Increased lead with Schaeffer 9000?
- Thread starter moeb
- Start date
- Status
I have stated in the past that all my equipment runs the 9000 series and several of my shop's customers run it in their trucks as well. We set the intervals up based on analysis over a year time period. Every engine we put it in was used but very well maintained. Every one of them showed somewhat higher lead in the first few runs. They were within normal but higher nonetheless. I have no clue why and since it was within acceptable range I did not let it sway me from trying to set reasonable drains. Now, all the equipment(most are deisels) are showing very nice analysis after some have been run over 400hrs. Perhaps they use a small amount of lead in the formulation? We also saw it in the older CI-4+ formulation. You will also see the 9000 shear down some as well but it has no effect on the oil's ability to do it's job. I personally think it, as well as several other popular synthetics, are DESIGNED to thin out after being run. Most all of our big Kubotas(70-100HP) specify oil as light as 5W30. Newer oil hammer engines don't need the heavier oils of the past. We ran the Amsoil HD 5W30 oil for a while and it worked well in some of our bigger deisels too. It does not matter in the least to me if any oil thins after use as long as the analysis is showing the oil is protecting. I would run the Schaeffer 9000 at least a year and keep a check on the oil. If you choose not to and try another oil give it at least a year to get an accurate vision of what's going on.
Mokanic, thanks for the info. Your observations seem to support Pablo's lead chelating theory. I've got some 7000 Im going to use this summer, but I intend to resume using the 9000 next winter as long as wear levels stay in acceptable range. I expect they will.
I fully expect your readings to get better and better.
2006 6.0L F250
Here is my lead history with Schaeffer 9000 (it wasn't terrible, but I wanted to switch to see the affect):
Date..................Oil...............Lead,ppm
8/11/2007.......Motorcraft 15W-40...........1
11/17/2007......Schaeffer 9000 5W-40........2
2/12/2008.......Schaeffer 9000 5W-40........2
5/19/2008.......Schaeffer 9000 5W-40........7
9/11/2008.......Schaeffer 9000 5W-40........7
11/29/2008......Schaeffer 9000 5W-40........8
3/2/2009........P. Blue Extreme 5W-40.......5
Here is my lead history with Schaeffer 9000 (it wasn't terrible, but I wanted to switch to see the affect):
Date..................Oil...............Lead,ppm
8/11/2007.......Motorcraft 15W-40...........1
11/17/2007......Schaeffer 9000 5W-40........2
2/12/2008.......Schaeffer 9000 5W-40........2
5/19/2008.......Schaeffer 9000 5W-40........7
9/11/2008.......Schaeffer 9000 5W-40........7
11/29/2008......Schaeffer 9000 5W-40........8
3/2/2009........P. Blue Extreme 5W-40.......5
Last edited:
Is 7-8ppm really that bad? Sorry, I don't know much about diesels but would like to learn.
Originally Posted By: moeb
Probably not. Even the 18 ppm on my last UOA is probably not bad. It's was the rapid rise up to 10 and 18 ppm after being at 1 or 2 ppm for 30k miles that concerned me.
Oh, I see. You say you'll be using the 7000? Looking forward to the UOA, if you get one.
Probably not. Even the 18 ppm on my last UOA is probably not bad. It's was the rapid rise up to 10 and 18 ppm after being at 1 or 2 ppm for 30k miles that concerned me.
Oh, I see. You say you'll be using the 7000? Looking forward to the UOA, if you get one.
I just got my UOA from Schaeffers. It analyzed the same sample that I pulled to send to Blackstone. All the wear metals were almost identical between the Blackstone report and the Schaeffers report, but in the additive section the Schaeffers report showed that the additive package held up better and that the oil viscosity held to 13.54. The blackstone report showed the oil sheared down to 11.9. The contaminants were also identical in both reports. Want to know what kind of oil I was having tested.......... Schaeffers. Why would that be? Makes me question the validity of the Schaeffers report since their report showed their oil holding up much better than the Blackstone report. Anybody have any thoughts or explanations as to why this might be like this?
Perhaps because one or two $20 UOA's can be wildly inaccurate??
Perhaps way too much emphasis is being placed on one report. This is why just about anyone in the oil business will tell you that trending analysis over a period of time is the ONLY way to get an accurate picture of how well an oil is working.
Schaeffer's reputation is spotless. They, just like Amsoil,or Shell,or Exxon/Mobil have way more to do than skew a $20 oil report. I'll put my flame suit on and say Blackstone's reports have been as inaccurate as anybodys I have seen. It also stands to reason that Schaeffer knows their formulations better than anyone else and that aids in doing an analysis. I do the same for a few of my customers that run Amsoil. I send their reports back throught the lab that Amsoil is associated with. They know their oils and know what to look for and how the oil should perform.
I know it's interesting to do oil analysis but I know way too much is being expected from any oil in one or two or even three runs. If you want to know how well an oil is going to work in an engine set aside at least a year(more if you don't rack up the hours)and run it exclusively testing at set intevals.
The first few runs with the Schaeffer oil in one truck showed elevated lead as compared to previous numbers and a number of guys started screaming bearing wear. The problem with that theory was the fact that the truck in question has NO lead babbit bearings at all in it. All the bearings are constructed of high-silicone aluminum with no lead layer at all in them. That truck had 14K on it when I switched it to Schaeffer oil. It now has 125K on it and has been changed every 13K miles(Toyota Tacoma)with no makeup oil. Don't even waste the money doing analysis on it anymore.
Where's the lead coming from? I don't really care. The combustion process creates all sorts of nasty by-products even in today's clean-running engines. Maybe it's actually a part of their formulation. Nobody but Schaeffer knows for absolute and they ain't telling.
Perhaps way too much emphasis is being placed on one report. This is why just about anyone in the oil business will tell you that trending analysis over a period of time is the ONLY way to get an accurate picture of how well an oil is working.
Schaeffer's reputation is spotless. They, just like Amsoil,or Shell,or Exxon/Mobil have way more to do than skew a $20 oil report. I'll put my flame suit on and say Blackstone's reports have been as inaccurate as anybodys I have seen. It also stands to reason that Schaeffer knows their formulations better than anyone else and that aids in doing an analysis. I do the same for a few of my customers that run Amsoil. I send their reports back throught the lab that Amsoil is associated with. They know their oils and know what to look for and how the oil should perform.
I know it's interesting to do oil analysis but I know way too much is being expected from any oil in one or two or even three runs. If you want to know how well an oil is going to work in an engine set aside at least a year(more if you don't rack up the hours)and run it exclusively testing at set intevals.
The first few runs with the Schaeffer oil in one truck showed elevated lead as compared to previous numbers and a number of guys started screaming bearing wear. The problem with that theory was the fact that the truck in question has NO lead babbit bearings at all in it. All the bearings are constructed of high-silicone aluminum with no lead layer at all in them. That truck had 14K on it when I switched it to Schaeffer oil. It now has 125K on it and has been changed every 13K miles(Toyota Tacoma)with no makeup oil. Don't even waste the money doing analysis on it anymore.
Where's the lead coming from? I don't really care. The combustion process creates all sorts of nasty by-products even in today's clean-running engines. Maybe it's actually a part of their formulation. Nobody but Schaeffer knows for absolute and they ain't telling.
Thanks for your input Mokanic. From my point of view it just seemed odd that everything on the report would be almost exactly identical except for the areas that show how well the oil is holding up. I'd like to send it to a third lab just to satisfy my curiosity (I know, a total waste of money). I can't help but wonder why only those parts are different. Your right, that's a lot to expect from a $20.00 lab report but I would expect differences to show up in a more random way than in groups. I like the Schaeffers product, and my rep is just awesome! The higher lead levels don't really concern me much at this time, however I am curious as to why they seem to jump in all the powerstrokes with the Schaeffers product. That's why I'm here, to try and understand why the reports show differences in things like viscosity, etc. not point fingers. Anybody's input on this difference between the two reports is welcome from me. Thanks!!
The miniscule lead numbers are not just in Powerstrokes. I have seen it in just about all engines at least for a run or two. I think it's a part of the oil package but I have no proof to verify it. Different labs have different ways of coming up with numbers so don't be surprized to see very confusing data when you try to compare.
Alright, here's my third UOA on Schaeffer 9000. This run was 6,743 miles over 6 months. I would have changed it sooner but had to make some unexpected road trips at the last minute. Most of the miles were highway trips, and about 1000 miles were towing a 10k trailer.
As can be seen, lead has continued to increase markedly to 41 ppm. Blackstone calls this level "cautionary." Other metals mostly stayed the same, but tin rose slightly to 6. Apparently that's not a problem. The oil had 2% fuel in it, but I am not sure it's related to the lead increase, since previous UOAs showed increased lead but no fuel dilution and vice versa.
I'm wondering if the continuing lead increase is still possibly due to chelation, or something else. I put Schaeffer 7000 in it for the summer and had planned to use 9000 again this winter, but now I am thinking about sticking with the 7000 for a few cycles to see if the lead comes back down. All comments/advice welcome.
As can be seen, lead has continued to increase markedly to 41 ppm. Blackstone calls this level "cautionary." Other metals mostly stayed the same, but tin rose slightly to 6. Apparently that's not a problem. The oil had 2% fuel in it, but I am not sure it's related to the lead increase, since previous UOAs showed increased lead but no fuel dilution and vice versa.
I'm wondering if the continuing lead increase is still possibly due to chelation, or something else. I put Schaeffer 7000 in it for the summer and had planned to use 9000 again this winter, but now I am thinking about sticking with the 7000 for a few cycles to see if the lead comes back down. All comments/advice welcome.
Maybe just do a 5K run on Rotella or something - just to see. I hope something isn't prematurely wearing.
Thanks Pablo, I may try that, but with Motorcraft 15w40 since that's what I used for the first 30k miles and I have more trending info for that oil.
Assuming there is premature bearing wear, do the higher numbers for tin and/or copper seem proportional? Both have gone up slightly since I began using 9000, but I assumed they'd be much higher if it was bearing wear. I just don't know the composition of the bearings in this engine.
Assuming there is premature bearing wear, do the higher numbers for tin and/or copper seem proportional? Both have gone up slightly since I began using 9000, but I assumed they'd be much higher if it was bearing wear. I just don't know the composition of the bearings in this engine.
The Sn is primarily why I added my last sentence. I'm not saying with any certainty I know what is going on, I'm just saying try something else to see what Pb/Sn does - Motorcraft would be fine.
I would switch to another oil to see what happens. I don't think this is because of the Schaeffer's though, but I have no clue?
There was more fuel dilution than usual as well, wonder if somethings going on there?
There was more fuel dilution than usual as well, wonder if somethings going on there?
- Status
Similar threads
