Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatM3guy
It’s even more concerning as I am showing strong, consistently healthy oil reports and yet the bearings have wear and some have significant wear. You could argue that occurred in the first 55k, but I doubt all wear occurred then. Interesting huh?
|
Well... yes and no.
Like most oil analysis labs, Blackstone gets its wear metals counts from ICP spectroscopy, which only catches particles up to a certain size -- and not all mechanical wear chucks out particles in that size range. Some wear modes produce bigger particles, to which ICP spectroscopy is completely blind. Furthermore, ICP-detectable particles can come from chemical processes that have nothing to do with what most people would consider mechanical wear -- processes like acid attack from overextended oil change intervals, or highly active surface chemistry from aggressive anti-wear additives in the oil. So, if you see big numbers, it's difficult or impossible to say whether they're anything to worry about. And if you see low numbers, maybe everything's fine, or maybe there's a wear mode that ICP spectroscopy can't detect. You have no idea just from looking at the report.
S65s with the original BMW rod bearings are lucky in that they
sometimes produce lead and copper particles in ICP-detectable sizes when their rod bearings wear abnormally, AND they don't seem to produce ICP-detectable lead or copper in significant quantities for any other reason (barring leaded fuel or new oil cooler hardware or something). So, if you see those high numbers from one of those engines, then yeah, it's probably rod bearings. But again, if you don't see those numbers, you have no idea.
We don't know how or to what extent the updated BMW rod bearings or any aftermarket rod bearings will show wear on ICP spectroscopy, if they even do at all. Aftermarket bearing manufacturers will say they went for leaded bearings to facilitate oil analysis, but there's been no rigorous testing of that idea and the data from the field is incomplete. What little evidence we have on the updated BMW bearings is not favorable, though we don't even know what we're looking for because we don't
really know what they're made of.
ICP spectroscopy can be useful for tracking early-stage wear when you have a lot of background knowledge about the application in question. You have to know in advance whether and how any potential wear problems will show up on oil analysis, and you have to know about any possible sources of false-positives. Then you have to sample frequently enough to catch the wear while it's still in that early stage, before it starts producing particles too big for ICP spectroscopy to detect.
In other words, tracking wear with oil analysis requires a bunch of things that are difficult if not impossible for an end user, running oil with unknown chemistry, in a hand-built car engine with largely-unknown metallurgy, operated in the real world under uncontrolled and constantly varying conditions. And that's the main problem here.
It's generally assumed that frequent and regular sampling can reduce the futility of oil analysis in an application like this. That's why I'm doing it. But I'm sampling every 5k miles and using a slightly more extensive analysis package (Polaris Labs Advanced Engine Plus), and I'm not taking low numbers to mean a clean bill of health. I'm already planning to revisit my rod bearings within 60k-80k miles after the first change. What I'm looking for are signs that I might have to do them sooner, as well as signs of other kinds of trouble like fuel dilution and other contaminants -- which, by the way, is where oil analysis is truly useful in a car engine. Maybe that's another thread.
The set of oil analysis reports you had prior to changing your rod bearings wasn't so much a consistent history as a few snapshots over tens of thousands of miles. And again, that's in addition to the serious limitations of oil analysis for tracking wear.
Is what you did better than nothing? Absolutely.
Is it mysterious that oil analysis missed your rod bearing wear? Not in the least.