Oil analysis info seems to be scattered, so lets try to concentrate it here. I'll start; here's the Blackstone report (attached) for my 2017 diesel after the first 5142 miles on the factory fill oil. Mixed city/highway with a couple hours of light towing. I'm in S. FL.
Diesel oil analysis thread
MattFL
221 - 240 of 286 Posts
Joined
·
105 Posts
@CleverUserName I bet your right about the new GM tune. Likely running more EGR to satisfy some requirement. That being said, soot is still well within acceptable limits and compared to other diesel engines I'd say it's actually fairly low.
Joined
·
623 Posts
I don't think 0.7% is low. All my other analysis with CARB diesel #2 w/ additive were 0.1% at 8000+ miles on this truck. It like a 7x factor increase . That is the highest soot number I've ever seen on the 4 diesel vehicles I've ran tests on in the last 10 years since doing regular monitoring.
I stopped using the B5 from Costco to see if that was contributing to the high soot.
Joined
·
623 Posts
Can somebody who has the latest tune update from GM get an oil analysis that actually measures soot (not blackstone labs) next time you are due for an OC ? I’d like to see if you guys are getting similar results to my last analysis.
What is the latest tune update? How would one know? The last UOA test I had showed <0.1% soot for a 5280 mile oil.
Joined
·
623 Posts
The tune update was before 2021, I believe it was a new calibration to detect excessive regens and adds more EGR.
The test for soot in oil analysis is ASTM E2412 which uses FT-IR.
Blackstone doesn’t use the proper testing methodology and nor is your 0.1% it a real number. You would need to use a different lab that follows the correct test protocols like Polaris, ALS, Oil Analyzers, test oil etc… to get what I’m looking for.
I'm no genius. I made a mistake. I meant 5267 miles since my last test. Not 5280 miles. Now tell me how is my 0.1% soot level not a real number????
Joined
·
623 Posts
seriously?? I just told you why. IN DETAIL.
If Blackstone in inferring the soot % number from the insoluables results than it’s not a real number. They also infer the fuel dilution % from the flash point, which isn’t the correct test method for FD, nor is the result a “real number”. It’s a guessestimate.
I’m looking for someone who can have their sample analyzed for soot by a lab that uses FT-IR for comparison.
Well I'll try again.
The last oil sample I had tested had 5267 miles on it. The soot was <0.1%
My truck is a 2020 and has not been to Dealership in 2 years. Unfortunatley I don't know what version of tune update I may have.
Based only on the above info please don't tell me my oil test is invalid. Though I would be in awe if you could!
Blackstone does not use the ASTM testing method for soot, that's why the soot% is invalid (it's a guesstimate, not a valid result). Blackstone lists the ASTM testing standards they use and E2412 is not on their list and that is why he's saying soot numbers from Blackstone are not valid for the data he's after.
I was aware of that from the very first post. I believe I complied with his request. Yet he keeps insisting the results are invalid based on two numbers.
You are quoting numbers from a BLACKSTONE report, right? Blackstone does not use the correct method for determining soot%. Yes, your numbers are invalid because they aren't determined by the correct ASTM standard. I'm not sure where the disconnect is, but the "<0.1%" from your Blackstone report is not a real number, it's an estimate based on Blackstone's process used to determine soot%, which is NOT using the ASTM standard. When the result isn't from an industry standard testing methodology the results cannot be properly compared/evaluated and can't be trusted.
Not quoting from any BLACKSTONE report. I don't know where that idea came from since the original post was in response for test results NOT from BLACKSTONE.
I don't always use the same testing company and I haven't posted every test. If one were to look at the three tests I have previously provided (in post #218) one would see that the miles on oil does not match 5267 miles on any of them.
Instead of dismissing my results as invalid why not ask for clarification. As you have.
Oil Analyzers Inc.
Castrol Edge with Titanium SAE 5W30
In addition out of curiousity I ran the same sample using Blackstone Labs. Unfortunately Blackstone missed the sought after Soot test.
Sample containers where held together while passed under the draining oil.
As has been mentioned previously fuel dilution tests between labs are different and results reflect it.
The problem, if you look back at your replies, is that before now you never said WHERE you got your results from and never said your test WASN'T from Blackstone but you kept repeating your soot%, so the assumption was you used what most people use for UOA; Blackstone.
Now we finally see that the soot% didn't come from Blackstone.
If someone says "values from X are invalid" and the only reply after that is still repeating "my value is Y" but not saying it's not from X then...we end up here. This could've been avoided if you had provided the info on who did your test in the first place before all of this back-and-forth took place to finally get to the bottom of it.
If you reread the posts you will see the problem starts with the seemingly erroneous assumption that I used BLACKSTONE.
The first response to my post was;
"Blackstone doesn’t use the proper testing methodology and nor is your 0.1% it a real number."
He doesn't actually say I used Blackstone but indicates my result is not a real number. Later responses kept referring to Blackstone testing.
I reposted a modified initial post hoping he would rethink his first response and ask the obvious question.
As far as this goes-
"If someone says "values from X are invalid" and the only reply after that is still repeating "my value is Y" but not saying it's not from X then...we end up here. This could've been avoided if you had provided the info on who did your test in the first place before all of this back-and-forth took place to finally get to the bottom of it."
We end up here because someone assumed Y is from X. This could have been avoided if he had simply questioned a false assumption and asked who did the test. You figured it out.
How does one conclude I used Blackstone based on the very limited info that I initially provided. This is especially concerning when the poster was only looking for non Blackstone results. I would like to know?
The first response to my post was;
"Blackstone doesn’t use the proper testing methodology and nor is your 0.1% it a real number."
He doesn't actually say I used Blackstone but indicates my result is not a real number. Later responses kept referring to Blackstone testing.
I reposted a modified initial post hoping he would rethink his first response and ask the obvious question.
As far as this goes-
"If someone says "values from X are invalid" and the only reply after that is still repeating "my value is Y" but not saying it's not from X then...we end up here. This could've been avoided if you had provided the info on who did your test in the first place before all of this back-and-forth took place to finally get to the bottom of it."
We end up here because someone assumed Y is from X. This could have been avoided if he had simply questioned a false assumption and asked who did the test. You figured it out.
How does one conclude I used Blackstone based on the very limited info that I initially provided. This is especially concerning when the poster was only looking for non Blackstone results. I would like to know?
The assumption is that the vast majority of people use Blackstone because they're the most widely known on forums, so lacking any other details, the safe assumption is that any results claimed are from Blackstone.If you reread the posts you will see the problem starts with the seemingly erroneous assumption that I used BLACKSTONE.
The first response to my post was;
"Blackstone doesn’t use the proper testing methodology and nor is your 0.1% it a real number."
He doesn't actually say I used Blackstone but indicates my result is not a real number. Later responses kept referring to Blackstone testing.
I reposted a modified initial post hoping he would rethink his first response and ask the obvious question.
As far as this goes-
"If someone says "values from X are invalid" and the only reply after that is still repeating "my value is Y" but not saying it's not from X then...we end up here. This could've been avoided if you had provided the info on who did your test in the first place before all of this back-and-forth took place to finally get to the bottom of it."
We end up here because someone assumed Y is from X. This could have been avoided if he had simply questioned a false assumption and asked who did the test. You figured it out.
How does one conclude I used Blackstone based on the very limited info that I initially provided. This is especially concerning when the poster was only looking for non Blackstone results. I would like to know?
That's also why it's best to post redacted pictures of the actual report so there's no room for assumptions.
Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk
Joined
·
623 Posts
All the analysis you posted are from blackstone, one would assume those are the samples you’re talking about.
Moving on, it does not look like Oil analyzers even ran the test on your sample based on the result of < 0.1%. It does not list the E2412 in the box like mine does. I think they saw it was good based on the clarity and skipped it.
See below:
My guess is you do not have the updated tune file from GM. My truck used to have similar results before the last sample after the update which has high soot and no fuel dilution.
Moving on, it does not look like Oil analyzers even ran the test on your sample based on the result of < 0.1%. It does not list the E2412 in the box like mine does. I think they saw it was good based on the clarity and skipped it.
See below:
My guess is you do not have the updated tune file from GM. My truck used to have similar results before the last sample after the update which has high soot and no fuel dilution.
If you reread the posts you will see the problem starts with the seemingly erroneous assumption that I used BLACKSTONE.
The first response to my post was;
"Blackstone doesn’t use the proper testing methodology and nor is your 0.1% it a real number."
He doesn't actually say I used Blackstone but indicates my result is not a real number. Later responses kept referring to Blackstone testing.
I reposted a modified initial post hoping he would rethink his first response and ask the obvious question.
As far as this goes-
"If someone says "values from X are invalid" and the only reply after that is still repeating "my value is Y" but not saying it's not from X then...we end up here. This could've been avoided if you had provided the info on who did your test in the first place before all of this back-and-forth took place to finally get to the bottom of it."
We end up here because someone assumed Y is from X. This could have been avoided if he had simply questioned a false assumption and asked who did the test. You figured it out.
How does one conclude I used Blackstone based on the very limited info that I initially provided. This is especially concerning when the poster was only looking for non Blackstone results. I would like to know?
Nice improvement in numbers! Hard to beat T6.
Joined
·
623 Posts
Nice test thanks for the E2412 soot analysis.
it’s expressed as 14 and not a mass %. Is there a legend or guide to determine what the number means?
The result is UFM (Unsubtracted FT-IR Method) number, there should be a chart for reference. Here's one for reference...
Ufm Interpretation Synopsis | PDF | Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy | Applied And Interdisciplinary Physics (scribd.com)
221 - 240 of 286 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
