Instead of a vague "less additives" per a UOA "a few years ago", explain which additives, what they do, what is a effective treat rate for the additives, and how the oil is now "not what it used to be" because of the lower levels. These are the relevant questions to consider. How much of a zinc or phosphorus containing compound is required for the application?
Also consider that if the oil meets or obtains the required certification, license or approval then no $35 UOA is going to tell you that one such oil is better than another, or that one has degraded. Also consider that unless the additive has a metal ion then it will not necessarily show up on a UOA. Beyond that, a UOA does not show "additives" it shows the elements that composed any and all of the compounds that were present prior to the ICP decomposition.
Again, a $35 UOA does not predict the future performance of a motor oil. What you get from such a UOA are statements like "wow look at that slug of moly", "that's a stout add pack" or "wow look at that dose of boron!" This is not how motor oils are evaluated. Do you know how they are?
Gig me for calling you a newbie (you are though, aren't you?) but the rest of my post were relevant technical questions.
Originally Posted by NorCalHD
Oooh, some one with a lot of post counts being condescending. Yet, too lazy to disprove my question.
Only you brought up certifications? And, only you said performance? Trying to deflect? Or just confused?
Once again, here is what I said. Take your time and try to comprehend this time:
"Not saying it is still not an option. However, it looks no different then other options where as before it stood out."
Advertised:
Phosphorous is 1200 ppm and ZINC is 1300 ppm
VOA (their are more VOA and UOA if you are able to find them)
VOA for Mr Condescending
Update: Posted the above, reread it, and realized how awful it sounds. Apologies...