1999 Ford Escort SE wagon (2.0L 4 cyl)
Miles on vehicle: 45295
[ January 29, 2003, 05:34 AM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]
Miles on vehicle: 45295
[ January 29, 2003, 05:34 AM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]
1999 Ford Escort SE wagon-Amsoil 5W-30 (ASL)
- Thread starter slider
- Start date
- Status
Hi Slider,
Did you let something slide??
Bill
Did you let something slide??
Bill
Patman
Staff member
I guess he's a man of few words!
I have never seen such a good oil analysis report, the wear metals are so low they've vanished entirely!
I have never seen such a good oil analysis report, the wear metals are so low they've vanished entirely!
Sorry, I hit send by mistake before I had finished.
1999 Ford Escort SE Wagon (2.0L 4 cyl)
Miles on vehicle: 45295
Miles on oil: 5105
Oil: Amsoil 5W-30 (ASL)
Oil consumed: approx. 3 oz.
No makeup oil added
50% city ; 50% highway (avg speed approx 70-80 mph, max speed 100 mph (for a short time)
sample/'universal averages'
Aluminum 3/3
Chromium 1/1
Iron 7/23
Copper 4/7
Lead 7/3
Tin 0/2
Molybdenum 3/26
Nickel 1/1
Manganese 1/0
Silver 0/0
Titanium 0/0
Potassium 1/0
Boron 14/50
Silicon 12/36
Sodium 5/63
Calcium 2541/1459
Magnesium 460/621
Phosphorus 1045/788
Zinc 1398/948
Barium 0/2
SUS @ 210F 67.6
Flashpoint 435.0F
Fuel < .5%
Antifreeze 0.0%
Water < 0.05%
Insolubles 0.3%
TBN 11.5
Comments by Blackstone:
The universal averages column shows what wear typically looks like in the Ford 2.0L 4 cyl. engine after 4100 miles on the oil. Your oil was in use a little longer than that, 5100 miles, and we found most wear to be quite low. Lead, however, read about twice average, showing mild bearing wear. It's not bad enough to call a problem, but you might want to go 3500 4000 miles for the next oil change to see if lead drops. The TBN read 11.5, quite high, so the oil is up to the task of the longer oil runs. We just need to ensure your bearings can handle it too.
My comments:
This is my wifes car. She isn't the best with the manual transmission, so there might have been some lugging possibly causing the lead being a little high. Also, I accidently hit the accelerator on a cold startup once and the revs got quite high before the oil pressure stabilized. Maybe about 4500-5000 rpm. Grrr! So, I think the lead might not be representative.
Overall, I'm pretty happy with this and it seems worthwhile extending much longer, assuming the lead is not thought to be a problem.
Comments welcomed.
1999 Ford Escort SE Wagon (2.0L 4 cyl)
Miles on vehicle: 45295
Miles on oil: 5105
Oil: Amsoil 5W-30 (ASL)
Oil consumed: approx. 3 oz.
No makeup oil added
50% city ; 50% highway (avg speed approx 70-80 mph, max speed 100 mph (for a short time)
sample/'universal averages'
Aluminum 3/3
Chromium 1/1
Iron 7/23
Copper 4/7
Lead 7/3
Tin 0/2
Molybdenum 3/26
Nickel 1/1
Manganese 1/0
Silver 0/0
Titanium 0/0
Potassium 1/0
Boron 14/50
Silicon 12/36
Sodium 5/63
Calcium 2541/1459
Magnesium 460/621
Phosphorus 1045/788
Zinc 1398/948
Barium 0/2
SUS @ 210F 67.6
Flashpoint 435.0F
Fuel < .5%
Antifreeze 0.0%
Water < 0.05%
Insolubles 0.3%
TBN 11.5
Comments by Blackstone:
The universal averages column shows what wear typically looks like in the Ford 2.0L 4 cyl. engine after 4100 miles on the oil. Your oil was in use a little longer than that, 5100 miles, and we found most wear to be quite low. Lead, however, read about twice average, showing mild bearing wear. It's not bad enough to call a problem, but you might want to go 3500 4000 miles for the next oil change to see if lead drops. The TBN read 11.5, quite high, so the oil is up to the task of the longer oil runs. We just need to ensure your bearings can handle it too.
My comments:
This is my wifes car. She isn't the best with the manual transmission, so there might have been some lugging possibly causing the lead being a little high. Also, I accidently hit the accelerator on a cold startup once and the revs got quite high before the oil pressure stabilized. Maybe about 4500-5000 rpm. Grrr! So, I think the lead might not be representative.
Overall, I'm pretty happy with this and it seems worthwhile extending much longer, assuming the lead is not thought to be a problem.
Comments welcomed.
Pretty good report-I think. I am surprised that they said the lead was high. I guess thats what they see in these engines.
Oops, an error on the water.
Water tested at 0%, rather than at
Sorry again.
Water tested at 0%, rather than at
Sorry again.
I personally do like this labs use of universal averages (which they admit is based upoin a different mileage)and then making the comment that the lead is high based upon them. This is one sample, that is all it is. The lead may be perfectly normal for this engine and driving conditions, only trend analysis will determine that. To say watch the lead fine, but to reduce the interval for something that may be normal that is crazy IMHO.
Why not change it every 500 miles, the lead ppm will be great at that point.
All that I am trying to say is we read too much into one sample and this engien will, no doubt go 100,000 plus miles with this so called elevated lead count using the same change intervals. I personally wish they would drop the universal averages, they are prety much worthless.
Why not change it every 500 miles, the lead ppm will be great at that point.
All that I am trying to say is we read too much into one sample and this engien will, no doubt go 100,000 plus miles with this so called elevated lead count using the same change intervals. I personally wish they would drop the universal averages, they are prety much worthless.
I think that oil is doing a fine job for you.
Look at this one, it is a 95 1.9L ford escort wagon that I have...
100ppms for iron
40ppm for copper
40 for alum
100 for lead
20 for si
So lead at 7ppms is not a concern and should look at the trend, this is what you want to do. As stated, the trend will show how your engine is doing.
** complete report on the 95 is at The Test Is Complete and here are the results in the uoa section. ***
[ July 27, 2003, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]
Look at this one, it is a 95 1.9L ford escort wagon that I have...
Notice how the lead's read.. Keep in mind that this is ppm, before the limits hit abnormal they have to have
100ppms for iron
40ppm for copper
40 for alum
100 for lead
20 for si
So lead at 7ppms is not a concern and should look at the trend, this is what you want to do. As stated, the trend will show how your engine is doing.
** complete report on the 95 is at The Test Is Complete and here are the results in the uoa section. ***
[ July 27, 2003, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]
1999 Ford Escort SE wagon [2.0L 4 cyl]
Miles on vehicle: 53059
Miles on oil: 7764
Oil: Amsoil 5W-30 [ASL]
Oil consumed: 0 qt
Make up oil added: .5 qt [new filter @ 5K - K&N]
50/50 city/highway
Fuel treatment: Fuel Power
sample 1[old][5105]/sample 2[new][7764]/univ avg
Aluminum 3//3/3
Chromium 1/1/1
Iron 7/8/15
Copper 4/9/6
Lead 7/16/2
Tin 0/3/1
Molybdenum 3/4/41
Nickel 1/1/1
Manganese 1/0/0
Silver 0/0/0
Titanium 0/0/0
Potassium 1/6/0
Boron 14/2/52
Silicon 12/6/11
Sodium 5/11/19
Calcium 2541/3031/1773
Magnesium 460/342/455
Phosphorus 1045/1155/761
Zinc 1398/1950/961
Barium 0/0/0
Viscosity @ 210F 67.6/70.4 [should be 56-68]
Flash 435/445 [should be >365]
Fuel Antifreeze 0
Water 0
Insolubles .3/.3
TBN 11.5/3.4
Blackstone comments:
We are somewhat disturbed at the bearing wear. We expect it to read about 1/8 iron level, and in this sample, it's twice iron. It increased over last sample's level, which is partly due to the longer oil run. Copper increased too, which leads us to believe the metals are coming off your bearings. other wear looks okay. The viscosity was mildly higher than most Amsoil 5W-30's we see.
The TBN read at 3.4, so the oil still has some active additive left. We'd suggest going back to 3000 or 4000 mile for your next sample and checking back to monitor.
My comments:
This oil is still in the sump. I'm going to take it on a pretty long trip next week, [about 1200 miles] so I'm debating on changing it out. Any comments on the TBN holding up enough for the trip? It's going out of grade too. Perhaps a no brainer.
I think the lead level is due to me flogging it. [I have been driving it at 80-100 mph a lot on this run] I have a case of Mobil 1 0W-40 sitting around and will probably use that next time.
I don't see the point of changing it when they suggest. It would make more sense to drive it more easy and see if that is what makes the lead higher than what the lab sees as 'normal.'
Comments welcomed.
Miles on vehicle: 53059
Miles on oil: 7764
Oil: Amsoil 5W-30 [ASL]
Oil consumed: 0 qt
Make up oil added: .5 qt [new filter @ 5K - K&N]
50/50 city/highway
Fuel treatment: Fuel Power
sample 1[old][5105]/sample 2[new][7764]/univ avg
Aluminum 3//3/3
Chromium 1/1/1
Iron 7/8/15
Copper 4/9/6
Lead 7/16/2
Tin 0/3/1
Molybdenum 3/4/41
Nickel 1/1/1
Manganese 1/0/0
Silver 0/0/0
Titanium 0/0/0
Potassium 1/6/0
Boron 14/2/52
Silicon 12/6/11
Sodium 5/11/19
Calcium 2541/3031/1773
Magnesium 460/342/455
Phosphorus 1045/1155/761
Zinc 1398/1950/961
Barium 0/0/0
Viscosity @ 210F 67.6/70.4 [should be 56-68]
Flash 435/445 [should be >365]
Fuel Antifreeze 0
Water 0
Insolubles .3/.3
TBN 11.5/3.4
Blackstone comments:
We are somewhat disturbed at the bearing wear. We expect it to read about 1/8 iron level, and in this sample, it's twice iron. It increased over last sample's level, which is partly due to the longer oil run. Copper increased too, which leads us to believe the metals are coming off your bearings. other wear looks okay. The viscosity was mildly higher than most Amsoil 5W-30's we see.
The TBN read at 3.4, so the oil still has some active additive left. We'd suggest going back to 3000 or 4000 mile for your next sample and checking back to monitor.
My comments:
This oil is still in the sump. I'm going to take it on a pretty long trip next week, [about 1200 miles] so I'm debating on changing it out. Any comments on the TBN holding up enough for the trip? It's going out of grade too. Perhaps a no brainer.
I think the lead level is due to me flogging it. [I have been driving it at 80-100 mph a lot on this run] I have a case of Mobil 1 0W-40 sitting around and will probably use that next time.
I don't see the point of changing it when they suggest. It would make more sense to drive it more easy and see if that is what makes the lead higher than what the lab sees as 'normal.'
Comments welcomed.
Does not look good. I would change it. And use something 10W-40 or 15W-40. I don't think you'll have any flow issues in S. Cal. Try Motorcraft 10W-40, for example.
And teach you wife to keep those rpm high
And teach you wife to keep those rpm high
Ya.
It will be interesting to see if a 40 weight will reduce these lead numbers. I'm fairly certain they are mostly caused by me driving this little 110HP engine so hard.
Little engine that could. I now have two of them in the family: a 1994 88 hp and a 1998 110 hp with split port induction. I really, really like them. I think they are perfect for East Coast gridlock driving environment and are especially well suited for automatic transmissions that most of my family members seem to enjoy so much
They are robust and torqey. Timing belt breaks -- no problem. Overheated -- no biggie. Not much power at high rpm but very good torque down low. The new split port induction makes it very, very quick off the line and much better at high speed. 100 mph was pretty hard to keep with the old engine, while the new one has no problem running at 100 mph all day long. Good fuel economy, too. I have sampled many cars and the Escort/Tracer are among my favorites. My friend has a 1989 Escort LX and I really like it, too.
I rented a 2000 Ford Focus about two years ago in Jacksonville, FL and I was very impressed with the performance and handling of this economy car. The Focus had the same 2.0L SplitPort Induction 4 cylinder engine that your 1998 Escort has.
Let me point out that in my experiment I started out the first analysis with the blend at 10,000 miles like I stole the car to texas and back during the summer. I do not believe you can run that car any harder and longer than I did on that trip. I dropped one qt because of the excessive speeds and such and I didn't bother adding any to it during that trip and sampled it with it low.
Also notice that the thinner the oil I use with the cheapest filter I could get, the better the wear numbers. I do not think that thickening the oil will lower your wear #'s. Look at my last run(a continued analysis from the others) and see how it actually lowered due to better flow. Again, this was with a top grade mineral oil from schaeffers. Currently I am running the exact viscosity in a blend again from schaeffers.
----------------------------------------------
Here's my last recent analysis. This time I had been running the #100 MICRON MOLY® ENGINE OIL SAE 5W-30
I'd taken the sample a little sooner than I had intended on but thought I was over and Mark(rugerman) was in town to take my oil sample pump. Anyway, I believe this is showing even more evidence that flow is a big factor considering the wear numbers that are showing in comparision to the other samples and to go back the other way, my next analysis will be the 5w30 blend when I change out again. This will go back to showing that the base oil isn't what makes the difference but the flow and balance of the additives. Currently I'm still running the 5w30 straight mineral but will hopefully change out to the blend shortly this week. No additives or flushes have been used in this last test.
Also notice that the thinner the oil I use with the cheapest filter I could get, the better the wear numbers. I do not think that thickening the oil will lower your wear #'s. Look at my last run(a continued analysis from the others) and see how it actually lowered due to better flow. Again, this was with a top grade mineral oil from schaeffers. Currently I am running the exact viscosity in a blend again from schaeffers.
----------------------------------------------
Here's my last recent analysis. This time I had been running the #100 MICRON MOLY® ENGINE OIL SAE 5W-30
I'd taken the sample a little sooner than I had intended on but thought I was over and Mark(rugerman) was in town to take my oil sample pump. Anyway, I believe this is showing even more evidence that flow is a big factor considering the wear numbers that are showing in comparision to the other samples and to go back the other way, my next analysis will be the 5w30 blend when I change out again. This will go back to showing that the base oil isn't what makes the difference but the flow and balance of the additives. Currently I'm still running the 5w30 straight mineral but will hopefully change out to the blend shortly this week. No additives or flushes have been used in this last test.
Just one thing to point out. If the oil is doing it's job and the viscosity is right no parts should contact once oil pressure comes up. If parts contact bearing once running then the oil either failed to do it's job or it is too thin for the shock/torque loading you are puting to it!
4000-5000 Rpms is not much for a modern automotive engine.
4000-5000 Rpms is not much for a modern automotive engine.
This car has a rather extreme cold startup flare that I would estimate to be 2500 rpm. One can hear rods rattling until the pressure comes up. I going to work on reducing this somehow.
Hello, I have a 1993 ford escort witha 88 horse ford 1.9 litre and a mazda mx-5 5 speed manual transaxle. Love this car. Bought her with 80,000 miles from the second owner. It now has 244,000 miles on her and is still running like new. the only thing that has been replaced on this engine is the water pump and timing belt which had lasted an amazing 225,000 miles. I have been changing the oil at 7,500 to 10,000 miles and the most oil lose I have ever notice was about a quart near the 8,000 mile mark. Have always used a motorcraft filter. But I have used a veriety of oils. My favorite is motorcraft 5W-20. Also I would like to say that me to have experienced the high idle at start up. I would say that the engine will rev up about 3,000 rpms for a few second. Also I have experience the terible sound at start up that sound like rod knock for a few seconds.
I've seen descriptions to solve this problem by putting a descrete ammount (determined by experimentation) of hard rubber jammed in the air inlet port of the idle control valve and it is claimed to work. I haven't tried it yet, but I'm tempted.
Glad to hear you've had very good service from your Escort.
- Status
Similar threads
