Resolute

iTrader: (2)

That's correct, and I think this thread has been very fair to say as much.

Really? Because in that thread, and the one it references from the TDI forum, it says:

Trends are exactly what we are tracking here, not individual ppm numbers of wear, and we are doing it with the same engine, not across different engines. According to this post on the site you linked, we're doing it right and using UOA data somewhat effectively.

That post about sums up the whole BITOG thread.

That was eventually posted by the guy that started the thread. And then the thread goes on to support large oil sumps as a good means to reduce engine wear and never once touches on any facts or reports on the details of ferrography.

The thread from the TDI forum that this BITOG post references is about M1 TDT 5W-40 having better wear characteristics than Amsoil TSO in two diesel engines, based on a Ferrography report. The poster is silenced by a host of criticisms about his inaccuracy due to one sample having over 2.5 times the mileage as the other sample, and some issues with the ferrography report's accuracy since the samples didn't reflect the known contaminants (like silicon) very well because of sampling issues that are prevalent when doing a ferrography test as opposed to a UOA.

The problem with referencing a forum as evidence for anything is that unless specific data and results are being compiled and discussed, such as those from white papers, then all you are doing is citing a discussion. It might be interesting, and this one in the TDI forum was, but it is by no means conclusive. It is just a discussion with different opinions, and even though the TDI forum thread concludes that UOA data is far more useful, majority opinion does not make a discussion out to be representative of fact. Just as someone could easily find posts in both those threads that argue against UOA data, there are posts like the ones I quoted that argue for it. It is a discussion, and nothing more.

I understand that there are people who will not accept the compiling of UOA data as anything more than interesting conjecture. That's perfectly fine by me. It is not absolute by any means, but unlike the opinions and pure conjecture of the online discussions referenced above, the technique of comparing trends in different oils is has been effectively used for some time and recorded in technical papers. I referenced the following technical papers, and purchased them all to make certain I understood the theory at work, when I decided to start this sticky;

SAE paper 2007-01-1990: compares UOA data from individual engines running in a fleet of Taxi cabs, where they are running two different oils in the same family of engines, then the engines are torn down for visual inspection in an effort to determine the effectiveness of oils high in ZDDP versus the Taxis that used oils low in ZDDP. The UOA data was collected from individual cars, just as what has been done here, and trends for one oil to perform better than another were seen. The individual numbers varied from each engine, but the delta (the change in wear metals from the low ZDDP oil to the high ZDDP oil) is what was considered. High ZDDP oil did have less engine wear in the UOA's btw, and was confirmed when the engines were torn down for inspection.

SAE paper 932838: compares UOA data from two LS1 engines in an effort to establish synthetic versus mineral oil degradation based on oil change interval length. Same thing, they looked for trends to see if a synthetic oil would reduce wear over conventional.

SAE paper 2001-01-1899: compares UOA data from Chrysler V6 engines to determine if newer grades of GF-3 oils (which saw a reduction in AW/FM additives) are capable of meeting the lubrication requirements for DOHC, high performance, fuel efficient engines. This study was mentioned briefly in the BITOG discussion. Same thing, there was a pattern for one type of oil to do better than another.

SAE paper 2004-01-1963: UOA data collected in intervals from another fleet test, every vehicle having the same model of engine, and the UOA results are compared from the urban transport fleet's reference model engine to determine the effectiveness of UOA data. This test was extensive, but the conclusions speak for themselves, "wear rate has been identified as a more valuable parameter for engine wear condition, as obtained by wear concentration measurements directly obtained from spectrometry." The paper concludes that individual ppm UOA numbers and ferrography numbers are misleading, that the trends of engine wear from multiple UOA's are what should be considered.

SAE paper 2005-01-3818: Another UOA comparison paper from a Taxi fleet service, where 0W-20 and 5W-20 oils are compared. Same thing, wear rate trends between the two are what is considered.

SAE paper 981448: this paper discusses UOA data being used for evaluating oil drain periods, similar to the GM test I mentioned, only oils weren't compared, but the UOA's were found to be very useful in determining an engine's wear rate with a particular oil and when that oil is best changed out.

There are many others, including SAE papers that correlate engine wear numbers from UOA data to actual engine wear, within 10% or less variance. The "fact" is that UOA data is very useful if used correctly, like any other tool. We are not looking at the collected UOA's to see individual wear metal numbers, we are looking for trends. The average UOA sample numbers can be compared, as long as there is enough samples taken. Ryan Stark, president of Blackstone Labs, said that fleet testing usually has at least eight samples to average from one oil to get a fair picture of how well that oil does. Then they switch and get another eight samples of the new oil averaged. The trend for the average sample, for the same mileage, to go up or down is what is important. this technique is what these SAE papers represent. That is what we are doing here.

As far as ferrography testing goes, UOA testing is preferred because there is more control. This was spelled out in SAE paper 2004-01-1963. Since an ICP can only measure particles less than 5 micrometers in size, the ppm is pretty consistent with UOA because only the small particles that are fairly uniform in their suspension are seen. Regardless of whether the sample was taken from the dipstick tube or the drain. Ferrography is looking for individual particles of any size, and so where the sample is taken has a huge effect on the results. Because ferrography is not a measure of an oil's performance but used to identify where a problem with the engine lies, the results cannot be compared from two engines as a means of judging oil performance. Hence why it is done only on engines with UOA indications of extreme wear or every 100,000 miles on commercial equipment. As per the papers I referenced, UOA data is useful for seeing oil trends in terms of wear and performance, ferrography is useful for pinpointing just how severe a problem is when the UOA identifies that there is one.

The UOA data is kept in comparison charts with the average results for every oil brand and weight that has been sampled. People are encouraged to draw there own conclusions, or ignore the data. But, there is something to be said about the number of people that have switched to an oil with low average wear numbers and have also had their own UOA results improve. Guys like QuadCam, for example, might appreciate the ability to see one oil trend better results than another, and save some money in the process. Without the data, then it would just be another round of internet discussion and opinions.

Will

Edit: spelling and punctuation. I'm sure there's still some I missed.

thinking

iTrader: (4)

Amsoil 10w30 ATM
Amsoil EA oil filter
1 track day
~3 autox
6 months car driven 1 day/week
1 month car driven 5 days/week

QuadCam

iTrader: (8)

I am officially addicted to oil changes! How sad is that. I was near an Autozone today, so I picked up 2 gallons of Rotella T-Syn for my car, and 6 quarts of German Castrol for the wife's Aviator.........that sad part is that I just changed the oil in both cars over the last couple weeks......now, I have to wait 2-3 months before I can use this oil.

Mike Wazowski

iTrader: (113)

The UOA for the Eneos 5w-40 should be emailed to me tomorrow. I am excited to see what it will say.


just drive more and the time will fly by

Nexx

iTrader: (41)

+1, lol, im just itching for my next oil change, ive tried rp, amsoil, m1 and next up german castrol, rofl.

QuadCam

iTrader: (8)

I forgot to add that I get to use my Fumoto oil drain valve next time, too. I installed the Fumoto valve on both cars during these oil changes. Next time, I get to take advantage of it!!!

Teufel

iTrader: (1)

RP->M1 0W-40 -> want to try Amsoil

What Amsoil 10W-30 are you guys using....there a couple types

ColoradoClark

iTrader: (3)

Thanks for all of the great info in this thread. I'm still reading through all of the posts, which is certainly some dense reading material (and I mean that as a compliment).

I realize that one of the main the purposes of the thread is to collect UOA data. Having said that, the UOA Comparison Charts on the first page would be much more informative if they included the number of samples that are being averaged for each entry. Without knowing the sample size, it is impossible to judge the relative validity of the data.

Kudos to all of you for sending your oil in for analysis and to Resolute for gathering the info and sharing his knowledge and expertise with the Z community.


Sean

Resolute

iTrader: (2)

Thanks for sharing your UOA sample, it looks good. Very low wear, but then you only have 1700 miles on the sample. Even with your track day and auto-x time, this oil is good, and advertised to be, left in your car for a year. If you changed it out because it was in there seven months, then this UOA should give you piece of mind about leaving it in there for a whole year. If you changed it out to go to a different grade for winter, then you might want to run the TSO 0W-30 year-round. It's also designed to go a whole year, actually, Amsoil advertises it as a 25,000 mile oil, even longer than the 10W-30 OCI is advertised as. Just a suggestion.

Will

Resolute

iTrader: (2)

Thanks for the compliment!

I have wanted to put the number of samples in the chart for some time, and have not gotten around to it. I never thought this would become so popular, with over 90 UOA's collected so far. I am working on revamping the whole chart, especially converting all the SUS viscosity to Kinematic viscosity measures. I'll add the number of each sample as well.

Will

IP05G35

The 4.6 DOHC takes 6.5 quarts of oil, just a fyi. Check the dipstick.

Mad A

iTrader: (6)

Kudos to Resolute and everyone who has submitted UOAs, this is very useful information, and allows everyone in the VQ community to choose oil based on facts and trends rather than market hype and conjecture. ( Sure saved me from wasting money on Motul!)

I am installing a JWT-tt on my g35, stock motor, should be finished in a couple days or so. Resolute, I notice in your first post you said that a UOA from FI motors would not be as useful to your trending as there are different forms of FI, different tunes etc. Does this still stand? Or are we getting enough smaples form the FI crowd to start rending at least for each type of FI kit.. I just want to know if it is worth sending in a UOA after my car is boosted.

I also had a question I was hoping someone with more knowledge could answer. I read earlier in the thread posts about mixing oils, and that generally it should not be a problem to go from dino oil to something synthetic like mobil1 5w-30.. I am planning to use Mobil1 0w-40 in my FI setup. Currently I have Castrol GTX 5w-30. My understanding is that Mobil 0w-40 is a 'full synthetic' unlike the 5w-30 weight, so would this cause a problem for me? Do I need to do a flush first or can I just drain out the GTX regularly and add in the Mobile1 0w-40?

athenG

iTrader: (2)

Will,
I know QuadCam's test is a little tainted because of the lead from Gasoline. Having said that, do you think T-Syn 5W40 is better than the Mobile 0W40? Does the T-Syn has less Fe wear than the 0w40?

QuadCam

iTrader: (8)

The leaded gas did throw off my lead values, but IIRC the bearing are made up of copper, lead, and tin. the copper and tin values are well in line with the oil doing it job......I can aonly assume that the lead value would have been in line with normal values too.

Resolute

iTrader: (2)

You can switch without running a flush first with no problem.

Will

Resolute

iTrader: (2)

I'm not even going to try and nail down one oil as the "best" for FI engine. All we can see from QuadCam's UOA is that the T-Syn did better than the Motul he had in there before. If he uses M1 0W-40 then we can compare the results between it and the T-Syn for his engine.

I know that Gurgen used both the M1 0W-40 and the T-Syn, and the results in his engine were about the same. There is no way to see if that same trend is applicable to QuadCam's engine unless QuadCam does a M1 0W-40 UOA with similar mileage to his T-Syn sample.

Will

RKnight

How about the Canton/CM filter someone mentioned that is larger and has no by-pass? www.cmfilters.com/spin-on.cfm

Resolute

iTrader: (2)

I really don't know. It would be interesting to see someone collect some quantifiable data on various filters, such as bypass valve pressures, and then do some testing on filtration. For the most part, I have not seen a filter stand out as the weakest link in the lubrication chain, and in keeping with the topic of this sticky- there aren't any filters sensitive enough to affect the 5 micrometer UOA measurements (except for maybe the Amsoil filter made by Donaldson), so there is no way to accurately test filter efficiency by using "x" filter and having a UOA done, and then using "y" filter and having a UOA done, and comparing the results. The only thing I would consider beyond the current crop of regular spin-on filters, is some kind of bypass filter.

Will

redlude97

iTrader: (11)

so Will, do you recommend the regular puralator instead of the pureone filter?

ZeeForce

Q: Should I change out my conventional oil Castrol GTX 5w-30 at 3750k mi for a UOA?

This is on the other Z the 06.