Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by bbslider001
So, instead of umpteen million threads about the merits or lack thereof regarding CK-4 oils, why doesn't someone just produce a UOA that shows wear numbers to end all the arguments, doubts, questions, and concerns? I gladly, but am not using CK-4 oils yet.
Because the oil analysis companies have shown that there isn't a statistically valid correlation between "wear numbers" in a UOA and the oil.
You measure wear by measuring wear, not through ICP and a $30 UOA.
So a UOA, showing wear numbers and "x" engine has nothing to do with the oil being used? I gotta disagree. What a UOA would how, no matter the oil, is any excessive wear. I kinda see what you're saying, but compare same "x" engine with a CJ-4 oil run and then a CK-4 oil run. See if the numbers change in any drastic manner. It would at leats be somewhat of a baseline to look at, no?