Quote:
Originally Posted by X5 Meister
Some good info. In regard to my comment though, my point was that given the almost ridiculous notion of "lifetime fill" I think people would be more apt to change their ATF (and similar fluids) if they were provided with some kind of objective analysis as to the wear rate of the components in question as determine by their fluid, doubly so if those fluid were easily accessible. I know I would.
|
They have objective analysis on component failures, from their warranty system. They know how long things last, on average. They know how much it costs to fix them when they fail.
Wear rate prediction from fluid analysis is complicated by the complexity of each system. Look at the oil sample posted above. It will be widely assumed that high copper is a problem (it is dissolved in the fluid and not in chunks in this case, unless an LPA showed a high particle count, so I am not sure that it is such a problem, but that is an aside). The copper reading says very little about the fluid, and not much about the transmission. There are alloy thrust washers, so if there were high levels of tin or zinc, it could be a problem. The copper level may just be telling us quite a bit about the cooler. Would anyone put the oil cooler on their PM list, even though this one sample data point suggests it? Probably not. We like to think the transmissions are the problem. And is the cooler really a problem, or just a source of leached copper?
We use scheduled oil analysis in my industry for tracking the source of engine problems, before they become catastrophic failures. Trace metals designed into different bearings/bushings/etc provide signposts to a component that is about to fail, and save searching through the engine for the problem item. That is worthwhile because the cost of downtime in these cases (heavy equipment) is much higher than the cost of analysis. With a vehicle that is as replaceable as a personal car, it is hard to justify the expense. You are more likely to invest in electronic systems that flag the failure after it has happened in order to reduce the diagnostic time, and not even trying to prevent the failure (which is exactly what the car manufacturers have done with the engine electronics).
We have to go back to the fact that oil analysis isn't really about the oil. That is why there is one TAN result, and 12 or 20 or more element tests. It is about the component or system. Pretty much the same concept as a blood pressure reading not being a cause to change your blood, but rather an indicator of a system problem. I am not a doctor, but the analogy seemed apt. All you medical practicioners, please feel free to correct me.
|