Egh, I disagree. I used PUP for the second, third and fourth oil changes and I wasn’t impressed.
He must be one of the lucky ones then because 8 to 10,000 mile OCI’s in these things scares me and I even have one of the last lifetime warranties they were offering, too.
Probably not much idling other morning start up for a few minutes. Approximate daily commute is 80 miles round trip, plus kids sports/practices, etc. I probably change the oil about every three months.
Well yeah, running them out on the open road at highway speed is best for any engine.
Who makes that Sams Club/Walmart oil? Is it good oil? But as it is now with the Mobil 1 full-syn EP or the Schaeffers, both of those UOA’s have given great reports and Blackstone even said from the TBN results that I could’ve gone farther than I have but I still back the OCI down to 5,500-6,500 miles preferred because of my short trips. And when I say I idle, before going to work and before coming home at the end of the day, we’re talking around 5 minute idling average.
Was the cam and lifter failure a thing back in those days? I was thinkin’ it didn’t really start untill the days of the MDS and if I remember correctly, that 5.7 in your co-worker’s truck didn’t have MDS so he’s probably got nothin’ really to worry about like guys like me do.
I switched from PUP to M1 EP in my 2018 5.7 and think the engine is quieter on M1 EP. MDS engagement seems more positive as well.
Agree to disagree, I’m not a fan of their uber low phosphorus and zinc levels.
But on the other hand a cheap spectrographic analysis is not an adequate means of determining comparative oil quality. People keep trying to cite this but it's nowhere near the proper tool for that job - especially the way it is being used here.
This type of inexpensive analysis can show contamination in the oil from various sources such as the cooling system or fuel (as long as the proper test is used), and also indicate TBN or TAN for extended service. Perhaps an impending failure of the engine, but even here this isn't guaranteed if the failure is catastrophic since a UOA can see only very small particles or elements in solution. Larger particles are ignored.
Makes sense, I can definitely see what you’re saying on how an oil analysis report can’t really be used for comparing oil qualities in that much of a general sense as much as using it as a tool to see what’s going on in your engine but it would appear to me that the main reason why so many people rely on UOA’s when they test different oils is to compare the additive amounts to see how much wear takes place with one oil to the next and how well that oil holds up compared to the next one versus similar OCI’s and driving styles. I’ve read a lot that these engines do well with a high moly PPM.
Sorry for the late response but OK, if you’re saying a used oil analysis is pretty much next to worthless for what a lot of people use them for and being that not all oils are created equally, what is a good way to compare one engine oil to the next? Just like a lot of people, I figured a used oil analysis was good enough so that you can at least see how much of what additive an engine oil might have in it and based on other test results, just how far that oil can go on any given oil change interval. Wouldn’t that be considered as useful information?
Well for one thing a UOA does not show additives, it shows certain elements from decomposed compounds. One may be able to read some of those tea leaves but that's about it. Not all additives are compounds that contain metallic elements either, nor are all compounds the same even if they are composed of similar elements. Molybdenum additives are a good example.
So then when an oil analysis shows an amount in parts per million of those additives, that’s not showing how much of said additives remain in the sample? I don’t understand that part. And what is it about molybdenum being a good example of that?
So then the amount of additives that show in the sample is not a good reason why that would be?
How is that supposed to tell me that one engine oil is better than the other one?
Well I guess I did miss it or perhaps I didn’t understand it because if I did, I wouldn’t have asked you a second time.
There are different molybdenum compounds that have varying effectiveness. One oil might show say 100ppm and another might be showing 500. But the oil showing 100ppm is using a more effective molybdenum compound so they can use less of it to achieve the same result as the 500ppm sample.
So without having MSDS’s for the products I’m about to use as examples, the 50 PPM moly in Pennzoil Ultra Premium 5w20 has the same effectiveness or quality as say, the the 300+ PPM of moly in the Schaeffers Extreme 9000 5w20 or the supposedly 400+ PPM of moly in that Redline Performance 5w30?
Not necessarily. You can dump a ton of the more potent moly into an oil, or do a mix of them. On a UOA it’ll all show as just molybdenum.
And an SDS is nearly equally useless in many regards. It’s not a recipe. Look up what it’s for and why it’s produced and get back to us.
I might’ve used the wrong words when I said a MSDS but what I was talking about was what antiwear additives they put in it and how much and as far as how one would find that out.
Soooo, the +/- iron content PPM isn’t an indicator of more or less metal on metal wear?
