You can beat a dead horse to water but you can’t make him think…?Ford wants to show low cost of operation = 10K oil changes.
And they want to get you past powertrain warranty.
After that good luck.
You can beat a dead horse to water but you can’t make him think…?Ford wants to show low cost of operation = 10K oil changes.
And they want to get you past powertrain warranty.
After that good luck.
I wish you the best. But you’re tossing around your UOA results like they prove something as far as wear goes, but you’ve never 1. Had a UOA that showed your oil in grade at your sample time, and 2. Never sampled your engine at/near the universal mileage to see if your numbers are at that point at that mileage. You’ve got a lot more faith in Fords warranty lawyers than I do, is all I’m saying.Universal averages are also at half as long as a 10k OCI. What’s your point?
Just a dozen years of experience and hundreds of YouTube videos showing how EcoBoosts with “fine” UOAs and following Ford’s maintenance at the letter of the law have blown up.More worried about lawyers than any sense or science, or UOA analysis. Go troll someone else’s thread!
Ford Lima 2.3T often lasted 200-300k miles, on older oil tech. Why would Clevelands be any different? There are also many many engines running on 5w20. A sheared down w30 by the end of OCI is a bid old don’t care. The only cause for concern otherwise is timing chain speculation that is being argued to be invisible in UOAs. Anyone got an actual point to make or scientific observation to make? Lol
I would never claim he will experience an early failure. Remember, a 30 viscosity oil is quite sufficient for today's uses. I'd only say that circulating particulates, fuel and the byproducts from evaporated fuel, for 5000 miles beyond what is "smart" is a known chain and phaser killer. Best to stick with 5000 mile OCI's if you see fuel dilution.I was wondering the same thing; considering this engine hasn’t had a single UOA with what ended up being a 30wt oil, how long past 60,001 miles this thing will make it. Add that to the fact that at 45k he’s still running essentially double the iron numbers as the universal averages, yet is defiantly confident there’s not a care (or improvement) in the world to be had.
I wasn’t claiming he’ll have imminent failure… wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth, just that he’s certainly not stacking the deck in favor of a long, trouble-free engine life. You worded well the main reasons which bookend what should be concerning: timing chain and timing component issues, which can be assisted in life by maintaining lower contaminates, fuel content, & in-spec viscosity. ThanksI would never claim he will experience an early failure. Remember, a 30 viscosity oil is quite sufficient for today's uses. I'd only say that circulating particulates, fuel and the byproducts from evaporated fuel, for 5000 miles beyond what is "smart" is a known chain and phaser killer. Best to stick with 5000 mile OCI's if you see fuel dilution.
I was involved in the 2.3 Lima built engine, with the turbo camshaft development. There is NOTHING in common between the two engines, and no comparisons can be made. The modern engine does not even share the same bore and stroke. The modern version is a far better engine, capable of far more HP.
Interestingly, Ford went from a 94mm stroke to 102mm for 2023. The orig 2.3 had a 79.4mm stroke.
I’m just saying Ford knows better than anyone how to make an I4 turbo last amongst high temps and pressures of boost. I’m surprised by the mythology and conjecture in a UOA thread. The only points that have been made are wild theories about wear items that don’t show up in a UOA. That’s useless. Wear because of viscosity loss is something, but lowering to the next grade isn’t a surprise of any kind. You think they didn’t consider this or factor it in?I would never claim he will experience an early failure. Remember, a 30 viscosity oil is quite sufficient for today's uses. I'd only say that circulating particulates, fuel and the byproducts from evaporated fuel, for 5000 miles beyond what is "smart" is a known chain and phaser killer. Best to stick with 5000 mile OCI's if you see fuel dilution.
I was involved in the 2.3 Lima built engine, with the turbo camshaft development. There is NOTHING in common between the two engines, and no comparisons can be made. The modern engine does not even share the same bore and stroke. The modern version is a far better engine, capable of far more HP.
Interestingly, Ford went from a 94mm stroke to 102mm for 2023. The orig 2.3 had a 79.4mm stroke.
Thought you wished me well and pissed off already. Well, go on!I wasn’t claiming he’ll have imminent failure… wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth, just that he’s certainly not stacking the deck in favor of a long, trouble-free engine life. You worded well the main reasons which bookend what should be concerning: timing chain and timing component issues, which can be assisted in life by maintaining lower contaminates, fuel content, & in-spec viscosity. Thanks
Are these the same Ford engineers that said:I’m just saying Ford knows better than anyone how to make an I4 turbo last amongst high temps and pressures of boost.
Yep for sure, who else in the world spends hours obsessing over the minutia of the chemical and additive makeup of motor oil, measured in the parts per million?You guys are crazy!
Nobody has trolled you here. In fact your dismissive replies seem more trollish. It's your truck, do what you want.More worried about lawyers than any sense or science, or UOA analysis. Go troll someone else’s thread!
Yep for sure, who else in the world spends hours obsessing over the minutia of the chemical and additive makeup of motor oil, measured in the parts per million?
As for the report, the numbers are not bad but I personally am also with the change it sooner crowd, to keep the lubricant in grade. If you wanted to keep running it down until the computer tells you to change it, I'd try 0w40, it starts off as a thin 40 anyway and will shear into the 30 range pretty quickly.
There is a massive amount of fuel dilution going on here. I'd be concerned about that, as this compromises the oil's ability to adequately protect the engine.You guys are crazy! There’s nothing short of a good pattern of results here. Nothing to worry about.
Fuel dilution appears in cold weather drains. My summer drain was the one with very little fuel dilution. It appears to be consistent with typical EB engines.There is a massive amount of fuel dilution going on here. I'd be concerned about that, as this compromises the oil's ability to adequately protect the engine.
Blackstone does not directly measure fuel (they don't do GC) so their figures are inferred from flashpoint and usually way off.