Originally Posted by edhackett
Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
We're deviating from the point... You need a balance of knowledge and experience. That was my point.
For that particular test I mentioned above, those two oils were put together by the owner of the lubcricants company. Oil A was formulated very robust and oil B matched a single parameter of oil A (KV @ 50-60°C) and deviated from there. Oil B performed worse in all lab tests including HTHS, NOACK, and with a weaker anti-wear package. Yet, when run in A-B-A against oil A in a 1300+hp race engine in the same race conditions for the same service life, oil B showed a 78% drop in iron wear in UOA (48 ppm vs 11 ppm). This was confirmed in 2 engines. Everybody from myself, the shop hand, to the owner and formulators are scratching our heads. It was even run through sequence IVA for cam wear and showed higher wear rates. But when put in the field in a much more powerful engine, much more aggressive cam, and higher rpm, it showed a major reduction in wear.
UOA does not measure wear. It's quite possible to have high wear and low wear metals or high wear metals and low wear present in a UOA due to the particle size distribution. Abnormal wear generally creates larger particles that are not seen in a standard UOA.
Ed
It wasn't just in the UOA. The cams were removed and mic'd in both engines before and after the use of each oil and confirmed the results of the UOAs.
Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
We're deviating from the point... You need a balance of knowledge and experience. That was my point.
For that particular test I mentioned above, those two oils were put together by the owner of the lubcricants company. Oil A was formulated very robust and oil B matched a single parameter of oil A (KV @ 50-60°C) and deviated from there. Oil B performed worse in all lab tests including HTHS, NOACK, and with a weaker anti-wear package. Yet, when run in A-B-A against oil A in a 1300+hp race engine in the same race conditions for the same service life, oil B showed a 78% drop in iron wear in UOA (48 ppm vs 11 ppm). This was confirmed in 2 engines. Everybody from myself, the shop hand, to the owner and formulators are scratching our heads. It was even run through sequence IVA for cam wear and showed higher wear rates. But when put in the field in a much more powerful engine, much more aggressive cam, and higher rpm, it showed a major reduction in wear.
UOA does not measure wear. It's quite possible to have high wear and low wear metals or high wear metals and low wear present in a UOA due to the particle size distribution. Abnormal wear generally creates larger particles that are not seen in a standard UOA.
Ed
It wasn't just in the UOA. The cams were removed and mic'd in both engines before and after the use of each oil and confirmed the results of the UOAs.
