Recent Topics
And so it begins. Winter 2019-2020.
by DejaVue - 12/11/19 12:13 AM
reference for tires wearing faster when new?
by NissanMaxima - 12/10/19 10:46 PM
2.4L GDI Turbo available?
by 2014_K5_Optima - 12/10/19 10:08 PM
rotary compressor breathing air
by MasterBlaster - 12/10/19 09:33 PM
Substitute for Polaris hub oil?
by The_Eric - 12/10/19 08:53 PM
'20 Hyundai Sonata -- Wow-ee! Looks!
by paoester - 12/10/19 07:11 PM
2021 Chevrolet Suburban and Tahoe Revealed
by E365 - 12/10/19 06:56 PM
Do you try to book on widebodies?
by fdcg27 - 12/10/19 06:25 PM
Carbon Farming
by SubLGT - 12/10/19 05:40 PM
How Many Vehicles Do You Maintain?
by Passport1 - 12/10/19 04:23 PM
Bypass Setting vs Subaru
by Al - 12/10/19 03:10 PM
13 chevy equinox I4 engine oil in filter box
by Fitter30 - 12/10/19 02:04 PM
Driven - Direct Injection Oils
by buster - 12/10/19 01:59 PM
.308 Win or .25-06
by mobilaltima - 12/10/19 01:05 PM
FI cleaners ruin injectors?
by Redright9 - 12/10/19 12:54 PM
Planned Changes at Honda
by The Critic - 12/10/19 12:30 PM
The forgotten Bolens 1253
by Lubener - 12/10/19 11:49 AM
Valvoline High Mileage vs Valvoline Full Synthetic?
by Bettez88 - 12/10/19 10:33 AM
Newest Members
Bruce147, snowplow, Rovingcowboy, 2014_K5_Optima, Peter_Tremonti
70098 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
24 registered members (53' Stude, cos, AndyB, carlprop, 4WD, BrandonT, 4 invisible), 708 guests, and 25 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics298,557
Posts5,138,059
Members70,098
Most Online3,589
Nov 2nd, 2019
Donate to BITOG
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Re: Valvoline Advanced Synthetic (SynPower) 12K OCI - Ford 2.5L [Re: SR5] #4842478 08/17/18 02:22 AM
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 147
G
Gubkin Offline
Offline
G
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 147
TBN 2.0 too low, should decrease interval

Re: Valvoline Advanced Synthetic (SynPower) 12K OCI - Ford 2.5L [Re: Gubkin] #4842482 08/17/18 02:48 AM
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 5,023
S
SR5 Offline
Offline
S
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 5,023
Originally Posted By: Gubkin
??? which ?
Valvoline SynPower 5W-30 (SL, A3/B4, 229.5)
Valvoline SynPower Xtreme MST C3 5W-30 (SN, C3, 229.51)
Valvoline SynPower FE 5W-30 (SL, A5/B5, M2C913-D)
Valvoline SYNPOWER XL-III C3 5W-30 (SN, C3, 229.51, 504/507)


Those are all European Synpowers (which we also get in Australia). The OP is talking about an ILSAC GF-5, API SN+, Dexos1-Gen2, Valvoline Advanced Synthetic (their new name for SynPower) which is what they use in the North America. It's none of those you listed.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valvoline DuraBlend 10W40 SN & A3/B4 semi-synthetic + Valvoline V06 synblend media filter
Re: Valvoline Advanced Synthetic (SynPower) 12K OCI - Ford 2.5L [Re: Triple_Se7en] #4842499 08/17/18 04:23 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,277
dnewton3 Offline
Global Moderator
Offline
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,277
Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
One can purchase synthetics for the same price as dino/conventional. Sales are constant.
So why not use the advanced synthetic, instead of dino?


While I agree that there are times when a BOGO or rebate may affect pricing, your statement is an exaggeration. The general pricing structure of lubes will always have conventional lubes at a lower price point. Apples to apples ... I shop lubes just like everyone else does; I cannot find Synpower for $2/qrt, but I can find dino for that (or less) every day of the week. Sure, there are sales on syns. But there are also sales on dinos.

Explain to me if you can, why a lube maker/blender would bother to market a quart of syn for $2.50, if he could sell me a quart of dino for that same $2.50? Presumably, the dino would have less cost in manufacture and processing. So why would a lube maker want to see me a syn that costs MORE for them to make, for the same price as the dino which costs less for them to make? Their profit margin erodes in your example. It's a lovely concept that does not play out in reality with any consistency.

I realize I'm not going to convince you otherwise; you'll attempt to show me some anecdotal examples.
But I remain unconvinced.

Last edited by dnewton3; 08/17/18 04:37 AM.

The act of preventative maintenance, in and of itself, is FAR MORE important than brand/grade/base choices among lubes and filters.
- under maintaining something is akin to abuse/neglect; that can kill equipment by shortening the lifespan
- over maintaining something has never been proven to be anything but a waste of time and money
Re: Valvoline Advanced Synthetic (SynPower) 12K OCI - Ford 2.5L [Re: Gubkin] #4842504 08/17/18 04:36 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,277
dnewton3 Offline
Global Moderator
Offline
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,277
Originally Posted By: Gubkin
TBN 2.0 too low, should decrease interval


Excellent example of uninformed bias. TBN was "low" (by your standards).

So what? Where's the damage? Where's the risk at this point? Why shorten the OCI? Would a shorter OCI result in TBN somehow magically making wear "better"? Wear here is already impressively low, and that's not even due to the lube. These engines generally wear very little, regardless of what's in the crankcase. Further, they tend to run fairly clean; check out soot and insoluble examples in these engines.

You do not understand why TBN/TAN are tracked. TBN is NOT IN ANY MANNER a reason to OCI. It is a precursor that tell of a potential shift in wear rates. That's all. Low TBN, and the inversion of TBN to TAN, have shown absolutely no correlation to shifts in wear trends in short-to-moderate OCI duration. And without correlation, there can be no causation whatsoever. This UOA is one of MANY examples of such. TBN/TAN are tracked because, at some point, the base/acid relationship may result in an escalation of wear metals from pitting of the metals. This effect is much more prevalent in equipment that sits idle for long periods, and typically when the fuel or lube have acid-promoting elements (Sulfur being an example). However, equipment that is run frequenly, has little moisture intrusion, and runs clean has little concern for a base/acid issue.

In this UOA as one of many examples, show me where the "low" TBN had any detrimental effect whatsoever. I challenge you to illuminate the cause of concern here. And more importantly, why waste lube by OCI'ing sooner?????? Would wear rates be any lower if the OCI were any shorter? Nope - these engines wear very well and the wear rates are generally unaffected by TBN/TAN in any moderate OCI.

The old mentality of TBN being very important to engine health is based on just that; old bias and old data.

Reality has shown us time and time again that in short-to-moderate OCIs, TBN is totally moot. So much so that I don't even both to pay for that part of the analysis any longer. It's a waste of my money to get a TBN. I've got THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of UOAs in my database, and I can assure you with 100% certainty that under the conditions I describe, TBN/TAN is not in play whatsoever. I would agree than in very long OCIs (essentially ones where syns and bypass are utilized for tens of thousands of miles), it would be of more importance. But that's now the example here, nor is it the topic here.

Your observation is flawed.


Last edited by dnewton3; 08/17/18 04:42 AM.

The act of preventative maintenance, in and of itself, is FAR MORE important than brand/grade/base choices among lubes and filters.
- under maintaining something is akin to abuse/neglect; that can kill equipment by shortening the lifespan
- over maintaining something has never been proven to be anything but a waste of time and money
Re: Valvoline Advanced Synthetic (SynPower) 12K OCI - Ford 2.5L [Re: dnewton3] #4842541 08/17/18 05:53 AM
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 147
G
Gubkin Offline
Offline
G
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 147
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Your observation is flawed

Cummins, MTU and other says that you....
1.0 min limit TBN - [censored]


Re: Valvoline Advanced Synthetic (SynPower) 12K OCI - Ford 2.5L [Re: dnewton3] #4842553 08/17/18 06:21 AM
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,176
2015_PSD Offline
Offline
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,176
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
One can purchase synthetics for the same price as dino/conventional. Sales are constant.
So why not use the advanced synthetic, instead of dino?
While I agree that there are times when a BOGO or rebate may affect pricing, your statement is an exaggeration.
Based upon the gallons of oil that I have in my stash, I would fundamentally disagree with you. Case in point, WM recently cleared out Pennzoil Euro 0W-40 starting at $13.00 per 5QT jug, but many of them had it at $11.00 per jug. While traveling back from SLC, I picked up nearly 100QTs of it. There is no conventional that is the equivalent of that oil, so how about a different one? The WMs in SW Louisiana and SE Texas cleared out Chevron Delo 400 LE 5W-40 CJ-4 @ $11.00 per gallon jug; I have many gallons of it on my shelf for my Powerstroke. What about the AZ annual clearance? Plenty of synthetics there at less than conventional prices. The point is my experience is not unique and if one is willing to do the leg work, synthetics can be found cheaper than conventionals "nearly all the time" and many times without rebates.


2019 o)|||||(o Rubicon Wrangler Unlimited 3.6L V6 [Castrol Edge 0W-20 + FRAM Ultra]
2018 Mercedes Benz C300 2.0L Turbo [Pennzoil Platinum Euro 0W-40 & Mann filter]
Re: Valvoline Advanced Synthetic (SynPower) 12K OCI - Ford 2.5L [Re: dogememe] #4842749 08/17/18 10:05 AM
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 11,521
W
wemay Offline
Offline
W
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 11,521
dnewton3, although in agreement with you on many points, for the bitoger that looks for deals, Synthetics can be had for the same price. Case in point, the end of year clearance sales at AutoZone and sometimes a little luck, like i had (see below receipt). These are "anecdotes" that occur all the time. But for the avg consumer, yes Conventional is cheaper.




2018 KIA Sportage LX AWD
Shell RGT 5W20, STP S2808

2013 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport 2.0T
M1AP 5W30, M1-104
Re: Valvoline Advanced Synthetic (SynPower) 12K OCI - Ford 2.5L [Re: dogememe] #4845969 08/21/18 04:35 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,277
dnewton3 Offline
Global Moderator
Offline
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,277
And I can get dino oils all day long at less than $2/qrt. RK oil is anywhere from $1.89/qrt for walk in retail price, to sales at $1.59/qrt. I also got dino QSGB at $.89/qrt not long ago. Got some Havoline for $1.09/qrt also. All clearance stuff as well. It's not really a fair topic to start talking about clearance items. There's no rhyme/reason to the pricing there. Sure, you can happen across a 4-leaf clover every once in a while. Diligent shoppers can always find bargains.

We'll agree to disagree. You will be no more convincing than convinced.

Last edited by dnewton3; 08/21/18 04:48 AM.

The act of preventative maintenance, in and of itself, is FAR MORE important than brand/grade/base choices among lubes and filters.
- under maintaining something is akin to abuse/neglect; that can kill equipment by shortening the lifespan
- over maintaining something has never been proven to be anything but a waste of time and money
Re: Valvoline Advanced Synthetic (SynPower) 12K OCI - Ford 2.5L [Re: dnewton3] #4845979 08/21/18 04:44 AM
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,176
2015_PSD Offline
Offline
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,176
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Diligent shoppers can always find bargains.
Which is the entire point--if you can find synthetics at the same price or less than conventionals, why would you use conventionals? I see no reason whatsoever other than being able to say that you can.

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
We'll agree to disagree.
Agreed.


2019 o)|||||(o Rubicon Wrangler Unlimited 3.6L V6 [Castrol Edge 0W-20 + FRAM Ultra]
2018 Mercedes Benz C300 2.0L Turbo [Pennzoil Platinum Euro 0W-40 & Mann filter]
Re: Valvoline Advanced Synthetic (SynPower) 12K OCI - Ford 2.5L [Re: Gubkin] #4845980 08/21/18 04:47 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,277
dnewton3 Offline
Global Moderator
Offline
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,277
Originally Posted By: Gubkin
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Your observation is flawed

Cummins, MTU and other says that you....
1.0 min limit TBN - [censored]




Typical misunderstanding of the topic.

I fully realize that some OEMs set condemnation limits. But those limits (not unlike OCI limits) are predicated on protecting their bottom line in terms of warranty exposure. It has NOTHING to do with the actual wear rates. Again, the effect of TBN is meant to be a marker of info for increased awareness, and NOT a cause to OCI. The OEMs don't care about what it costs us to OCI; that means nothing to them. They set incredibly conservative limits on things that protect their bottom line; they are not concerned with maximizing your dollar.

I challenge you to show me data from real world use that shows those condemnation limits actually correlate to shifts in wear trends. Don't rely on the condemnation limit from some arbitrary source. Show the actual data that concludes a causation of effect here. I want to see proof in real data; not recommendations from sources that are not interested in our best interest. There are lots of UOAs on this site that have low TBN, but no wear concerns. Even UOAs here that show TBN low AND TAN being elevated; still not wear trend shifts. But not once have I seen a UOA here in a moderate OCI that shows any causation whatsoever to low TBN producting high wear. Not once.


TBN dropped and wear was unaffected in this UOA. There is no correlation between TBN and wear. With no correlation there can be no causation. It is just that simple. I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you. You either will get it, or you won't.


BTW - that document you quote looks keenly similar to the one from this CA study:
https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/TechnologyDevelopment/OPPTD_FLY_High-Efficiency-Oil-Filters.cfm
On page 11, they show the condemnation limits for metals, soot, TBN, etc.
You'll note that nowhere in the study did they find any reason to change oil based on TBN alone. In fact, the study does not show any correlation whatsoever to TBN vs wear rates. They plot TBN and Vis relative to OCI duration, but that tells us absolutely nothing in regard to wear metals.
They essentially do the same thing you've done; they predicate an OCI not on wear rates (outputs), but Vis and TBN (inputs).
Inputs are only predictors. They are not results. Wear trends are results.

Show me a study that indicates a low TBN causing wear trends shifts and I'll believe you.
But I caution you in that I've tried to find the existence of this for several years now, and cannot.
My own UOA database shows no correlation whatsoever in short-to-moderate OCIs.
And no correlation means no causation.




Last edited by dnewton3; 08/21/18 05:19 AM.

The act of preventative maintenance, in and of itself, is FAR MORE important than brand/grade/base choices among lubes and filters.
- under maintaining something is akin to abuse/neglect; that can kill equipment by shortening the lifespan
- over maintaining something has never been proven to be anything but a waste of time and money
Re: Valvoline Advanced Synthetic (SynPower) 12K OCI - Ford 2.5L [Re: dogememe] #4846191 08/21/18 08:44 AM
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,657
C
camrydriver111 Offline
Offline
C
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,657
I think that's a great point. Wear numbers are the important result.


BITOG or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Extended OCI
Re: Valvoline Advanced Synthetic (SynPower) 12K OCI - Ford 2.5L [Re: dnewton3] #4846220 08/21/18 09:23 AM
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,176
2015_PSD Offline
Offline
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,176
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
TBN dropped and wear was unaffected in this UOA. There is no correlation between TBN and wear. With no correlation there can be no causation.
Then again, UOAs are not tools for measuring wear; this has been pounded into everyone here ad nauseum. I do understand your point, but wanted to highlight that UOAs are frequently used for measuring wear, when in fact they are for measuring health--of the oil.


2019 o)|||||(o Rubicon Wrangler Unlimited 3.6L V6 [Castrol Edge 0W-20 + FRAM Ultra]
2018 Mercedes Benz C300 2.0L Turbo [Pennzoil Platinum Euro 0W-40 & Mann filter]
Re: Valvoline Advanced Synthetic (SynPower) 12K OCI - Ford 2.5L [Re: Gubkin] #4846835 08/21/18 05:29 PM
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 3,234
S
SirTanon Offline
Offline
S
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 3,234
Originally Posted By: Gubkin
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Your observation is flawed

Cummins, MTU and other says that you....
1.0 min limit TBN - [censored]



TBN of 1.0 minimum? Fine... and 2.0 is definitely higher than 1.0. Please explain how quickly that 2.0 is going to become 1.0 (or lower) in the usage scenario provided for the engine in this UOA.

...this, of course, notwithstanding dnewton's very well stated argument regarding whether or not the TBN is even a factor. I agree with him 100%, but I'd like to know how 2.0 is "too low" when 1.0 has been provided as the condemnation limit.


2013 Nissan Altima SV - 2.5 liter/CVT - 125,000mi
2014 Nissan Altima SL - 2.5 liter/CVT - 68,000mi
2010 Ford Fusion - 274k mi - SOLD
Re: Valvoline Advanced Synthetic (SynPower) 12K OCI - Ford 2.5L [Re: 2015_PSD] #4847190 08/22/18 04:57 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,277
dnewton3 Offline
Global Moderator
Offline
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,277
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
TBN dropped and wear was unaffected in this UOA. There is no correlation between TBN and wear. With no correlation there can be no causation.
Then again, UOAs are not tools for measuring wear; this has been pounded into everyone here ad nauseum. I do understand your point, but wanted to highlight that UOAs are frequently used for measuring wear, when in fact they are for measuring health--of the oil.



I disagree.

UOAs most certainly can measure wear. They are not perfect, but they are a tool that is (by far) the least expensive and timely method we have to assess wear. UOAs are a direct view of lubes and an indirect view of equipment. But they surely do track wear.

Will a UOA find all wear? Nope. The UOA is limited to wear within it's visual spectrum (up to about 5um). But BIG wear (catasrophic wear) is typically acute in nature; it happens fast. A UOA won't always find that because the damage from acute big issues will happen far faster than an OCI/UOA would take place. It can do so at times, but it won't always do so. Blackstone has many of their monthly articles that show how UOAs can catch things and help diagnose issues prior to total engine failure. So that is a topic that really isn't usable for this conversation.

Chronic, slow wear trends most certainly can be tracked with UOAs. This kind of data develops at a pace we can easily track. Also, UOA data based on smaller wear particles has been shown to track in correlation with PC data; several SAE studies show this. ZEE and I have discussed this many times.

There are other methods of measuring wear, but they have their pitfalls as well:
- We could do an engine tear-down; use micrometers and such to measure all things like bearing clearances and journals, bores, etc. But .... this is SUPER DUPER COSTLY in both money and downtime. And, even more detrimental is the fact that gauge R&R data on this type of "wear measurement" is very poor. Plus every time you would presumably reassemble the engine, you also induce issues like new fasteners and related torque that would again affect clearances. No - this type of "wear measurement" really isn't as trustworthy as folks think.
- We could do engine tear-downs, and then use electron bombardment measurements. These have better gauge R&R scores, but again, who's got the time/money to tear down an engine to measure wear? And you still risk inducing issues upon reassembly.


Further, there are SAE studies we've all discussed that show correlation (very good correlation) between the particulate counts in the lube and filters, and the UOA wear metal data. The Ford/Conoco study I've spoken of also shows correlation of wear data and physical measurements. Also, the infamous GM filter study (one I abhor for other reasons) also shows correlation between PC and UOA wear data.


I've never said UOAs are perfect; they are not. But they are absolutely the most efficient, quick means to tracks typical wear patterns. They are reasonably accurate and no more prone to errors than other methods.

Plus, were we to accept the theory that UOAs don't tell us about wear, then why do UOAs ever? I realize most would say "track the lube health". OK - to what goal? How does one know that lube characteristic X makes for more or less wear? Or that lube characteristic Y controls cleanliness? It's all theory of inputs. Unless you can track an output, it's all 100% gibberish. Let me make an analogy; I'm famous for them. But sometimes we have to take our self out of the lube world to think without prejudice.
Consider a basketball game. We collect stats on players ... points per game, rebounds per game, assists per game, etc.
Would you watch a game where there was no score kept and not know who won?
The "score" is an output.
The "stats" are inputs.
Just because a team (or individual player) has better "stats", does not mean they automatically win a game.
In theory, you'd never have to actually play a game; you'd just look at inputs and predict (actually deem) a winner by input data.
But we all know that this isn't a totally accurate way to "play" a game. We all know that small nuances shift things; things we cannot always see or track. Or, that inputs, despite their superior nature, don't always generate a guarantee of success. It's good and useful to use predictors, but the game will always show us that inputs are not always what they seem. Most importantly, inputs that do NOT show correlation to an output are proof that they are moot. A player that has a high average of PPG and RPG does not assure us that his team will win. The important thing to discover, if present, is any correlation between the inputs and outputs. If so, it's a good predictor. If not, it's not useful. Correlation must be present for causation to be possible. Correlation does not assure causation, but causation cannot exist without correlation.

Going back to lubes, this UOA (and most others) clearly shows that TBN is a moot topic for moderate OCIs, out to 15k miles. It may or may not have affect after that, but 15k miles is where most of my data stops; I cannot comment on data I don't have any great accumulation of. I have sporadic data past 15k miles. I do have data from greatly extended OCIs, but those typically also involve BP filters, and that induces an input that is not part of this discussion, so it's not relevant.

There are SAE studies that show vis changing, but wear rates stay low. As long as the vis is not GROSSLY out of spec, it' really does not matter. UOAs show us this too. And the same can be said for TBN. I see no correlation whatsoever that TBN has an effect on wear rates.

The reality is that inputs are nothing more than predictors, not matter what the topic. The only way to know for sure what ACTUALLY happened is to measure an output.

So, you can track vis, TBN, FP, etc all you want; feel free. But if you cannot tie those criteria to an output, it's worthless information.
I'll track the end result, thank you.

Without any doubt, UOAs can most certainly track wear data that is useful, inexpensive, and timely as a means of practical application.


Last edited by dnewton3; 08/22/18 05:01 AM.

The act of preventative maintenance, in and of itself, is FAR MORE important than brand/grade/base choices among lubes and filters.
- under maintaining something is akin to abuse/neglect; that can kill equipment by shortening the lifespan
- over maintaining something has never been proven to be anything but a waste of time and money
Re: Valvoline Advanced Synthetic (SynPower) 12K OCI - Ford 2.5L [Re: dnewton3] #4847285 08/22/18 07:15 AM
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,176
2015_PSD Offline
Offline
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,176
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
TBN dropped and wear was unaffected in this UOA. There is no correlation between TBN and wear. With no correlation there can be no causation.
Then again, UOAs are not tools for measuring wear; this has been pounded into everyone here ad nauseum. I do understand your point, but wanted to highlight that UOAs are frequently used for measuring wear, when in fact they are for measuring health--of the oil.
[...]UOAs most certainly can measure wear.[...]
Remind me again how many UOAs that you stated have to be performed to have a basis for any real data. I could search for it, but I know that you know what that is. I seem to recall after my 2010 FX4 UOA "experiment" that you noted I had not proved or disproved anything due to the changes of oil brands/types and not having enough UOAs to establish trends.

If memory serves, it was 75 or so? If that is true, then using UOAs from various engines/driving styles/oil brands and types/oil filters and types to determine wear (which I know has been stated by many here is not possible--potentially even yourself), seems very unreliable considering all of the variables. I am not trying to slam you in any way, but why (after seeing it posted so many times here) are UOAs now a viable wear measuring tool--IF that is what you are saying? This is not to mention the number of examples where an UOA showed nothing over a long period of time and the engine still fails.

Clarity please.


2019 o)|||||(o Rubicon Wrangler Unlimited 3.6L V6 [Castrol Edge 0W-20 + FRAM Ultra]
2018 Mercedes Benz C300 2.0L Turbo [Pennzoil Platinum Euro 0W-40 & Mann filter]
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

BOB IS THE OIL GUY® Powered by UBB.threads™