OIL ANALYSIS OF CHEAP OIL

[maurice]

Quicksilver full synthetic 15w-50.
Blackstone said all looks good. But I have no idea what some of the numbers shown mean toward wear. I sent email for explanation. Where it shows "properties", figures often not in the "should be" range.
Will send in next oil sample of expensive motul oil and compare.

 

[Tripps]

Interesting, let us know. Only thing I noticed high was calcium, no idea what that means.

 

[EskimoPie]

The personal touch on the Blackstone writeups is always nice.

 

[maurice]

Interesting, let us know. Only thing I noticed high was calcium, no idea what that means.

Right? Good for our bones.

 

[maurice]

I did learn that the "wear elements" are at the top, aluminum, chromium, iron, copper and lead. My numbers show much lower than average.
The ones below are the additives that are suppose to prevent wear, and cost more. That is why mine are lower than average except for molybdenum. But just as Blackstone stated, those additives do not show benefits in less wear!
Hurray for cheap oil!

 

[vindex1963]

So the question is You can spend a lot more but do you really get a lot more.

 

[maurice]

So the question is You can spend a lot more but do you really get a lot more.

Appears not.

 

[vindex1963]

Appears not.

Exactly!!

 

[EskimoPie]

I suppose I question both viscosities being lower than the expected ranges. That's what I'd like to see from an expensive oil analysis, if it holds up better from a viscosity perspective.

 

[maurice]

I suppose I question both viscosities being lower than the expected ranges. That's what I'd like to see from an expensive oil analysis, if it holds up better from a viscosity perspective.

It does need an explanation from Blackstone.
Since wear on engine and transmission is what is important. And all wear factors are much better than average, I am thinking viscosity not important. That is what expensive oils use to get the big bucks maybe. LOOK AT OUR VISCOSITY NUMBERS! Will see.