Like BITOG?

If you don't mind oil-related ads, and want to keep us running, whitelist BobisTheOilGuy in your ad blocker.

Thank you!

Recent Topics
Resuing mower oil!
by KMJ1992
07/17/18 12:19 PM
2015 Audi Q7 Transmission Service
by rooflessVW
07/17/18 11:58 AM
Curious Questions regarding Engine Wear
by mbacfp
07/17/18 11:42 AM
Bridgestone Driveguard worked as advertised!
by LeakySeals
07/17/18 11:30 AM
Renewable Lubricants Inc. Dexos 1 gen 2 SN plus?
by 2James1
07/17/18 10:52 AM
2017 VW -- mildly cold Air Conditioning
by BAJA_05
07/17/18 10:50 AM
Lot of New Oil Filters - SF Bay Area/Marin County
by dogememe
07/17/18 10:38 AM
‘13 Tundra crank/no start
by pda1122
07/17/18 10:31 AM
‘16 CX-5 using oil
by pda1122
07/17/18 10:06 AM
castrol edge ep 5w-20 ?
by dogememe
07/17/18 09:41 AM
Bags of MTD 30 weight oil
by Snagglefoot
07/17/18 09:37 AM
Castrol Edge 0/40 sale/Amazon prime members only
by Bullwinkle007
07/17/18 09:37 AM
Kart Racing engine oils?
by racin4ds
07/17/18 09:36 AM
Valvoline 5w40 CK-4 in 2014 F250
by Rocdoc27
07/17/18 07:43 AM
castrol go m/c oil rated sg and jaso ma2...???
by kmrcstintn
07/17/18 06:44 AM
2006 Prius - Hybrid Battery Failure
by The Critic
07/17/18 02:01 AM
amazon missing package. how often?
by WhyMe
07/17/18 12:15 AM
Filter Minder naysayers!
by ThunderOne
07/16/18 09:57 PM
Is there a 1 piece 75 Ohm to 300 Ohm coa connector
by daves66nova
07/16/18 08:46 PM
Help me choose camper wheels
by spasm3
07/16/18 08:44 PM
Newest Members
bjay, javylsu, Jlb27537, katnapped, Denniso
65501 Registered Users
Who's Online
94 registered (379KITTY, 2015_PSD, 28oz, 2012AccentSE, 3one7, 10 invisible), 1641 Guests and 29 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
65501 Members
67 Forums
287219 Topics
4791455 Posts

Max Online: 3590 @ 01/24/17 08:07 PM
Donate to BITOG
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#4807861 - 07/07/18 05:44 PM Extend UOA Test Particle Size Range?
2015_PSD Online   content


Registered: 09/26/10
Posts: 7334
Loc: SE Texas
We have likely discussed this ad nauseam (or not), but one cannot help but wonder why the size range in UOA tests is not extended or has a separate stage for at least two size ranges of particles. Case in point, when I drained the factory oil from my GLC, it was very pearlescent when swirled in the sun. This indicates to me there is a considerable amount of metal which was not trapped by the oil filter. For clarity, I have witnessed this scenario with every vehicle I have ever owned so it is not unique to my GLC.

I will assume that factory Mercedes-Benz oil filters have efficiency ratings inline with most other OEM filters, perhaps something on the order of 90% @ 30-40um. A further assumption is the particles that I saw in the oil are too small to be trapped by the filter, but equally too small (or too large) to be picked up by the UOA test—else the PPM quantities would be higher for the wear metals in the test results.

Based on the above, I have three questions for thought:

1. Do you agree or disagree there is more metal in the oil than the tests reveal?

2. Do you think the metal is too small to cause wear thus the current particle size range is sufficient?

3. Do you think changing the UOA test results to capture the quantities of the particles obviously present in the oil would be of value?
_________________________
2018 MB AMG GLC43 3.0L Coupe - M1 0W-40/OEM
2018 MB C300 2.0L - M1 0W-40/OEM
2015 F-250 6.7L PS Diesel - Delo 5W-40/CQ Blue
2014 Explorer 3.5L Limited - M1 AFE 0W-20/FU

Top
#4807902 - 07/07/18 07:17 PM Re: Extend UOA Test Particle Size Range? [Re: 2015_PSD]
JLTD Offline


Registered: 12/15/17
Posts: 834
Loc: US
New vehicle UOAs always show higher wear metals....so some percentage of those smaller particles are detected.

To answer your questions---

1) Probably. Testing can only detect down to a certain size. There is a cost effectiveness there, costs more to detect smaller particles.

2) IMO any metal causes wear as it adds friction. Pardon the comparison, but a sandblasting effect.

3) Cost effectiveness, no. UOA tests are at a level where they provide an appropriate level of diagnoosis. I am sure that those smaller partciles could be detected but for the bulk of UOAs that level of discrimination isn't required.
_________________________
Hers: 2008 Jeep Liberty 135k, AMSOIL® SS 5w30/same

His: 2015 4Runner SR5 1GR-FE 39k, AMSOIL® OE 5w20/Wix

Top
#4807910 - 07/07/18 07:36 PM Re: Extend UOA Test Particle Size Range? [Re: 2015_PSD]
d00df00d Online   content


Registered: 10/20/05
Posts: 11266
Loc: PA
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
1. Do you agree or disagree there is more metal in the oil than the tests reveal?

Yes. Without question.


Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
2. Do you think the metal is too small to cause wear thus the current particle size range is sufficient?

As this question is stated, the answer is likely no.

But I think what you really mean is, do UOAs catch particles in the most consequential size range? If that's what you meant, then AFAIK it depends how you intend to use the UOA. As I understand, ICP spectroscopy (the most common method used in UOAs for wear metals) catches particles in the size range most closely associated with very early-stage mechanical problems -- but mechanical problems that are further along tend to chuck out bigger particles, which you'd need other analysis methods to catch (e.g. rotrode, ferrography, particle count, etc.). So, an ICP-based UOA is good for catching wear IF you start it when the engine is in good shape and get a trend -- but if you don't have that trend info and need to make an assessment with a one-off UOA, you need a different tool (and it'll still have a lot of uncertainty).


Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
3. Do you think changing the UOA test results to capture the quantities of the particles obviously present in the oil would be of value?

Absolutely. The question, as always, is how much value for how much cost. And that depends on the situation, as well as the budget available.
_________________________
2011 Mazda RX-8 R3
Mobil Super 5w-20

Top
#4807913 - 07/07/18 07:45 PM Re: Extend UOA Test Particle Size Range? [Re: 2015_PSD]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 24712
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
1) Quite possibly.
2) Not enough information to answer, since we don't have the size.
3) As already mentioned, there is the issue of cost effectiveness. How much are we willing to pay?

Of course, there are always the usual qualifiers. Is an early change beneficial or detrimental or neutral? Does the condition we observe in the factory fill matter in the grand scheme of things? I wish I knew the answers, but these are the questions the keep BITOGers up at night. wink
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 - Shell ROTELLA T6 Multi-Vehicle 5w-30, NAPA Gold 7356
1984 F-150 4.9L - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#4807916 - 07/07/18 07:48 PM Re: Extend UOA Test Particle Size Range? [Re: 2015_PSD]
fdcg27 Offline


Registered: 09/25/09
Posts: 15832
Loc: OH
First off, what you might find in the FF of any engine is of no significance.
There will be some residual machining debris as well as wear-in particles.
FF UOAs typically feature horror show metals levels which are really of no concern at all.
Remember that we're talking about parts per million here so a small absolute difference looks huge.
Now, can you get more accurate results for various particle sizes?
Yes, you can pay more to have particle counts done.
You'll see a few such UOAs in that forum. Not many, since this does involve a fair bit more money, but it can be done and those UOAs can be viewed.
Remember too that UOAs are mainly useful as a measure of oil condition and can be used to help determine appropriate drain intervals. They aren't really a good tool for measuring engine wear.
Also, some engines shed very little metal while others normally shed a lot.
If you compared a UOA from an SBC with one from a four cylinder timing belt Honda, you'd swear that the Chevy was in its death throes. It wouldn't be since it simply normally sheds more metal.
_________________________
17 Forester 12K MSS 0W-20
12 Accord LX 86K PP 5W-20
09 Forester 95K M1HM 10W-30
01 Focus ZX3 118K PP 5W-20
96 Accord LX 104K T5 10W-30
95 318i

Top
#4807922 - 07/07/18 08:11 PM Re: Extend UOA Test Particle Size Range? [Re: fdcg27]
2015_PSD Online   content


Registered: 09/26/10
Posts: 7334
Loc: SE Texas
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
First off, what you might find in the FF of any engine is of no significance.
There will be some residual machining debris as well as wear-in particles.
FF UOAs typically feature horror show metals levels which are really of no concern at all.
Remember that we're talking about parts per million here so a small absolute difference looks huge.
Now, can you get more accurate results for various particle sizes?
Yes, you can pay more to have particle counts done.
You'll see a few such UOAs in that forum. Not many, since this does involve a fair bit more money, but it can be done and those UOAs can be viewed.
Remember too that UOAs are mainly useful as a measure of oil condition and can be used to help determine appropriate drain intervals. They aren't really a good tool for measuring engine wear.
Also, some engines shed very little metal while others normally shed a lot.
If you compared a UOA from an SBC with one from a four cylinder timing belt Honda, you'd swear that the Chevy was in its death throes. It wouldn't be since it simply normally sheds more metal.
For clarity, I am thinking past the FF, but it is a great example of the theoretical weakness of a UOA and yes, I am aware they cannot be reliably used to measure wear, but what I am suggesting is that with a few fundamental changes could they be? Also, the PPM reading is based upon certain sized particles--the ones which may actually need to be counted may not be in the PPM reading. I have done several particle counts and I am not sold on that as a way to measure wear either since they simply place a sharper lens on the same results already taken. I am not saying you are wrong by any stretch, but I am thinking quite a bit out of the box.
_________________________
2018 MB AMG GLC43 3.0L Coupe - M1 0W-40/OEM
2018 MB C300 2.0L - M1 0W-40/OEM
2015 F-250 6.7L PS Diesel - Delo 5W-40/CQ Blue
2014 Explorer 3.5L Limited - M1 AFE 0W-20/FU

Top
#4807923 - 07/07/18 08:14 PM Re: Extend UOA Test Particle Size Range? [Re: Garak]
2015_PSD Online   content


Registered: 09/26/10
Posts: 7334
Loc: SE Texas
Originally Posted By: Garak
1) Quite possibly.
2) Not enough information to answer, since we don't have the size.
3) As already mentioned, there is the issue of cost effectiveness. How much are we willing to pay?

Of course, there are always the usual qualifiers. Is an early change beneficial or detrimental or neutral? Does the condition we observe in the factory fill matter in the grand scheme of things? I wish I knew the answers, but these are the questions the keep BITOGers up at night. wink
Agreed; but I am also thinking past the FF such that if there were a couple of ranges of particle sizes tested we MAY have a better tool to measure wear, but I also concede there are a zillion variables to it. For the cost, I think it would depend if all of the metal that is seen is smaller or larger than what is already captured in the test. Smaller is likely more cost whereas larger may not be. One would think in this day and age of computer controlled everything, that we would be able to improve the UOA past oil health.
_________________________
2018 MB AMG GLC43 3.0L Coupe - M1 0W-40/OEM
2018 MB C300 2.0L - M1 0W-40/OEM
2015 F-250 6.7L PS Diesel - Delo 5W-40/CQ Blue
2014 Explorer 3.5L Limited - M1 AFE 0W-20/FU

Top
#4807953 - 07/07/18 08:52 PM Re: Extend UOA Test Particle Size Range? [Re: 2015_PSD]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 24712
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Yes, I'd suggest there would be interest, and possibly some valuable information there.
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 - Shell ROTELLA T6 Multi-Vehicle 5w-30, NAPA Gold 7356
1984 F-150 4.9L - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#4807962 - 07/07/18 09:04 PM Re: Extend UOA Test Particle Size Range? [Re: 2015_PSD]
PimTac Online   content


Registered: 03/04/17
Posts: 4598
Loc: Soviet State of Washington
It has been noted that some engine just shed more metal than others. It’s not a sign of a bad engine, just a characteristic. Some manufacturers may have different materials or alloys, different casting and production methods.

This throws another aspect into the mix.
_________________________
2017 Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring

Valvoline Advanced Synthetic 0w20
Mobil 1 M108A EP filter


Top
#4807967 - 07/07/18 09:17 PM Re: Extend UOA Test Particle Size Range? [Re: 2015_PSD]
kschachn Offline


Registered: 12/26/05
Posts: 9509
Loc: Upper Midwest
I've posted this graph before, it is lifted from a Machinery Lubrication article I ran across. Note the upper limit of size detectable by emission spectrography and where it falls on their threat graph.

When I ran AA and KF on oil analysis in college for our automotive engineering and fluid power departments, we were often told that for the most part anything that showed up in a standard (non-digested) analysis was not in and of itself damaging to the equipment since the particle size that was detectable was too small to cause damage. They instead used the analysis to look for trends or for spikes to very high levels to indicate impending failure. I'm no expert, but I do chuckle here when I see people saying M1 causes "wear" when an analysis shows 18ppm of iron instead of 6. Some of the bad samples we tested would show wear metals in the several thousand ppm range. These days with ICP the detected range might be different than with AA, I don't know. I do know ICP has a much hotter plasma and a higher residence time than with the old AA so is likely to be able to vaporize larger particles.

We always performed an acid digestion on our samples, that gave a rough indication of larger and potentially damaging particles in the samples. We'd run the analysis on both the as-received sample and the digested one and compare the results. If you got a much higher reading on the digested sample that indicated a high incidence of relatively large particles.

_________________________
1994 BMW 530i, 227K
1996 Honda Accord, 262K
1999 Toyota Sienna, 397K
2000 Toyota ECHO, 267K

Top
#4807973 - 07/07/18 09:31 PM Re: Extend UOA Test Particle Size Range? [Re: JLTD]
kschachn Offline


Registered: 12/26/05
Posts: 9509
Loc: Upper Midwest
Originally Posted By: JLTD
New vehicle UOAs always show higher wear metals....so some percentage of those smaller particles are detected.

To answer your questions---

1) Probably. Testing can only detect down to a certain size. There is a cost effectiveness there, costs more to detect smaller particles.

2) IMO any metal causes wear as it adds friction. Pardon the comparison, but a sandblasting effect.

No, emission spectrography (ICP or AA) can only detect up to a certain size. In fact, it is the single atom that is detected. It's the large particles that require further processing of the sample prior to analysis.

And very small particles do not add friction or cause wear, they just exist in the oil like any of the other metallic atoms present in formulated motor oil.
_________________________
1994 BMW 530i, 227K
1996 Honda Accord, 262K
1999 Toyota Sienna, 397K
2000 Toyota ECHO, 267K

Top
#4807998 - 07/07/18 10:14 PM Re: Extend UOA Test Particle Size Range? [Re: 2015_PSD]
SubieRubyRoo Offline


Registered: 05/14/12
Posts: 1232
Loc: Winchester, Indiana
KS, I hadn't seen that article before, but I didn't even think about SEM-EDX testing for oil analysis. We have it done when something ends up on our final product and don't know what it is, but it makes sense. The lab usually tries to wash it off into solution with alcohol or another solvent, and then transfers the solution into the machine and reads it out. I'd imagine doing this test on oil would help skip a couple steps since it's already liquid. Used in this manner, SEM-EDX is quite limited in its scope because it gives you elemental breakdowns and you must have a reference sample for them to compare and see if it is the same compound; I will have to ask the lab guys if they can actually do particle counts on it. I may send them a sample from my next UOA just to see what all they can tell me.

And for the cost-benefit side, when we have to send out an SEM-EDX sample, it's likely $600-700 total by the time you get the analysis and their report on what is or isn't in your sample. So no, I don't see any casual UOA springing for that type of analysis, even if it tells you all kinds of neat information. That cost represents a lifetime's worth of oil changes for some vehicles!

Top
#4808002 - 07/07/18 10:29 PM Re: Extend UOA Test Particle Size Range? [Re: 2015_PSD]
JAG Offline


Registered: 10/23/05
Posts: 4885
Loc: Fredericksburg, VA

Top
#4808006 - 07/07/18 10:32 PM Re: Extend UOA Test Particle Size Range? [Re: 2015_PSD]
Linctex Offline


Registered: 12/31/16
Posts: 6186
Loc: Waco, TX
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
when I drained the factory oil .... it was very pearlescent when swirled in the sun. This indicates to me there is a considerable amount of metal which was not trapped by the oil filter - - - I have witnessed this scenario with every vehicle I have ever owned so it is not unique...


I have also noticed this multiple, MULTIPLE times.

It is one of the main reasons I added a bypass oil filter.
_________________________
"The evidence demands a verdict".
(Re:VOA)"it's nearly impossible to actually know the particular additives that are in there at what concentrations."

Top
#4808052 - 07/08/18 12:02 AM Re: Extend UOA Test Particle Size Range? [Re: Linctex]
4WD Offline


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 6532
Loc: Texas
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
when I drained the factory oil .... it was very pearlescent when swirled in the sun. This indicates to me there is a considerable amount of metal which was not trapped by the oil filter - - - I have witnessed this scenario with every vehicle I have ever owned so it is not unique...


I have also noticed this multiple, MULTIPLE times.

It is one of the main reasons I added a bypass oil filter.


Same here and I will always be a 1k on FF owner …
On the subject of UOA … who would you bet has the more sophisticated lab and personnel:
1) Blackstone
2) CVX, RDS, XOM etc …

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >