Titanium vs. Moly UOA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 1, 2017
Messages
2,909
Location
WA
How does Titanium compare with Moly and which oils are producing better UOA?
Assuming other additives are same or relatively similar with the exception Moly vs. Titanium.
Which one reduces the friction better and provides better protection and smoother running engine?

Thank you.

Sorry, we need to move this to UOA question Forum!
 
Last edited:
Don't have any links but the stuff I've read is moly is better. Just for basics research the coefficient of friction for both materials. It's more complicated in an oil, but it should be a start.
 
An oil can contain both. Where titanium shines is that it provides good anti-wear protection when the oil is cold.
 
First you need to dispose of your improper assumptions; a UOA is NOT the correct tool to assess how your engine is wearing and which is the "best" oil for it. There are only really two reliable pieces of info in a UOA and those are viscosity and TBN (which now can be skewed by ashless detergent chemistries).

While there MAY be minor correlation to actual wear, a UOA's elemental data can be skewed by oil chemistry, sampling technique, and probably 27 other variables, which means outside of using a limit of 150ppm iron as a rock-solid condemnation point, all you can use it for is a trend of what appears "normal" for your engine. Blackstone's Universal Averages can tell you if your engine is similar to others in the same family, but you can bet your $28 that there have been numerous engines that had "good" UOAs and then suffered catastrophic failure shortly thereafter.

The problem is that particles big enough to alert you of impending doom are "hidden" by two crucial factors: 1, your oil filter, even the WORST major name one, will catch just about everything bigger than 40 microns; and 2, FTIR used for UOA sampling can only "see" particles up to about 7 microns in size. So unless your engine is essentially grinding itself into a fine metallic slurry, all you can use a UOA for is universal averages and personal trends. I.e. your iron going from 4 to 18 is not a solid indication; iron from 4 to 18 to 50 to 75 is, along with a jump from say 4ppm to 300ppm in a single OCI.

To get the kind of data you're looking for, you would need different testing methods such as analytical ferrography and/or filter debris analysis, both of which are a horrendously expensive proposition for a single vehicle. The ferrography is slightly cheaper, but filter analysis will run nearly $400, making it insane if you use it on your vehicle.

These days, just about any oil that meets your manufacturer's spec requirements and is the correct grade will get any engine far past the 200k mark. Use the UOA tool as it was designed (for ensuring the oil you picked can maintain viscosity grade and sufficient reserve TBN for your OCI), and you will get rid of the vehicle for some other kind of failure long before you ever have an engine failure due to an oil problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: a5m
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
First you need to dispose of your improper assumptions; a UOA is NOT the correct tool to assess how your engine is wearing and which is the "best" oil for it. There are only really two reliable pieces of info in a UOA and those are viscosity and TBN (which now can be skewed by ashless detergent chemistries).

While there MAY be minor correlation to actual wear, a UOA's elemental data can be skewed by oil chemistry, sampling technique, and probably 27 other variables, which means outside of using a limit of 150ppm iron as a rock-solid condemnation point, all you can use it for is a trend of what appears "normal" for your engine. Blackstone's Universal Averages can tell you if your engine is similar to others in the same family, but you can bet your $28 that there have been numerous engines that had "good" UOAs and then suffered catastrophic failure shortly thereafter.

The problem is that particles big enough to alert you of impending doom are "hidden" by two crucial factors: 1, your oil filter, even the WORST major name one, will catch just about everything bigger than 40 microns; and 2, FTIR used for UOA sampling can only "see" particles up to about 7 microns in size. So unless your engine is essentially grinding itself into a fine metallic slurry, all you can use a UOA for is universal averages and personal trends. I.e. your iron going from 4 to 18 is not a solid indication; iron from 4 to 18 to 50 to 75 is, along with a jump from say 4ppm to 300ppm in a single OCI.

To get the kind of data you're looking for, you would need different testing methods such as analytical ferrography and/or filter debris analysis, both of which are a horrendously expensive proposition for a single vehicle. The ferrography is slightly cheaper, but filter analysis will run nearly $400, making it insane if you use it on your vehicle.

These days, just about any oil that meets your manufacturer's spec requirements and is the correct grade will get any engine far past the 200k mark. Use the UOA tool as it was designed (for ensuring the oil you picked can maintain viscosity grade and sufficient reserve TBN for your OCI), and you will get rid of the vehicle for some other kind of failure long before you ever have an engine failure due to an oil problem.


Good info! Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top