2007 Dodge Ram 5.9 Oil Analysis Questions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
8
Location
Washington State
Here is my Oil Analysis for my Cummins with 106,012 miles. I use Valvaline Preimium Blue 15/40 and do not have a bypass filter. Tell me if you think I am pushing my oil to far, Blackstone says to run it out to 20k.

Code:
12,263 14,433 16,015 17,975

Aluminum 4 5 4 5

Chromonium 2 2 2 2

Iron 37 39 41 44

copper 7 7 7 9

lead 1 1 1 1

tin 4 0 0 0

moly 53 40 44 52

nickel 0 1 1 1

maganese 1 1 1 1

silver 1 1 1 1

titanium 0 0 0 0

potassium 5 7 6 10

boron 4 2 2 4

silicon 6 7 6 6

sodium 6 7 9 13

calcium 1347 1237 1440 1422

manesium 1083 960 894 1027

phosphorus 1217 1115 1230 1132

zinc 1481 1319 1666 1488

barium 0 0 0 0



sus visc 73.5 76.9 67.3 74.9

cst visc 13.88 14.73 12.24 14.22

flashpoint 415 430 425 415

fuel
Aniti Freeze 0 0 0 0

Water 0 0 0 0

insolubles 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

TBN 5.2 6.2 4.5 5.1

You're up to almost 18,000 miles on the oil, and wear metals are all still within acceptable ranges.
We found a slight increase in copper this time, though a 2 ppm change is hardly worth mentioning. Since
iron tracks with time on the oil, it would have been unusual if iron hadn't increased a little this time. The TBN read 5.1, a little higher than last time. That's unusual on a longer oil run, but maybe you did something different operationally that caused this. In any case, we're not complaining about a better TBN. Let's see20,000 miles next time!
 
How much makeup oil are you adding? Those TBN & insoluble numbers seem weird-the insolubles/soot haven't increased AT ALL? The TBN is going UP? Also the antiwear additives seem to be going up instead of down? I'm not a professional-but, ALL of those conditions are strange! Also, which oil filter are you running-those contaminant numbers, especially the soot, are really good!
 
Also, maybe I should change my username to the OTHER Big Gray MegaCab (since that is what my '06 is)! How is your truck doing as far as crosswind door air leaks? I've been fighting mine since the day I got it-not sure if my cab isn't perfectly straight!
 
Sorry if this seems like a stupid question but are these separate OCI's or are they samplings at successive mileage increases? Either way you can go 20K. Nice engine, good oil.
 
I had a cross wind noise on my 06 quad cab. The Dealer detected excessive turbo whine and replaced it. Naturally, the cross wind noise persisted during extreme wind conditions. I felt like a real idiot when I finally found a loose rubber door seal on the upper rear passenger door and simply pushed it into it's proper place. This stopped the noise after 4 yrs of ownership. Other than than the truck has been flawless.
 
I have to agree with B-S on this one; you clearly can push up to 20k miles.

Wear metals are very much in a "normal" range for the stated mileage duration; the Fe will rise with the accumlated exposure, and the Al, Pb and Cu are all really low for that mileage. The vis stays fairly consistent. The TBN continues to be strong with each load. The insolubles are lwo. FP is good. Etc, etc. What's not to like?

As for the variances in the add-pack elements, that's likely just the small nuances between production batch loads, and environmental seanson changes in operation. The add-pack elements (Ca, Mg, etc) can tell you about how much continued use you have remaining; the wear metals tell you how it's performed previously. Regardless of what the add pack looks like, the wear is outstanding in these samples.

I susepct you do a lot of driving, especially consistent driving with steady temps (highway, or continued ops with no shutdown and not too much idling?).

You're in a position to safely, effectively run 20k miles on dino oil. Where would the "advantage" be to 5k mile OCIs, or synthetics, in your situation? I'm not saying that everyone will have this kind of success, but clearly YOUR situation proves it to be possible and practical.

I GREATLY appreciate UOAs such as these. This is yet another stab into the heart of "change oil often for best results"" mentalities. If you only had one UOA to show these kind of results, many (including myself) would be skeptical; it's a bit of a stretch to see such good data. But you have four successive UOAs approaching 60k miles of duration all with similar results! The possibility of any one UOA being a fluke is now infintesimally small. You have continuing data that shows these numbers are "normal" for your situation. I applaud your approach; very thoughtful and methodical. I wish everyone did this type of UOA tracking. PLEASE, PLEASE continue on this track. It's so very rare to see someone stick with one approach, and PROVE methodology, rather that provide conjecture.
 
Last edited:
This is a fine UOA. Not saying any different.

However, any synthetic with 44 ppm of Fe at 18K would be deemed a high Fe UOA (and the 44 ppm would be attributed by some to increased Cu levels).
 
Looks good. Valvoline oil off the shelf, no need for a more expensive oil either. Nice! I was never a fan of Valvoline but it is working well in this application. Thanks for posting.
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
This is a fine UOA. Not saying any different.

However, any synthetic with 44 ppm of Fe at 18K would be deemed a high Fe UOA (and the 44 ppm would be attributed by some to increased Cu levels).


Interesting ... (and I'd be the first to admit I'm culpable for some of those comments)

I'll counter with this:
any synthetic costing 3x more money than the VPB would hopefully either -
1) cut the wear by 2/3 for the same OCI exposure
2) be able to get this same wear for 60k miles with no top off, and only on a full flow filter
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3

I'll counter with this:
any synthetic costing 3x more money than the VPB would hopefully either -
1) cut the wear by 2/3 for the same OCI exposure
2) be able to get this same wear for 60k miles with no top off, and only on a full flow filter



So at least you wouldn’t deny you would say this. I’m not trying to say one oil or another is superior for all situations, and again, nothing wrong with this UOA, but it is interesting to observe the tonal changes.

Not sure where you got the 60K/ no top off. I’ll counter this with:

1) Any synthetic in this situation would be cleaner and leave a cleaner engine inside at 18K
2) Be able to go 30K or most likely much more with very low consumption
 
This leads me to a question... what are condemnation limits for FE? They seem to vary from lab to lab.

As to dino vs syn... given equivalent quality add packs... can the base oil make THAT much difference?
 
Regarding point one you make, Pablo, I'm not convinced that a syn would be "cleaner" internally at 18k miles. Cleanliness is predicated upon the initial level of "dirty stuff" in contamination rate of soot/insoluble production. To say that a syn would make this engine cleaner at 18k miles is to presume two things:
1) the engine was dirty to begin with
2) the engine is producing contamination at such a rate the dino oil cannot keep up.
We don't know that either condition is true. What we do know is that the soot/insoluble count in these four consequtive UOAs is very low and controlled. So, my point of contention is that syn's cannot clean up more than a dino, if that level of contamination is not beyond the ability of the dino. If the VPB add-pack is not overwhelmed (which it clearly seems to be working as designed) there is no reason to think that any syn could do a "better" job at cleaning up stuff that is already under control. All indications are that the VPB has things under control; the add-pack is strong and stable and the soot/insolubles are low, in a consistent manner from UOA to UOA.
Time for one of my famous analogies:
You can hire three maids to come clean your house once a week, but if you are living at home alone, and not making a big mess, then only one maid is needed. The other two are superfluous; they cannot clean up what's already cleaned up.
You're making an unfair assumption that the dino oil isn't keeping up. We have data (TBN, detergent/dispersent numbers, insolubles numbers) to show things are under control. You can't clean "better" than what's already under control.


As for my "60k miles, no top off" comments, I was calling to note that the VPB has the clear ability at this point to do 20k miles, with no bypass filter and no top off fluids. If any syn were to be worth the 3x cost factor, they have to be able to triple the experience. As soon as you were to add a bypass filter, or start adding a bunch of oil in top-offs, you further drive out that ROI point of equality. The "3x" factor would work closer to 3.5x or 4x to "break even".

Yes, I agree that this series of UOAs shows that there are times when Fe is simply an accumlated phenomenon. And I also would think that by 20k miles in this engine/oil/filter combo, it might be to the point that condemnation of the oil is warranted, even if other wear metals and such are under control. In the other Amsoil/Dmax UOAs we've seen, I've never stated that there is 100% proof that Fe is clearly a direct result of Cu abrasion, but I did say that we cannot prove it's not. The difference is in the proven/known versus the suspected/unknown. In these UOAs of VPB, we can assure ourselves the Fe is not due to elevated Cu, because there is no elevated Cu. In some Dmax/Amsoil UOAs, we're left only with presumption, and not fact. The differnce in my tone is what's known versus what's possible. If in the past I've stated that there is 100% knowledge that super high Cu causes elevated Fe, then I was wrong; but to be honest I doubt I ever said that. What I have said multiple times is that we cannot simply exclude higher Fe in an Amsoil/Dmax UOA simply because we don't want to believe they may be related. The differences are in the nuiances of possible/probable/definite.

As for your point 2, I fully agree that at some point, the syn will outperform the dino oil in a UOA. By "outperform" I'm going to say that includes wear metals, insoluble control, TBN retention, etc. But I will EXCLUDE fiscal review from that comment. And that's where the whole syn vs. dino topic sits. ANY oil can be under or over utilized; the point is to use any lube up the it's condemnation limit, and then OCI. Would this VPB start to degrade at 20k or 25k miles? Most likely so. Would a syn outperform the dino after that mileage? I'd certainly like to think so; I'd bet some money that (at some yet unknown mile marker), the syn will clearly pull away in wear protection and such. But, at what point can you say it's "worthwhile" to pay for the syn? That is where the ROI comes into play. Which is "cheaper" for the "same" protection level? (I'm going to pick some artifical numbers from thin air; don't skewer me please)... If you set a limit of 50ppm for FE, or 15 for Cu, or (etc, etc) then you run the oil up to those condemation limits, you simply look at the duration of exposure as a factor of cost. If the dino oil can go 20k miles, and then be condemed, that is your marker point. If the syn can go 40k miles before condemnation, that's certainly longer. But is it "better"? Not if the OCI factor is 2x but the cost factor is 3x; it's simply cheaper to OCI more often with dino. Remember, the whole point is to run either oil up to the same condemnation point, so the ONLY variable is duration of exposure. Then the "better" oil is the one that provides the needed level of protection for the least cost; it might be dino, it might be syn. Only the safe, effective OCI duration will determine which is "better", based not upon some arbitrary "I can't keep my hands off the wrenches" approach, but rather a "I'm going to get the full value of my purchase, regardless of base stock" approach.

In this situation, I don't think there is a snow-ball's chance in Hades that a syn could go 60k miles unassisited by top-off or bypass. So, that would drive the ROI cost factor up to perhaps around 4x? (I'm incluidng initial cost of bypass system, replacement filters, shipping, etc). So a syn would have to go 80k miles with bypass to break even on cost. Certainly can be done. Question is this: will it be done?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
This leads me to a question... what are condemnation limits for FE? They seem to vary from lab to lab.

As to dino vs syn... given equivalent quality add packs... can the base oil make THAT much difference?


For Fe it depends on the trend, the engine, the manufacturer.

In a LARGE sump engine, base oil makes less of a difference.

I should have better stated something above...SOME synthetic oils will be cleaner at 18K (or whatever). By cleaner I mean proximity to combustion areas will have less deposits. Pistons, rings, ring grooves, etc will be cleaner with some synthetic oils.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Regarding point one you make, Pablo, I'm not convinced that a syn would be "cleaner" internally at 18k miles. Cleanliness is predicated upon the initial level of "dirty stuff" in contamination rate of soot/insoluble production. To say that a syn would make this engine cleaner at 18k miles is to presume two things:
1) the engine was dirty to begin with
2) the engine is producing contamination at such a rate the dino oil cannot keep up.
We don't know that either condition is true. What we do know is that the soot/insoluble count in these four consequtive UOAs is very low and controlled. So, my point of contention is that syn's cannot clean up more than a dino, if that level of contamination is not beyond the ability of the dino. If the VPB add-pack is not overwhelmed (which it clearly seems to be working as designed) there is no reason to think that any syn could do a "better" job at cleaning up stuff that is already under control. All indications are that the VPB has things under control; the add-pack is strong and stable and the soot/insolubles are low, in a consistent manner from UOA to UOA.
Time for one of my famous analogies:
You can hire three maids to come clean your house once a week, but if you are living at home alone, and not making a big mess, then only one maid is needed. The other two are superfluous; they cannot clean up what's already cleaned up.
You're making an unfair assumption that the dino oil isn't keeping up. We have data (TBN, detergent/dispersent numbers, insolubles numbers) to show things are under control. You can't clean "better" than what's already under control.


As for my "60k miles, no top off" comments, I was calling to note that the VPB has the clear ability at this point to do 20k miles, with no bypass filter and no top off fluids. If any syn were to be worth the 3x cost factor, they have to be able to triple the experience. As soon as you were to add a bypass filter, or start adding a bunch of oil in top-offs, you further drive out that ROI point of equality. The "3x" factor would work closer to 3.5x or 4x to "break even".

Yes, I agree that this series of UOAs shows that there are times when Fe is simply an accumlated phenomenon. And I also would think that by 20k miles in this engine/oil/filter combo, it might be to the point that condemnation of the oil is warranted, even if other wear metals and such are under control. In the other Amsoil/Dmax UOAs we've seen, I've never stated that there is 100% proof that Fe is clearly a direct result of Cu abrasion, but I did say that we cannot prove it's not. The difference is in the proven/known versus the suspected/unknown. In these UOAs of VPB, we can assure ourselves the Fe is not due to elevated Cu, because there is no elevated Cu. In some Dmax/Amsoil UOAs, we're left only with presumption, and not fact. The differnce in my tone is what's known versus what's possible. If in the past I've stated that there is 100% knowledge that super high Cu causes elevated Fe, then I was wrong; but to be honest I doubt I ever said that. What I have said multiple times is that we cannot simply exclude higher Fe in an Amsoil/Dmax UOA simply because we don't want to believe they may be related. The differences are in the nuiances of possible/probable/definite.

As for your point 2, I fully agree that at some point, the syn will outperform the dino oil in a UOA. By "outperform" I'm going to say that includes wear metals, insoluble control, TBN retention, etc. But I will EXCLUDE fiscal review from that comment. And that's where the whole syn vs. dino topic sits. ANY oil can be under or over utilized; the point is to use any lube up the it's condemnation limit, and then OCI. Would this VPB start to degrade at 20k or 25k miles? Most likely so. Would a syn outperform the dino after that mileage? I'd certainly like to think so; I'd bet some money that (at some yet unknown mile marker), the syn will clearly pull away in wear protection and such. But, at what point can you say it's "worthwhile" to pay for the syn? That is where the ROI comes into play. Which is "cheaper" for the "same" protection level? (I'm going to pick some artifical numbers from thin air; don't skewer me please)... If you set a limit of 50ppm for FE, or 15 for Cu, or (etc, etc) then you run the oil up to those condemation limits, you simply look at the duration of exposure as a factor of cost. If the dino oil can go 20k miles, and then be condemed, that is your marker point. If the syn can go 40k miles before condemnation, that's certainly longer. But is it "better"? Not if the OCI factor is 2x but the cost factor is 3x; it's simply cheaper to OCI more often with dino. Remember, the whole point is to run either oil up to the same condemnation point, so the ONLY variable is duration of exposure. Then the "better" oil is the one that provides the needed level of protection for the least cost; it might be dino, it might be syn. Only the safe, effective OCI duration will determine which is "better", based not upon some arbitrary "I can't keep my hands off the wrenches" approach, but rather a "I'm going to get the full value of my purchase, regardless of base stock" approach.

In this situation, I don't think there is a snow-ball's chance in Hades that a syn could go 60k miles unassisited by top-off or bypass. So, that would drive the ROI cost factor up to perhaps around 4x? (I'm incluidng initial cost of bypass system, replacement filters, shipping, etc). So a syn would have to go 80k miles with bypass to break even on cost. Certainly can be done. Question is this: will it be done?


You bring up some great points. IMO the smart money in this application is the dino oil at 1/3 the cost.
 
Yes, my points are good, but so are Pablo's.

I suspect that it would be hard to beat this dino oil/engine scenario, because this is just such a stellar example, in real time, with real data.

However, it's incorrect to assume that dino is a clear winner, because the syn isn't being tested (at least as far as we know). Given this engine and how it's doing, I suspect a syn would do very, very well.

The question is this: can a syn do well enough to warrant the cost factor. That should always be the TRUE measure of the use of syns.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to bring up an old thread but had a questions about bypass filters. Would there be any benefit to me installing an oil bypass system on my truck since I have been able to push my OCI out so far with Dino oil, just don't want to waste money if its not really going to benefit me.
 
The correct answer is "maybe" ...

Bypass filters are tools to extend your OCI, just as synthetics are. You have to be able to make them pay for themselves (initial investment, ongoing filter costs, etc) or they are not a good choice.

Typically, synthetics and bypass filteration work really well on large capacity sump systems were the cost of a UOA and a filter change are far cheaper than a sump dump. But small sumps systems are just the oposite; it's cheaper to dump than test.

The only way to know if it's a good decision is to run the numbers and see if the ROI can be met. To be "real" you have to include all costs, including initial investments, filters, top-offs, UOAs, etc. It also makes a difference as to how many miles you drive a year. And then you also have to consider what brand of BP system you might consider, and what warranty coverage is in play. Most of them (Amsoil and others have a " ... or one year ..." policy that limits the use. If you cannot make the mileage limit, the time limit might get you ...

You are getting nearly 20k miles out of dino oil. That is extraordinary! I find it hard to believe that you'll get a synthetic/bypass system to pay off for your driving pattern that would equal, let alone surpass, your current system.

When you look at greatly extending OCIs, you have to consider the condemnation limits for the UOAs. What limits have you considered for the wear metals, soot, coolant, etc? You cannot go into this half-cocked. You have to know what your limits are, to know when the oil is to be changed.

Generally, synthetic oils costs 3x more money, and the costs of bypass filters add perhaps 1x more money (or more, depending upon system purchased), making an OCI cost 4x more money. Plus you have the costs of UOAs along the way. You'd have to get a minimum of 4x more mileage out of your OCI just to break even. Can you go 80k miles on your next OCI?

Synthetics and bypass filtration are tools to extend your OCI. Tools can either be used, or mis-used. Further, there are two types of people that use synthetics and bypass filtration; posers, and people that really understand their maintenance plan. Posers play at the game, but change oil way before their should, somehow convincing themselves that their plan is "better" regardless of the data showing blatant waste. And then there are people who really know what they are doing, monitor their fluids, and can keep their hands off the wrenches.

It's not that one plan is "better" than the other. It is a matter of getting your ROI out of whichever approach you choose, and how it plays into your total maintenance plan.


Like I said; "maybe" ...
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply, that is pretty much what I was thinking. I only average about 25-30k a year so I think I will continue what I am doing until my UOA's tell me to do something different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top