High lead is concerning me. Bike is parked for the winter, but I'll put on miles in spring and see what happens with the next UOA. Comments?
Last edited:
UOA Amsoil MCF 10W-40. BMW K1600
- Thread starter atc250r
- Start date
Yes lead is a little high may be try Castrol 10w50. This may make it easier to read.
Thanks for the rotation
That's a big dose of calcium and good numbers for zinc and phosphorus too.
Still wanting/trying to learn when/why calcium (3300 ppm) would be in that high of a quantity (with basically no magnesium) vs a combo of calcium and magnesium.
Mobil 1 10w40 4T runs 2000 ppm of calcium with a similar non existence of magnesium, but a decent amount of boron (162 ppm) vs basically no boron in the Amsoil. M1, by my UOA shows 1155 ppm zinc, 1007 ppm phosphorus vs the higher Amsoil numbers in the original post.
Does the presence of boron in the M1 offset the lower calcium as a detergent or does the boron help offset the lower Z/P numbers in M1 for wear protection? Both?
When I read about boron, it seems to be an anti-wear additive but also is said to have cleaning properties, but is always in lower concentrations than the other additives it may or may not be used in place of for detergency and/or anti-wear.
Thoughts?
Still wanting/trying to learn when/why calcium (3300 ppm) would be in that high of a quantity (with basically no magnesium) vs a combo of calcium and magnesium.
Mobil 1 10w40 4T runs 2000 ppm of calcium with a similar non existence of magnesium, but a decent amount of boron (162 ppm) vs basically no boron in the Amsoil. M1, by my UOA shows 1155 ppm zinc, 1007 ppm phosphorus vs the higher Amsoil numbers in the original post.
Does the presence of boron in the M1 offset the lower calcium as a detergent or does the boron help offset the lower Z/P numbers in M1 for wear protection? Both?
When I read about boron, it seems to be an anti-wear additive but also is said to have cleaning properties, but is always in lower concentrations than the other additives it may or may not be used in place of for detergency and/or anti-wear.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
Nice report, yeah, I guess if it was me seeing the lead might be a little upsetting.
If it was me, I think I would just forget about it until the next change and see what happens at the next report, since this is your first report in almost 50,000 miles you have no idea as it could have been 3 times higher and has come down very much and still coming down over the last 20,000 miles, or it could be going up too.
Either way, I wouldnt lose sleep over it since you have no history with the reports, not only that but you cant do anything to fix the higher then normal lead.
Im not big on any brand of oil, the reasons we pick oils are because of marketing and I respect Amsoil a lot but I hate the fact they put so much calcium in their oil as I do not extend oil changes and no reason for it to be there.
Im also not big on spending a lot of money on oil, to me its all marketing, I pick the right "API" and I am done, heck I still use mostly conventional/semi syn because no one has ever proved to me lower wear numbers (and I have some of the lowest) and again, I change my oil at the recommended intervals and less.
If it was me, I think I would just forget about it until the next change and see what happens at the next report, since this is your first report in almost 50,000 miles you have no idea as it could have been 3 times higher and has come down very much and still coming down over the last 20,000 miles, or it could be going up too.
Either way, I wouldnt lose sleep over it since you have no history with the reports, not only that but you cant do anything to fix the higher then normal lead.
Im not big on any brand of oil, the reasons we pick oils are because of marketing and I respect Amsoil a lot but I hate the fact they put so much calcium in their oil as I do not extend oil changes and no reason for it to be there.
Im also not big on spending a lot of money on oil, to me its all marketing, I pick the right "API" and I am done, heck I still use mostly conventional/semi syn because no one has ever proved to me lower wear numbers (and I have some of the lowest) and again, I change my oil at the recommended intervals and less.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Nice report, yeah, I guess if it was me seeing the lead might be a little upsetting.
If it was me, I think I would just forget about it until the next change and see what happens at the next report, since this is your first report in almost 50,000 miles you have no idea as it could have been 3 times higher and has come down very much and still coming down over the last 20,000 miles, or it could be going up too.
Either way, I wouldnt lose sleep over it since you have no history with the reports, not only that but you cant do anything to fix the higher then normal lead.
Im not big on any brand of oil, the reasons we pick oils are because of marketing and I respect Amsoil a lot but I hate the fact they put so much calcium in their oil as I do not extend oil changes and no reason for it to be there.
Im also not big on spending a lot of money on oil, to me its all marketing, I pick the right "API" and I am done, heck I still use mostly conventional/semi syn because no one has ever proved to me lower wear numbers (and I have some of the lowest) and again, I change my oil at the recommended intervals and less.
Good point. Yes, I will put on some miles in spring and get another UOA done ASAP.
Nice report, yeah, I guess if it was me seeing the lead might be a little upsetting.
If it was me, I think I would just forget about it until the next change and see what happens at the next report, since this is your first report in almost 50,000 miles you have no idea as it could have been 3 times higher and has come down very much and still coming down over the last 20,000 miles, or it could be going up too.
Either way, I wouldnt lose sleep over it since you have no history with the reports, not only that but you cant do anything to fix the higher then normal lead.
Im not big on any brand of oil, the reasons we pick oils are because of marketing and I respect Amsoil a lot but I hate the fact they put so much calcium in their oil as I do not extend oil changes and no reason for it to be there.
Im also not big on spending a lot of money on oil, to me its all marketing, I pick the right "API" and I am done, heck I still use mostly conventional/semi syn because no one has ever proved to me lower wear numbers (and I have some of the lowest) and again, I change my oil at the recommended intervals and less.
Good point. Yes, I will put on some miles in spring and get another UOA done ASAP.
Originally Posted by Bonz
That's a big dose of calcium and good numbers for zinc and phosphorus too.
Still wanting/trying to learn when/why calcium (3300 ppm) would be in that high of a quantity (with basically no magnesium) vs a combo of calcium and magnesium.
Mobil 1 10w40 4T runs 2000 ppm of calcium with a similar non existence of magnesium, but a decent amount of boron (162 ppm) vs basically no boron in the Amsoil. M1, by my UOA shows 1155 ppm zinc, 1007 ppm phosphorus vs the higher Amsoil numbers in the original post.
Does the presence of boron in the M1 offset the lower calcium as a detergent or does the boron help offset the lower Z/P numbers in M1 for wear protection? Both?
When I read about boron, it seems to be an anti-wear additive but also is said to have cleaning properties, but is always in lower concentrations than the other additives it may or may not be used in place of for detergency and/or anti-wear.
Thoughts?
From what alarmguy said I take it to mean calcium helps extend drain intervals by keeping good cleaning additives in there (higher TBN).
How about the balance of the additives like boron, magnesium, calcium when used in different quantities like I asked in the quoted post? Can anyone weigh in on it? Why boron vs more calcium, etc.
That's a big dose of calcium and good numbers for zinc and phosphorus too.
Still wanting/trying to learn when/why calcium (3300 ppm) would be in that high of a quantity (with basically no magnesium) vs a combo of calcium and magnesium.
Mobil 1 10w40 4T runs 2000 ppm of calcium with a similar non existence of magnesium, but a decent amount of boron (162 ppm) vs basically no boron in the Amsoil. M1, by my UOA shows 1155 ppm zinc, 1007 ppm phosphorus vs the higher Amsoil numbers in the original post.
Does the presence of boron in the M1 offset the lower calcium as a detergent or does the boron help offset the lower Z/P numbers in M1 for wear protection? Both?
When I read about boron, it seems to be an anti-wear additive but also is said to have cleaning properties, but is always in lower concentrations than the other additives it may or may not be used in place of for detergency and/or anti-wear.
Thoughts?
From what alarmguy said I take it to mean calcium helps extend drain intervals by keeping good cleaning additives in there (higher TBN).
How about the balance of the additives like boron, magnesium, calcium when used in different quantities like I asked in the quoted post? Can anyone weigh in on it? Why boron vs more calcium, etc.
that is a nice report.....if you can trust it.
oh why do i say that?
because with a flash of 385 there is not a snowballs chance in a kiln that fuel % is only a trace. not even with the cheapest of oils
and most certainly not with amsoil mcf.
your report paper is just some extremely harsh toilet paper. send it back to the stoners used as such.
oh why do i say that?
because with a flash of 385 there is not a snowballs chance in a kiln that fuel % is only a trace. not even with the cheapest of oils
and most certainly not with amsoil mcf.
your report paper is just some extremely harsh toilet paper. send it back to the stoners used as such.
I’ve read some of your other posts and you clearly don’t like Blackstone. Was there an issue between you and them?
What lab do you recommend?
I don't speak for sunruh, of course, but I know he and I have at least one of the same issues with BSLabs: Their reports are flagrantly wrong or self-contradictory a _lot_ of the time. You just can't rely on their numbers (thus the moniker 'the stoners').
For me, I also find that their commentary is often totally off-base or dead wrong, and they're about the most expensive option available in that category of UOA services. I'm happy to use almost anyone other than them in that general class or price range. LabOne, Polaris, the local Caterpillar labs, and whatever lab the local oil distributors have on contract have all done at least as good work for me over the years, often better, at far lower cost. The numbers aren't necessarily directly comparable, though. BSLabs uses a different (but acceptable) test procedure for some things.
If I have my preference and feel like paying for it, I want a lab that will give me oxidation, nitration, and sulfation numbers, along with some sort of solids or soot or something. If I'm gonna get a fuel number, which I prefer, I want it to come from GC, not a poor-quality inference (guess) based on open-cup flash point, which is what BSL does. I care much less about the 'wear' metals numbers than many people do.
EDITED TO ADD: If you're going to watch oxidation, you MUST have your oil's new or virgin oxidation number. Without that, you have no clue what your oxidation number means. Oxidation shows more than simply oxidation of the oil, so you must subtract the virgin figure and look at 'net' oxidation.
For me, I also find that their commentary is often totally off-base or dead wrong, and they're about the most expensive option available in that category of UOA services. I'm happy to use almost anyone other than them in that general class or price range. LabOne, Polaris, the local Caterpillar labs, and whatever lab the local oil distributors have on contract have all done at least as good work for me over the years, often better, at far lower cost. The numbers aren't necessarily directly comparable, though. BSLabs uses a different (but acceptable) test procedure for some things.
If I have my preference and feel like paying for it, I want a lab that will give me oxidation, nitration, and sulfation numbers, along with some sort of solids or soot or something. If I'm gonna get a fuel number, which I prefer, I want it to come from GC, not a poor-quality inference (guess) based on open-cup flash point, which is what BSL does. I care much less about the 'wear' metals numbers than many people do.
EDITED TO ADD: If you're going to watch oxidation, you MUST have your oil's new or virgin oxidation number. Without that, you have no clue what your oxidation number means. Oxidation shows more than simply oxidation of the oil, so you must subtract the virgin figure and look at 'net' oxidation.
Yes, great report, can't not be pleased!
What I notice is the considerably lower zinc and phosphorus numbers and higher boron in this sample compared to the one in January 2019. 2019 sample had an even lower flashpoint yet stayed in grade for more miles, this one had a slightly higher flashpoint (yet still low, per se) and was out of grade.
That would say there's been an obvious additive package change and possibly a base oil change as well?
Fuel dilution goes hand-in-hand with flashpoint. Flashpoint is the real number to pay attention to, I don't pay much attention to the weirdness in fuel dilution with Blackstone. If the flashpoint is low, there's fuel dilution. That's just additional data and information to something already known based on flashpoint.
Thanks for your input. I missed a few observations that you pointed out, about the additives. What makes me really start to question this report even more now is that the oil from this recent report came from the same “case” of 12-qt bottles as the previous sample. So one would think the batch/lot # would be the same…
i think the flagrantly wrong ---- hits the nail on the head.
as well as - you just cant rely on their numbers. .... thats a big YUP!
what i love most is when i call out a report that shows little fuel and the flash is a horrid 365 (which is really around 2.0%) and they show 0.5 or TR. i then ask the OP to have it retested and sure enough its always 1.5 to 2.0%. so if you have to retest to get the fuel right...what else is wrong?
oh i can tell you!!! the infamous SILVER in a chunk of my reports. yes, my motor(s) at times create silver in them. its so amazing that
i had a friend from japan actually go to yamaha and ask (in japanese) exactly what component(s) contained silver in them as to show up in an oil report and i even had them look at the report. yamaha officially said.....NONE. oh there is a shocker.
so if they show silver in a report that the mfg says cannot exist....exactly what should i believe about the report?
i have 1 report of havoline 10w40 that shows a 5 for silver. yes a 5! and another on the same oil at 2.
then i have a report of exxon superflo sae30 with silver of 3 and another of exxon superflo 20w50 at 0.
should we buy all of the sae30 and filter it for silver?
or what about barium ... because thats a common element in oil...try a 9 in a report.
i once sent 2 samples off...1 to the stoners and 1 to southwest institute....on a few they were close...on others no so much.
when i started doing uoa's the stoners charged $15 each...12.50 if you bought them in bullk. yeah, that was just over 20 years ago as my
1st uoa on my race bike was done in march of '01.
i differ greatly from bulwnkl in that i dont care about oxidation and those things. the oil isnt in my motor long enough for that to be a factor. i am all about wear metals, flash (tells me the fuel) and susvis.
right now, i dont think the value of the stoner report is any better than it was then. so if you are paying more than 15....its not that good a value.
so if you cant trust the values of the elements. you are left with flash, fuel and susvis. if you cant trust the fuel...all you have is flash. the susvis is affected by the fuel.......sooooo....what did i pay for again?
Last edited:
Lol, that's eye opening... What oil was in before the first Amsoil 10W-40 OCI you posted at the start of this thread? Maybe Redline? I have heard of higher residuals like lead and z/p as it has been said to "leach" out lead and they have a huge amount of z/p in their MC oils.
However... By the same token, you ran Castrol 5w40 after the original OCI in this thread, and the next Amsoil OCI (your most recent OCI posted) had higher Boron and lower z/p as mentioned in post #13 above. Could be residual from the Castrol (Power 1 4T 5w40?) bringing the Amsoil z/p down and upping the boron. Castrol doesn't post z/p numbers in their PDS, but they aren't high content (i.e they are lower than Amsoil) with respect to z/p in the Power 1 4T analysis of various weights I have seen. Could explain the out of grade reading, as 5w40 of any type is a shear monster of an oil and residual could bring down Amsoil despite the higher flash point in the second analysis.
Also I'm trying to understand the wear amounts being so much less this time, over a similar OCI in a bike that already had 45,000 miles on it (other than lead, if Redline was used previous).
However the shifting got notchy as you noted, which would jive with the out of grade reading this time around.
Last edited:
Re: In reference to Bonz post,
You say you are using the same 12 quart supply of oil and that this oil came from the same case as the previous sample which you took 8,000 miles ago? Your UOA is saying you have 4000 miles on this oil but its been 8000 miles since the last UOA (rough numbers)
Your UOA report shows no oil change in 2020 so we are missing an oil change.
Judging by your UOA you would have had 4 oil changes during that time. That would only be 3 quarts per change out of a 12 quart case.
Sorry if I am missing something here, Im still on my first cup of coffee so maybe Im just confused.
)More or less what oil did you use in 2020 which isnt on the UOA and if it was the same oil how would you get 4 oil changes out of 12 quarts?
Last edited:
Good points guys. The oil from 2020 was not sampled.
And @alarmguy , you are totally correct in the case volumes. The oil change from 2019 would have been a from different case, you are correct And I was wrong. Good catch. So that could potentially explain different additives.
Thanks for all the feedback fellas, I appreciate the input
And @alarmguy , you are totally correct in the case volumes. The oil change from 2019 would have been a from different case, you are correct And I was wrong. Good catch. So that could potentially explain different additives.
Thanks for all the feedback fellas, I appreciate the input
Gotcha, that does help explain. However I figured if you used part of the case for the first oil change, went to a different oil for the second change, then used the rest of the case for the most recent change from the original case they would still be the same oil.
