents in volume, this was a legitimate cause for concern IMHO. Iron also went down, but it wasn't high to begin with, so that change isn't significant.

In Howie's situation, UOA's have been a valuable tool to identify a potential issue and rectify it, because what was being observed was abnormal. On the other hand, a guy with a Civic swapping from M1 EP 0w-20 to PUP 0w-20 and claiming success because he dropped 4ppm of iron is not using the tool properly and that 4ppm cannot properly be ascribed to actual wear reduction.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: irv
Personally, and like what he states here, it would be "foolhardy" for me to continue using an oil that seen elevated wear metals in UOA's than using an oil that didn't.

Of course, the real issue then becomes what is actually elevated and what is simply part of the background noise and what is part of sightly differing oil chemistries. As Overkill notes, it's one thing to observe something totally out of whack, particularly if trying an out of spec oil, or using a modified application, or having an engine that has legitimate problems that are worsening.

It's another to have an ordinary daily driver vehicle and trying to compare two functionally identical ILSAC oils of the same grade and approvals. One 5w-30 dexos1, for example, is about as functionally identical in service as another 5w-30 dexos1 as you can get. If properly formulated M1 5w-30 is somehow wearing the engine out prematurely, the bottle beside it on the shelf with the same specs but a different colour won't be your answer.

 

[irv]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: irv
Personally, and like what he states here, it would be "foolhardy" for me to continue using an oil that seen elevated wear metals in UOA's than using an oil that didn't.

Of course, the real issue then becomes what is actually elevated and what is simply part of the background noise and what is part of sightly differing oil chemistries. As Overkill notes, it's one thing to observe something totally out of whack, particularly if trying an out of spec oil, or using a modified application, or having an engine that has legitimate problems that are worsening.

It's another to have an ordinary daily driver vehicle and trying to compare two functionally identical ILSAC oils of the same grade and approvals. One 5w-30 dexos1, for example, is about as functionally identical in service as another 5w-30 dexos1 as you can get. If properly formulated M1 5w-30 is somehow wearing the engine out prematurely, the bottle beside it on the shelf with the same specs but a different colour won't be your answer.


Well, no matter how much spin is put on it, I think the oil that shows less wear metals in the UOA's is the proper choice, imo, and that might in fact be the oil sitting right beside M1 5W-30?

It's apparent on this site, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, that people have their favorite brand of oil and nothing will persuade them to change that, even not so stellar UOA's. Myself, I look at things differently as I choose an oil that consistently receives better UOA's, great reviews and feedback.

All this surprises me, and what I thought the purpose of this site was for, was to help people decide which oil, filter, both air and oil, is best for their vehicles.

Like I mentioned, I believed/thought Mobil was the "Elite" or the best oil out there, and I used it for quite a few years, but that choice was based on advertising and feel good stories alone.

Needless to say, when I joined this site, I seen that wasn't necessarily the case based on the UOA's I was constantly reading.

Like, what I thought this site was for, I switched up to a better oil based on much better UOA's, but it surprised me then and it still surprises me now, that even with better UOA's and VOA's, people are so brand loyal that they use an oil that still, to this day, shows higher levels of wear metals in their UOA's.

 

[PimTac]

@irv,

I think that beyond the brand fanboy attitudes some may have here there are way too many variables to determine if one oil is better for one particular vehicle than another. Driver habits, climate, driving routine ( short or long trips), plus add in the type of engine and what kind of load and demands you place on it. Two people with the same truck, towing 5000 pounds. One is in Kansas the other in Colorado.

In the end whichever oil gives you the impression that it is working for you is the oil you should stick with. I know this somewhat because as this has been mentioned before, some engines don’t really like a certain oil. It sounds ridiculous and there is no scientific evidence to back it but if you run brand A 5w-30 and the engine is ticky, then switch to brand B and all is good then go with B. I’ve been there.

 

[OVERKILL]

I'm not exclusive to any one brand of oil, though I've had excellent results with Mobil products based on actual tear downs (something you don't see too often on here). I'm currently running Castrol Edge 0w-40 in the SRT. Why? Because it's a highly certified Euro lube in the right grade for the application with a decent amount of PAO in it, making it an excellent choice for a Canadian winter and I was able to get it on sale at Canadian Tire.

There's a Pennzoil "SRT" 0w-40 that's available that has higher NOACK, and shows significant viscosity loss on UOA's. This product was conjured up as a replacement for M1 0w-40 when the Mobil/MOPAR relationship was dissolved after FIAT acquired them. It's not a Euro oil, and wouldn't pass the Mercedes certs just based on NOACK alone. It also has a weaker additive package, but you know, it might show a "better" UOA than the Euro oils that pass much, MUCH more difficult engine testing with actual tear-downs and analysis, like the Porsche A40 test and have higher levels of anti-wear additives

There are many ways we define "better" on BITOG:
- Certifications and approvals: The oils with the most of these tend to be Euro oils and the majority are in the 0w-40 grade. This one is my favourite.
- Higher levels of *insert your favourite additive* which some will define as making them "better". Moly is a popular one on here lately, ZDDP tends to be the big one for the flat tappet folk.
- Higher concentrations of a specific base oil, which points to a more expensive to blend product. This has been another trend lately with oils like M1 EP 0w-20 and AP 0w-20 standing out with high levels of PAO in them

And that's as an aside to the debate about PPM variances in UOA's where some put so much faith, yet products like Redline, which are supposed to be THE most robust and blended with absolutely NO compromise using the best base oils and additives, will have their clocked cleaned by Valvoline White Bottle in the "wear metals" department

I don't expect to change your mind irv, I think you've made it abundantly clear that you aren't interested in that. I do hope however that this exchange will prove useful for others who may stumble across it.

 

[Y_K]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
I do hope however that this exchange will prove useful for others who may stumble across it.

Yes, thank you

 

[jongies3]

Originally Posted By: AntDeek
I intend on 5000 mile intervals I prefer not to take oil too far.

Which one is a group IV oil? Isn’t PP technically group III?

CT8 - people like PAOs because they have much better high temp properties compared to hydrocracked

Temperatures daily drivers will never see, unless the engine overheats due to loss of coolant. Something no oil will prevent catastrophic damage from if not shut down quick.

Unless you're tracking the car, or have a track only, race ready ride, forget the PAO's is the way I see it. At 5000 mile intervals, it would probably be a waste to use the EP. Heck you could run Mobil Super or PYB that long easy and save more money.
I do advise buying a better filter for the car, though. Motorcraft used to be something special, now they are hit and miss like anything else made by Tearolator so it's really not worth the potential risk of causing more strain on your bearings from unfiltered oil when you can get something comparable for the same price that's quality.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: irv
Well, no matter how much spin is put on it, I think the oil that shows less wear metals in the UOA's is the proper choice, imo, and that might in fact be the oil sitting right beside M1 5W-30?

What is significant or insignificant, however, isn't spin. If you're showing 10 ppm iron in one UOA, for example, and 12 or 15 ppm in the next, with different oils and similar OCIs, there's nothing to choose from. That's particularly important when you're comparing oils of the same viscosity and basic specifications for an ordinary, approved application over ordinary OCIs. If you're iron goes from 5 ppm with one SN/GF-5 5w-30 over a 3,000 mile OCI to 75 ppm with another SN/GF-5 5w-30 over the next 3,000 mile interval, your problem is likely not the oil (assuming that the second fill was an actual in spec oil).

If the oil companies cannot do "something" to distinguish their product as vastly superior over the competition, given the labs and research budgets they have, we sure as heck aren't going to do it with $30 UOAs on daily drivers and by bouncing brand to brand and viscosity to viscosity.

 

[irv]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: irv
Well, I obviously don't know who this guy is or how much stock I should take in his opinions, but, like he mentions/alludes to a couple times in your link, I'll stick with an oil that shows less "Wear Metals" in UOA's than going with an oil that shows more, no matter how minute those results, or PPM counts might be.


Doug is the author of a couple of Australian publications on OTR truck maintenance and has an extensive working relationship with many of the oil majors as well as numerous vehicle OEM's, which he mentioned in the article. I actually have a copy of his book. He's a great resource and has been posting on here for a very long time. He actually provided the tear-down pictures of the 1.2 million kilometre rig as well as the details of his testing regimen.

Originally Posted By: irv
In my case correctly interpreted UOAs have saved the odd engine from major problems and have proven that certain viscosities work better than others in some specific engine families. UOAs certainly optimized the service life of the lubricants in a cost effective way for many of my customers

Did he see elevated "Wear Metals" in his properly interrupted UOA's, or was it something else even though he speaks of viscosities?


A properly interpreted UOA can inform you of coolant ingress, a leaking injector, an air intake tract leak or a change interval beyond the capacity of the lubricant. A significant change in a specific metal can signal a lubricant not doing its job, say lead or copper ticking up majorly in a tri-metal bearing engine, pointing to insufficient viscosity and rod bearing wear.

Originally Posted By: irv
Personally, and like what he states here, it would be "foolhardy" for me to continue using an oil that seen elevated wear metals in UOA's than using an oil that didn't.


It's the definition of elevated here that's the primary crux of the BITOG UOA issue. People ascribing significance to 10ppm variances in iron. That's not significant. Over a 10,000Km OCI, the difference between 10ppm of iron and 20ppm of iron is not of statistical significance. Doug's condemnation limit of 150ppm supports that.

On the other hand, if you are seeing 90ppm of something on a 5,000Km OCI, that's likely an indication that something may be going sideways and worth further investigation.

Another point is that UAO's do not differentiate between actual wear and chelation. An aggressive additive package that bonds to a surface and thus displaces iron particles from steel/iron components will show as wear in a UOA. Chelation has been covered quite a few times on here with respect to Redline oils, which often show higher levels of metals. Rust of course will also present as wear.


What it is the difference if I reach a threshold after one OC or I reach it after a few or more? Like, SubieRubyRoo, who's wear metals nearly doubled, what if his next OC had the same results? Imo, it wouldn't take long to reach that 90 or 150 PPM count.
I find it odd that if one were to reach those numbers cumulatively, threw multiple OC's, that doesn't matter much but if one reaches those numbers after one OC, then it's time to hit the panic button and quit using that oil to investigate what is going on?

I have seen it before, where people have given the Mobil-1 oil second and third chances to settle out, but their UOA's kept coming back with more and more elevated wear metals after every UOA?

Color me confused, but I see no difference between whether the wear metals show up after one OC and if they continue to show up after multiple OC's .

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: irv


What it is the difference if I reach a threshold after one OC or I reach it after a few or more? Like, SubieRubyRoo, who's wear metals nearly doubled, what if his next OC had the same results? Imo, it wouldn't take long to reach that 90 or 150 PPM count.
I find it odd that if one were to reach those numbers cumulatively, threw multiple OC's, that doesn't matter much but if one reaches those numbers after one OC, then it's time to hit the panic button and quit using that oil to investigate what is going on?

I have seen it before, where people have given the Mobil-1 oil second and third chances to settle out, but their UOA's kept coming back with more and more elevated wear metals after every UOA?

Color me confused, but I see no difference between whether the wear metals show up after one OC and if they continue to show up after multiple OC's .

Are you trying to condemn based on a cumulative approach here, IE, if somebody was seeing 6ppm per 5,000Km with oil A and 10ppm per 5,000Km with oil B and you are counting up to 150ppm?

The condemnation limit that Doug used was for 150ppm of FE based on his OCI length. Iron is a contaminant that tracks with mileage. The more miles you put on, the more iron particles you will have in the oil. Doug's 150ppm was a limit to determine the end of the serviceabilty of the lubricant indicating that the oil needed to be changed, it is not some threshold that can be approached in the fashion in which you are attempting.

Using UOA's commercially, there are limits established for various parameters of lubricant performance to determine when the oil needs to be changed, some of those limits are:
- TBN (Total Base Number): This is the oil's ability to neutralize acids and depletes over time.
- TAN (Total Acid Number): This is how acidic the oil has become. This can be skewed by certain base stocks.
- Contamination levels for various metals: Fe tracks with mileage as indicated above and Doug seemed to settle on 150ppm as a contamination limit in his service.


You need to look at it as PPM per 1,000 miles (or Kilometres), that is your contamination/wear rate.

Say SubieRubyRoo had two OCI's with two different lubes:

1. 8,000Km with oil A, Fe was at 7ppm
2. 9,000Km with oil B, Fe was at 12ppm

This gives us a wear rates of:
- 0.875ppm per 1,000Km for oil A
- 1.333ppm per 1.000Km for oil B

Both numbers are insignificant.

Now, on the other hand, we have Jed, and Jed's Subaru sheds 90ppm in an 8,000Km OCI, that's 11.25ppm per 1,000Km, ten times more particles in the same time period, concerning, right?

And that's why mileage is important and why it is measured in this way.

Another example: Let's take two different OCI's on a BMW:

1. 8,000Km, Fe was at 9ppm
2. 25,000Km, Fe was at 28ppm

Both of those OCI's have the same wear-rate. Make sense?

 

[irv]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: irv


What it is the difference if I reach a threshold after one OC or I reach it after a few or more? Like, SubieRubyRoo, who's wear metals nearly doubled, what if his next OC had the same results? Imo, it wouldn't take long to reach that 90 or 150 PPM count.
I find it odd that if one were to reach those numbers cumulatively, threw multiple OC's, that doesn't matter much but if one reaches those numbers after one OC, then it's time to hit the panic button and quit using that oil to investigate what is going on?

I have seen it before, where people have given the Mobil-1 oil second and third chances to settle out, but their UOA's kept coming back with more and more elevated wear metals after every UOA?

Color me confused, but I see no difference between whether the wear metals show up after one OC and if they continue to show up after multiple OC's .

Are you trying to condemn based on a cumulative approach here, IE, if somebody was seeing 6ppm per 5,000Km with oil A and 10ppm per 5,000Km with oil B and you are counting up to 150ppm?

The condemnation limit that Doug used was for 150ppm of FE based on his OCI length. Iron is a contaminant that tracks with mileage. The more miles you put on, the more iron particles you will have in the oil. Doug's 150ppm was a limit to determine the end of the serviceabilty of the lubricant indicating that the oil needed to be changed, it is not some threshold that can be approached in the fashion in which you are attempting.

Using UOA's commercially, there are limits established for various parameters of lubricant performance to determine when the oil needs to be changed, some of those limits are:
- TBN (Total Base Number): This is the oil's ability to neutralize acids and depletes over time.
- TAN (Total Acid Number): This is how acidic the oil has become. This can be skewed by certain base stocks.
- Contamination levels for various metals: Fe tracks with mileage as indicated above and Doug seemed to settle on 150ppm as a contamination limit in his service.


You need to look at it as PPM per 1,000 miles (or Kilometres), that is your contamination/wear rate.

Say SubieRubyRoo had two OCI's with two different lubes:

1. 8,000Km with oil A, Fe was at 7ppm
2. 9,000Km with oil B, Fe was at 12ppm

This gives us a wear rates of:
- 0.875ppm per 1,000Km for oil A
- 1.333ppm per 1.000Km for oil B

Both numbers are insignificant.

Now, on the other hand, we have Jed, and Jed's Subaru sheds 90ppm in an 8,000Km OCI, that's 11.25ppm per 1,000Km, ten times more particles in the same time period, concerning, right?

And that's why mileage is important and why it is measured in this way.

Another example: Let's take two different OCI's on a BMW:

1. 8,000Km, Fe was at 9ppm
2. 25,000Km, Fe was at 28ppm

Both of those OCI's have the same wear-rate. Make sense?


Sure it makes sense and it also tells me that engine/oil has something going on with it if it continues to shed metal like that UOA after UOA.

Like I have been trying to say, why would I choose an engine oil where I received higher than normal, or above average wear metal counts in my UOA's and not choose an oil where I seen below average or nil wear metal counts in my UOA's?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, Overkill, but it makes no sense (nor will it ever) to me to use an oil that receives less than stellar UOA's. Imo, that just goes against common sense.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: irv


Sure it makes sense and it also tells me that engine/oil has something going on with it if it continues to shed metal like that UOA after UOA.


Which of my examples are you talking about? An engine will shed metals for its entire life and at roughly the same rate unless something starts to go south, in which case you will likely see an uptick. Each engine is different and will have its own "signature" that presents as what you see in a trend of UOA's.

Originally Posted By: irv
Like I have been trying to say, why would I choose an engine oil where I received higher than normal, or above average wear metal counts in my UOA's and not choose an oil where I seen below average or nil wear metal counts in my UOA's?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, Overkill, but it makes no sense (nor will it ever) to me to use an oil that receives less than stellar UOA's. Imo, that just goes against common sense.


What's higher than normal or above average though? Both of the A/B hypotheticals I gave with the Subaru are well within normal and average, the only one that is above average is Jed's.

Took me a while to find one, but here's a good set of UOA's with different oils being used:

Oil/Miles/Fe/Fe per 1000 miles
1. BMW 5w-30: 5150, 21ppm, 4.08ppm/1000 miles
2. M1 0w-40: 5520, 24ppm, 4.35ppm/1000 miles
3. BMW 5w-30: 7630, 50ppm, 6.55ppm/1000 miles
4. M1 0w-40: 6000, 30ppm, 5.00ppm/1000 miles
5. M1 0w-40: 6111, 27ppm, 4.42ppm/1000 miles
6. Edge 0w-40: 7323, 37ppm, 5.05ppm/1000 miles

So we have an engine which appears to shed iron at a rate that varies between 4 and 5ppm/1000 miles. We have one UOA where that has gone to 6.55ppm/1000 miles on the same lubricant where it had previous done 4.08ppm. The trend seems to be otherwise normal.

What is your impression of the above values?