Oil Analysis results - any thoughts?

markc

markc

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
2,262
Location
Bucks & St Raphael SoF
Visit site
Hi all

After 2 years without a boat, the arrival of a little one, I have now put an offer on a boat. I have the main survery due next week, but I have seen a survey from less than 12 months ago and all looked fine, so I don't think I'll get any surprises.

However, I took oil samples last week and have just had the results back - both samples were showing very high levels of iron (suggested as crank wear) and high levels of copper (sugested as bearing wear) - everything else was minimal. So, my question is, to those who have experience in these matters, should I be worried? The engines are Mercruiser 7.3l D-tronic (300hp) and have done approx 320 hours each, so seem to have run too few hours to be showing crank wear... on both units. Also, both engines have recently been removed from the boat to have new exhaust risers, and from what I have heard, the engines have not been run much over the past year. Both engines fire up well, run smoothly and have good oil pressure.

Could the iron have come from oxidation in the bores if the engine has not been run often, or maybe from the recent exhaust riser work?

Any thoughts very much appreciated!

Oh, and here are the full reports...

Port

SYMPTOMS: Note levels of: Copper 194ppm,Iron 113ppm and Silicon 36ppm
DIAGNOSIS: Evidence of component wear, Some crankshaft wear
ACTION: Please investigate cause

Date Sampled
Date Received 12/07/2010
Date Tested 14/07/2010
Oil Life (hrs)

STATUS CRITICAL

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
Viscosity @ 40°C cSt 88.6
Water Content %wt 0.0
Total Insoluble Matter %wt 0.2

SPECTROCHEMICAL ANALYSIS

Iron ppm 113 ** Evidence of crankshaft wear
Chromium ppm 5
Aluminium ppm 12
Molybdenum ppm 108
Copper ppm 194 ** Copper pipework/bearings wear
Lead ppm 9
Tin ppm 0
Nickel ppm 4
Silicon ppm 36 ** Possible dirt from filter/trunking
Sodium ppm 26
Boron ppm 33
Vanadium ppm 0
Calcium ppm 3147
Phosphorus ppm 951
Zinc ppm 1268
Magnesium ppm 61
Barium ppm 0

S'BOARD

SYMPTOMS: Note levels of: Copper 54ppm,Iron 93ppm and Silicon 36ppm
DIAGNOSIS: Evidence of some component wear.
ACTION: Please investigate cause

Date Sampled
Date Received 12/07/2010
Date Tested 14/07/2010
Oil Life (hrs)

STATUS CRITICAL

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
Viscosity @ 40°C cSt 78.3
Water Content %wt 0.0
Total InsolubleMatter %wt 0.3

SPECTROCHEMICAL ANALYSIS

Iron ppm 93 ** Evidence of some crankshaft wear
Chromium ppm 5
Aluminium ppm 9
Molybdenum ppm 112
Copper ppm 54 **
Lead ppm 4
Tin ppm 0
Nickel ppm 3
Silicon ppm 37 ** Possible dirt from filter/trunking
Sodium ppm 8
Boron ppm 28
Vanadium ppm 0
Calcium ppm 3075
Phosphorus ppm 1054
Zinc ppm 1240
Magnesium ppm 81
Barium ppm 0
 
I can't answer your question, but i don't think you can draw any conclusions without knowing how long the oil has been in the engine, the readings could be normal for oil that has just been left in there for too many hours. If the oil was changed only 10 hours ago then its big concern, but if it was 100hrs ago then maybe normal?
 
markc said:
Hi all

After 2 years without a boat, the arrival of a little one, I have now put an offer on a boat. I have the main survery due next week, but I have seen a survey from less than 12 months ago and all looked fine, so I don't think I'll get any surprises.

However, I took oil samples last week and have just had the results back - both samples were showing very high levels of iron (suggested as crank wear) and high levels of copper (sugested as bearing wear) - everything else was minimal. So, my question is, to those who have experience in these matters, should I be worried?
Click to expand...


Did you run the engine for 30 minutes and take the sample by bleeding oil off while hot from the running engine.?

If you just took a sample from the cold oil at the bottom of the sump after standing a while it was as much benefit to you as drinking the gunge at the bottom of your decanter of best Port!!!!

The readings are only representative if the solids are evenly mixed in the sample otherwise you get meaningless readings. Moreover one isolated reading tells little and a sequence o readings taken correctly gives a truer picture.

If you want to see how things really are then replace the oil and after running the engine take further samples correctly and compare.
 
I had similar results on a boat with 120 hrs on the clock!

All this "critical" stuff had me worried but a boat with 120 hrs on is hardly even run in! I rang the oil company and the very helpful man, after I told him the engine hrs and the boat hadn't moved for 12 mths, said it was down to being a new engine and old oil.
Maybe "running in" bits off metal being in the oil etc.
My advice, give them a ring and ask.

How do you spel analasys?
 
Hi Mark,

Glad to hear you are getting a new boat, as others have said I guess it depends how many hours are on the oil, and how the samples were taken.

However looking at the numbers I don't think I would be too concerned about any except possibly the Cu - my reasoning is that both engines seem to be pretty consistent - any serious problems would be unlikely to effect both engines so similarly to generate identical oil sample results (eg looking at the silicon measures, and even the iron ones) However the Cu is a bit odd as there is nearly a factor of 4 difference between port and stbd.

I have the oil sample details from Jinto which I could email over to you if you would like to do a comparison?
 
Thanks Chris

I am begining to wonder if as both engines have been out in the past year to have new exhaust risers, that maybe someone was too liberal with the Copperease when fitting something back on, thereby accounting for the high Cu levels? Annoying thing is that to have any certainty will be to re-test at intervals... not possible before purchase, or strip down the engine... too expensive and potentially pointless!

Would be good to have a look at the sample reports for Jinto - do you still have my email address or shall I PM?

Cheers
Mark
 
Hi Marc, I presume they are the 7.3 litre v8 engines, if so please dont go any further with the purchase.

These engines were a total disaster, the production didnt run for long, from what ive heard there are NO parts available anymore, I came across a princess 380 some years back in York, it was cheap and had these engines in on shafts, the owner then had sold the boat and then through court action was made to buy it back as he was a trader with a marina.

I did think about the boat if it was cheap enough to re engine with a pair of 61a volvos I had at my disposal at the time.

Im guessing at what boat it is your interested in but sunseeker offered these engines in the martinique 39, the legs were not much good either.

So lets hear what it is, but I say again if they are these motors then leave well alone.
 
Until I re-read the post I thought Marc had already purchased vessel, so making negative comment would have been unfair.

However if sale is work in progress you do not need a lube sample to tell you anything about these engines, just listen to Volvopaul.

Motors are as the Jews say "are a piece of pork"
 
A few years ago I looked at a 95ish Martinique 39 with the same engines, to all intents and purposes the engines looked OK, this was a part ex and the broker was offering a 3month warranty, so a bit of "comfort" there. I asked to have a look at the service records and there was tons of receipts, one with the previous owners mobile number still on it. When I rang the bloke he explained he px'd it in Spain against a sealine and said those 7.3L Dtronics were an absolute abomination, he had spent tons of money on repairs, changing the cooling so it used scoops, still he could never get them to run properly, always overheated and parts were absolutely non-existant. Be careful with these engines !
 
markc said:
Hi all

After 2 years without a boat, the arrival of a little one, I have now put an offer on a boat. I have the main survery due next week, but I have seen a survey from less than 12 months ago and all looked fine, so I don't think I'll get any surprises.

However, I took oil samples last week and have just had the results back - both samples were showing very high levels of iron (suggested as crank wear) and high levels of copper (sugested as bearing wear) - everything else was minimal. So, my question is, to those who have experience in these matters, should I be worried? The engines are Mercruiser 7.3l D-tronic (300hp) and have done approx 320 hours each, so seem to have run too few hours to be showing crank wear... on both units. Also, both engines have recently been removed from the boat to have new exhaust risers, and from what I have heard, the engines have not been run much over the past year. Both engines fire up well, run smoothly and have good oil pressure.

Could the iron have come from oxidation in the bores if the engine has not been run often, or maybe from the recent exhaust riser work?

Any thoughts very much appreciated!

Oh, and here are the full reports...

Port

SYMPTOMS: Note levels of: Copper 194ppm,Iron 113ppm and Silicon 36ppm
DIAGNOSIS: Evidence of component wear, Some crankshaft wear
ACTION: Please investigate cause

Date Sampled
Date Received 12/07/2010
Date Tested 14/07/2010
Oil Life (hrs)

STATUS CRITICAL

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
Viscosity @ 40°C cSt 88.6
Water Content %wt 0.0
Total Insoluble Matter %wt 0.2

SPECTROCHEMICAL ANALYSIS

Iron ppm 113 ** Evidence of crankshaft wear
Chromium ppm 5
Aluminium ppm 12
Molybdenum ppm 108
Copper ppm 194 ** Copper pipework/bearings wear
Lead ppm 9
Tin ppm 0
Nickel ppm 4
Silicon ppm 36 ** Possible dirt from filter/trunking
Sodium ppm 26
Boron ppm 33
Vanadium ppm 0
Calcium ppm 3147
Phosphorus ppm 951
Zinc ppm 1268
Magnesium ppm 61
Barium ppm 0

S'BOARD

SYMPTOMS: Note levels of: Copper 54ppm,Iron 93ppm and Silicon 36ppm
DIAGNOSIS: Evidence of some component wear.
ACTION: Please investigate cause

Date Sampled
Date Received 12/07/2010
Date Tested 14/07/2010
Oil Life (hrs)

STATUS CRITICAL

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
Viscosity @ 40°C cSt 78.3
Water Content %wt 0.0
Total InsolubleMatter %wt 0.3

SPECTROCHEMICAL ANALYSIS

Iron ppm 93 ** Evidence of some crankshaft wear
Chromium ppm 5
Aluminium ppm 9
Molybdenum ppm 112
Copper ppm 54 **
Lead ppm 4
Tin ppm 0
Nickel ppm 3
Silicon ppm 37 ** Possible dirt from filter/trunking
Sodium ppm 8
Boron ppm 28
Vanadium ppm 0
Calcium ppm 3075
Phosphorus ppm 1054
Zinc ppm 1240
Magnesium ppm 81
Barium ppm 0
Click to expand...


Forget the oil samples, 7.3 L have a shocking reputation.
I love the D tronic 4.2L , 250-320 hp but have to agree with Volvopaul and Chrisk.

Of course if you are buying cheap enough and not intending on much long distance seawork then that is different.
 
Sorry to have pi**ed on your parade so to speak, I know what its like, I had exactly the same thing when I was looking I thought it was a beautiful boat, but believe me you would be sorry you had bought it, the right one WILL come along
 
If you've signed a normal sales contract subject to survey etc, and paid deposit, then take care. (I don't know if you have even signed a contract, just surmising here). You cannot reject the boat just cos a web forum has told you (correctly) that the DTronics are pork, because you knew it had DTronics when you signed. And you might even be on weak ground rejecting it due to oil analysis becuase the previous analysis has been disclosed to you. You need to reject the boat in accordance with the terms of the contract, which usually means some kind of material defect discovered on the survey, as opposed to previously known about. But read the contract and tread carefully!
 
jfm said:
If you've signed a normal sales contract subject to survey etc, and paid deposit, then take care. (I don't know if you have even signed a contract, just surmising here). You cannot reject the boat just cos a web forum has told you (correctly) that the DTronics are pork, because you knew it had DTronics when you signed. And you might even be on weak ground rejecting it due to oil analysis becuase the previous analysis has been disclosed to you. You need to reject the boat in accordance with the terms of the contract, which usually means some kind of material defect discovered on the survey, as opposed to previously known about. But read the contract and tread carefully!
Click to expand...

Let me come and survey the engines youll be out of it in no time.
 
Be worried, if it was just iron it could be put down to oxidisation from an engine stood for long periods and slight internal corrosion, it is the copper which is worrying as it suggests worn big ends/mains.

The most likely thought is the bearings are shot and it has worn the lead face from them and worn into the backing which is not good as it will mean a bottom end rebuild at the very least which will be expensive. It also suggests poor lubrication as this is the main cause of such problems, the main one being lack of servicing, particularly oil changes.

Other problems could be low oil pressure or particularly low oil flow, this could be a worn oil pump, partially seized relief valve, incorrect oil grades being used, or poor quality oil used.

This is confirmed from the high levels of chromium, vanadium, and molybdenum.

Do i know anything about oil sampling, yes; i was one of those who initially introduced it into industry.
 
markc said:
Thanks Chris

I am begining to wonder if as both engines have been out in the past year to have new exhaust risers, that maybe someone was too liberal with the Copperease when fitting something back on, thereby accounting for the high Cu levels? Annoying thing is that to have any certainty will be to re-test at intervals... not possible before purchase, or strip down the engine... too expensive and potentially pointless!

Would be good to have a look at the sample reports for Jinto - do you still have my email address or shall I PM?

Cheers
Mark
Click to expand...

If they had used coppergrease it would have been in the sump!, so I very much doubt thats where the copper content is sourced from, more likely the main and big end bearings, along with the camshaft bearings that are failing, as the risers fail due to corrosion and always need replacing this can allow water into the exhaust ports then into the cylinder and past the rings when the engine is stood, then into the sump, saltwater and oil dont really go together, hence the oil results.

You dont seem to want to say where the boat is, perhaps a pm to me would sort that, though id just be wanting out unless its that cheap and you can re engine it cheaply.
 
If it were copper grease it would have shown another set of chemicals in the sample, these are missing so we can eliminate the copper grease theory; still a good theory though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top