08 Ford F-250, 5935 Rotella 10w40, 52165 on 6.4L

[TXHunter]

First oil sample taken on a 08 Ford F-250 Super Duty with the 6.4L Diesel. Oil was changed at the time of the sample and replaced with Rotella.

Code:


OIL Shell Rotella 10w40

MILES IN USE 5.9K

MILES 52k

SAMPLE TAKEN 9/8/12

MAKE UP OIL 0



ALUMINUM 28

CHROMIUM 2

IRON 47

COPPER 2

LEAD 4

TIN 0

MOLYBDENUM 17

NICKEL 1

MANGANESE 1

SILVER 0

TITANIUM 0

POTASSIUM 10

BORON 24

SILICON 5

SODIUM 5

CALCIUM 1531

MAGNESIUM 257

PHOSPHORUS 805

ZINC 912

BARIUM 0



SUS VIS 210ºF 60.0

cSt @ 100ºC 10.21

FLASHPOINT ºF 360

FUEL % 5.5

ANTIFREEZE % 0.0

WATER 0.0

INSOLUBLES 0.4

 

[Roadkingnc]

6.4 was introduced in the 2008 model year

 

[chubbs1]

What are the universal avg's?

Aluminum seems high. Iron looks like it could be better. No abrasives are getting into the engine the wear may be normal...or not.

 

[dnewton3]

The Al and Fe are likey due to the fuel at 5.5%!

Who did the report? Did they mention the fuel? What other comments (if any) were included? I assume it was Blackstone, because they list "insolubles" and not soot/oxidation.

I am going to make some presumptions here, so that my comments make sense. If my presumptions are false, that would negate the obvious. You post a great many UOAs for many vehicles, so I'm not really sure if this is your truck or just a friend/relative. I'll refer to it presuming it is yours, but realize it may not be ...

Is the 6.4L stock or near stock? These engines (along with the LMM Dmax engines) really can dilute the oils with the regen process. This is a classic example of this issue. The 6.4L engine is an outgrowth of the 6.0L engine, with some major upgrades. The HEUI is gone, but the common rail and piezo injectors still cannot negate the emmisions issues. I suspect one of two things:
1) you're not getting the engine as hot as needed so that you're burning out the DPF, therefore the regens are excessive, and the high fuel content is the result. This is a classic response of diesel trucks that are used as cars, rather than put to work like a truck.
2) you have a leaking injector. Possible, because failures do occur, but these injection systems have been fairly reliable as I understand.

Is this the T5 in 10w-40? That is the only Rotella product I know of with that vis. If so, I suspect someone paid a fairly high price for it (it's a bit of a rare beast to find on the shelf, and while I have seen it in person, I've not ever seen it on sale). Someone paid a lot of money to use a semi-syn, which frankly probably didn't protect the engine any "better" than a decent dino oil with rebate. One could save money if this 6k OCI plan is the predetermined route. No need to pay for such expensive oil when you're going to dump it this early (and frankly you should be, as the fuel is maxed out and likely affecting the wear).

You mentioned that you refilled with Rotella, but didn't mention which product?

I would suggest dino oil dumped at 5k miles to keep fuel, and therefore wear, down as best possbile. Then investigate the root cause (leaking injector or light use).

 

[Donald]

You should always get TBN. I prefer Polaris/OAI as they provide TBN and oxidation and nitration. With fuel that high you need to find the root cause.

Forget the universal average that B/S provides. Its a joke based upon how many samples for that year/engine they have analyzed and they average the miles also. Note that Polaris does not provide the useless comments nor universal averages.

 

[dnewton3]

Knowing UAs is very important, but it's only part of the picture. One needs to know what abnormalities exist in the data, and also the std dev. Knowing the UA and average OCI is a great way to judge your wear rates against those of others; it let's you know how "normal" your data is to the macro market.

Getting TBN is not a "must have" if normal OCIs are the plan. One will never deplete the TBN portion of the package in a normal OCI. If it's included in a report cost, nothing wrong with knowing it. But if it's extra cost (such as Blackstone) and you are not going to extend the OCI, there is not much sense in getting the extra cost test.

 

[TXHunter]

It was Blackstone that ran the numbers for this one. I called the operator and found out this was actually 15w40 (dino) and not the 10w40 that was reported previously to Blackstone and myself. The refill was also done with the dino 15w40 Rotella.

The 6.4L is completely stock. Full blackstone comments were as follows.

Lots of fuel was present in this sample. The low flashpoint indicates that 5.5% of this sample was fuel, enough to bring the viscosity down into the 10W/30 range. Universal averages are based on ~5,100 miles of oil use, so aluminum (from pistons) was the only metal reading high enough to deserve a highlight, but chrome and iron (other cylinder-area metals) are high as well. That may indicate that a cylinder issue is letting fuel into the oil, although 6.4L PSD's are known for high fuel, so this may not be a problem. For now, stay around 5,000 miles and check back.

 

[dnewton3]

Pretty much as I suspected.

Only further investigation will find the root cause.

I would concur; stick with 5k mile OCIs and try to get the fuel down.

No oil is going to be able to overcome the fuel dilution. If this operating pattern and maintenanc plan are the intent going forward for the future, then I'd buy the least expensive CJ-4 oil that can be found; shop sales and rebates. No reason to be brand loyal when the operater is dumping it at 5-6k miles. I would NOT encourage anything longer than that unless something is done about the dilution.

 

[Jim Allen]

The rumor mill has it that the 6.4L engines are dropping like files right now, often due to lube related problems. I don't know enough to comment definitively on the causes but I would strongly suggest a great deal of research on how to keep that engine in one piece. The three failed engines I've seen (all at one shop) were sludge monsters that reportedly had been maintained at the factory OCIs. Unbelievable sludge in two and failed injectors to boot.

 

[BoiseRob]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
The rumor mill has it that the 6.4L engines are dropping like files right now, often due to lube related problems. I don't know enough to comment definitively on the causes but I would strongly suggest a great deal of research on how to keep that engine in one piece. The three failed engines I've seen (all at one shop) were sludge monsters that reportedly had been maintained at the factory OCIs. Unbelievable sludge in two and failed injectors to boot.


Jim,
Don't the 6.4 inject fuel during the exhaust cycle to fire-off the dpf? That would explain the fuel dilution. Also, the 6.4 injectors are not the same as Dodge or GM (Bosch) but are made by Siemens.
My father-in-law had injector issues with his 6.4 and now, his 6.7 isn't much better. Between the 6.7's "weak" CP3 pump that dealers are told to blame on bad fuel so it's not covered under warranty to gremlins in the CPU. He got tired of all the issues and got rid of his 2012 due to the computer problems. The dealer told him there are numerous trucks in the Boise are with the same "glitch" but they (Ford) can't seem to find or solve the problem.
I'm sure Ford will figure it out but the warranty issues seem to continue with the Ford diesel engines.

At least my father-in-law admitted to my wife that I did tell him to by the Duramax. lol

 

[dnewton3]

I've not heard the 6.4L to be much of an issue, other than massive fuel dilution, but I'd be the first to admit I'm not "into" that engine, so I don't follow it much. The fact that some have sludged is news to me, but I'm saying it isn't a valid complaint. I would want more details for sure. What caused the sludge? What maintenance was done? Were other factors involved (coolant ingress, etc)? Were the engines "tuned" up for massive power?

Fuel dilution of the lube oil is a big issue on any of those engines (6.4L PSD, LMM Dmax, 6.7L Cummins) that inject fuel in-cylinder upon the exhaust cycle to fire the DPF. Only the "new" LML Dmax can negate this, due to it's 9th injector in the downstream exhause pipe.

As for the "weak" CP3 pump, I don't know that's a fair comment. "Weak" is a relative term because it's not descriptive enough. The CP3 has been in service the in common-rail Dmax engines since 2001, and generally serve well. It's also in the Cummins, at least in some iterations, right? Perhaps the ever-increasing pressures in these newest engines is at the upper end of the CP3 range, and I'm confident that some of the new engines use the CP4 pump now. But to call the CP3 weak when it's served VERY WELL in the Dmax engines for many years is a bit of a stretch if you ask me.

I'm not trying to defend the 6.4L engine here; just trying to get a handle on fair analysis of it's strengths and weaknesses.

 

[BoiseRob]

Dave,

By weak I mean undersized which causes the CP3 pump to fail due to being overworked providing the high pressure fuel to the injectors. Ford knows about the problem and has most likely made a pump spec change on the production line BUT they won't admit the error and find it easier to blame "bad fuel" and have the customer pay for the repairs on the first model year of the 6.7 engine.

As for the 6.4, my father in law traded it in on the 6.7 as soon as they came out so he only owned it for 2 years and in that time, had 3 injectors replaced under warranty by the dealer. His biggest complaint was terrible mileage and only got 9mpg around town.

edit:
Ford should have used a stronger pump regulated down to the required pressure instead of a pump sized to the proper pressure. FYI, the CP3 pump is NOT a Bosch like Dodge and GM use. Make sense?

 

[dnewton3]

I guess so, but I'll admit I'm a bit confused.

I know that there is a CP4 already out, and I've read it has some problems. What vehicle is it used in? I thought that was what is in the new 6.7L PSD?

Also, I thought all the CP3s were made by the same company?

 

[BoiseRob]

Found out today that the computer "glitch" on the 6.7 is with the regen cycle control. My in-laws truck goes into regen every 8-10 miles and Ford can't figure out why. In fact the service writer told him that Ford had just installed a brand new crate engine in another customers truck with the exact same issues. Apparently, they want to send the motor to their tech center and tear it apart to see what is the root cause of the frequent regen cycles.

 

[dnewton3]

With each thread like this I appreciate my LBZ more every day ...

 

[BoiseRob]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
With each thread like this I appreciate my LBZ more every day ...


Ditto...

 

[Jim Allen]

Ford hasn't really had it right since the 6.9L ( : < )

 

[The motor guy]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I guess so, but I'll admit I'm a bit confused.

I know that there is a CP4 already out, and I've read it has some problems. What vehicle is it used in? I thought that was what is in the new 6.7L PSD?

Also, I thought all the CP3s were made by the same company?


Doesn't surprise me. Company's always claim to test their products before sending them to market but yet why are there so many problems with them?

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Ford hasn't really had it right since the 6.9L ( : < )


I know you're more in tune with the Ford diesels that I am, but what about the 7.3L PSD (95 - 03). Those have been fairly reliable, no? About the only thing that goes wrong with those are the CPS, which is an easy 15 minute fix. Those engines are highly sought after and I've seen a great many UOAs with very high mileage, and generally no large mechanical issues.


I would agree for the sake of simplicity, any IDI with a mechanical pump is about as reliable as it can get. Isn't that why the 6.9L and older ISBs have such a cult following?

 

[bullwinkle]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Ford hasn't really had it right since the 6.9L ( : < )


I know you're more in tune with the Ford diesels that I am, but what about the 7.3L PSD (95 - 03). Those have been fairly reliable, no? About the only thing that goes wrong with those are the CPS, which is an easy 15 minute fix. Those engines are highly sought after and I've seen a great many UOAs with very high mileage, and generally no large mechanical issues.


I would agree for the sake of simplicity, any IDI with a mechanical pump is about as reliable as it can get. Isn't that why the 6.9L and older ISBs have such a cult following?
Count me in the cult! Everybody loves them but the EPA! With all the problems & reduced MPGs the newer diesels get, I'm surprised that there is still a premium charged over a gas engine.