'13 Ford Ecoboost 3.5L twin turbo 5w30 UOA's

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TurboFX

Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
10
Location
canada
I have owned this truck since brand new. I have two UOA's that concern me and am looking to get some feedback from this forum. We don't have a blackstone here in Canada, but we do have "Wearcheck". Both UOA's are from wearcheck. The "n/a" indicates items not tested in the "wearcheck" test.

I only use Motorcraft FL500 filters. The motor is stock.

My main concern is the Fuel% in the oil. What can be interpreted by these high percentages?

1st UOA:Motorcraft 5w30 semi-synthetic with approx. 13000KM on the oil, with approx. 18000km on the truck (factory oil was changed out at the recommended 5000km interval by Ford).

2nd UOA: Castrol Edge 5w30 full synthetic with approx. 8300km on the oil

Code:


OIL MC5w30 Castrol5w30

KM'S IN USE 13000k 8300k

KILOMETERS 18000k 26300k

SAMPLE TAKEN 7/30/14 11/21/14



ALUMINUM 11 6.3

CHROMIUM .9 .5

IRON 61 21

COPPER 67 30

LEAD 3.5 1.1

TIN .2 .1

MOLYBDENUM 12 55

NICKEL 1 .6

MANGANESE N/A N/A

SILVER N/A N/A

TITANIUM 21 7.6

POTASSIUM 7.0 1.3

BORON 10 159

SILICON 41 21

SODIUM 245 57

CALCIUM 1481 1771

MAGNESIUM 8.8 10

PHOSPHORUS 577 609

ZINC 694 685

BARIUM 0.3 0

SULPHUR 2300 2276



INSOLUBLES n/a n/a

WATER
FLASHPOINT ºC N/A N/A

SUS VIS 100ºC 7.2 7.8

cSt @ 100ºC N/A N/A

OXIDATION% 72 67

FUEL% 7.5 9.0

SULFATION% 64 61

NITRATION% 65 61

SOOT 0 0

GLYCOL NEG NEG
 
Last edited:
I don't know the method Wearcheck uses compared to say Blackstone in their UOAs, but afaik Blackstone was never relied upon for highly accurate fuel readings in oil due to their test method.

Honestly, without a flashpoint test in this UOA though it's hard to gauge. Have you tried contacting Wearcheck on the method they use and any notes they have regarding the numbers?

Seems typical of DI engines, though. I'm sure other DI owners/experienced with can pop in to shed more light. Also, I have seen Wearcheck before on here. Did they not include notes with the report?
 
I'm sure the flashpoint would be low, look at the fuel percentage! 7.5%! Thats why the viscosity on the 5w30 is only 7.2, not sure why the potassium is at 7.0? is that a typo?
 
Last edited:
Colder weather with more idling could be a contributing factor to the high fuel %. My 2013 2.4L Sonata calls for oil changes every 6,000kms.
If it were my truck, I would change the oil at most 7,500 km intervals.
 
Originally Posted By: spasm3
I'm sure the flashpoint would be low, look at the fuel percentage! 7.5%! Thats why the viscosity on the 5w30 is only 7.2, not sure why the potassium is at 7.0? is that a typo?


Right. Forgot to note the shearing. I just am not sure what 7.5% is in terms of accuracy without knowing their test method. Fuel dilution is present, though.

Is this engine under warranty? If not could a more stout oil be used to deal with the fuel dilution?
 
Wow, lots of replies already! Thx everyone!

I will contact wearcheck to determine the accuracy of the fuel% and possibly ascertain a flashpoint (if they kept the samples).

The first sample is motorcraft oil used for approx. 13000Kilometers. my potassium numbers are correct. Wearcheck states that anything over 20 is "abnormal" on the report.

The motor is under warranty for the standard power train of 5 year 100,000km.

What I'm curious about is the fuel % in the 2nd analysis. It's HIGHER than the first with 5k LESS I'm on it AND summer weather! Keep in mind these are two different oils.

I drive approx. 75% highway and 25% city give or take with lots of extended highway. Not so much short trips. We have a civic for those. Light towing (under 1500lbs and light hauling. Atv, lumber, furniture/moving, gravel, standard pickup truck use. No extended idling.

Cheers
 
In July, your fuel was 7.5%.

In November, your fuel was 9.0%.

That is insanely high and should be addressed. ASAP.
 
Rings are probably still seating. Non synthetic may help them seat faster. I'd do a few 8000km runs on MC 5W-30, then check again on the 3rd OCI. If it's getting significantly better, go back to full synthetic.
 
I would think with fuel levels that high the mil would be on due to fuel vapors coming through the pcv valve.
All di engines seem to have a fuel smell to the oil but you can detect very low levels with your nose.
 
The samples haven't smelled of fuel. When I checked the oil last winter the smell was quite strong but the oil level remained constant.

Should the rings still be seating at 25000+ kilometers?

Apparently there is an inherent design flaw with the design of the PCV system in my engine. It only evacuates vapors when the motor is in "idle". Could this be a fuel dilution issue???

I want to give Ford the benefit of the doubt when designing this engine in that they KNOW about the fuel dilution but also KNOW it doesn't affect the performance or longevity of the motor. I also want to remain confident that this DI tech with turbocharging is the right choice for me considering I intended to keep this truck as long as possible.
 
Originally Posted By: TurboFX
I intended to keep this truck as long as possible.


That's an oxymoron..... If you want to buy a truck and keep it on the road as long as possible, why did you buy a twin turbocharged Ford? You should have gotten a 5.4 NA engine in that Ford....or any Chevy with no fuel/cylinder management.

I've been saying it now since these TT V6's debuted....200k miles will be ultra rare without extensive rework.
 
Originally Posted By: TurboFX
The samples haven't smelled of fuel. When I checked the oil last winter the smell was quite strong but the oil level remained constant.

Should the rings still be seating at 25000+ kilometers?

Apparently there is an inherent design flaw with the design of the PCV system in my engine. It only evacuates vapors when the motor is in "idle". Could this be a fuel dilution issue???

I want to give Ford the benefit of the doubt when designing this engine in that they KNOW about the fuel dilution but also KNOW it doesn't affect the performance or longevity of the motor. I also want to remain confident that this DI tech with turbocharging is the right choice for me considering I intended to keep this truck as long as possible.


Rings were done early, no long break in time required, especially if it saw any boost early.

The PCV is a common issue these days and an even bigger one with any boost. Then factor in the huge amounts of extra fuel used for cooling, you can see where this goes.

It is notable that the fuel dilution really does not seem to harm anything at all. And I for one easily believe these engines will last if cared for properly...
 
Originally Posted By: Phishin
Originally Posted By: TurboFX
I intended to keep this truck as long as possible.


That's an oxymoron..... If you want to buy a truck and keep it on the road as long as possible, why did you buy a twin turbocharged Ford? You should have gotten a 5.4 NA engine in that Ford....or any Chevy with no fuel/cylinder management.

I've been saying it now since these TT V6's debuted....200k miles will be ultra rare without extensive rework.


These are interesting comments. I'm unsure if you are trying to derail this discussion, troll, or you are a possible V8 fanboi, or just simply want to start yet another tiresome, bandwidth wasting [censored] contest between makers of half ton pickup trucks... But you obviously digress.

Is there something flawed with purchasing a "truck" with a TT DI motor as opposed to a "car"? In my opinion, no. I like that new technology is becoming more mass produced and finally the pickup truck segment is seeing some new implementation of tech that was originally only available to more "exotic" makes.
Oh, and I feel I got a decent deal for it!

So, thanks for your opinion. It's nice to view my issue from a different angle I guess...
 
Originally Posted By: TurboFX
Originally Posted By: Phishin
Originally Posted By: TurboFX
I intended to keep this truck as long as possible.


That's an oxymoron..... If you want to buy a truck and keep it on the road as long as possible, why did you buy a twin turbocharged Ford? You should have gotten a 5.4 NA engine in that Ford....or any Chevy with no fuel/cylinder management.

I've been saying it now since these TT V6's debuted....200k miles will be ultra rare without extensive rework.


These are interesting comments. I'm unsure if you are trying to derail this discussion, troll, or you are a possible V8 fanboi, or just simply want to start yet another tiresome, bandwidth wasting [censored] contest between makers of half ton pickup trucks... But you obviously digress.

Is there something flawed with purchasing a "truck" with a TT DI motor as opposed to a "car"? In my opinion, no. I like that new technology is becoming more mass produced and finally the pickup truck segment is seeing some new implementation of tech that was originally only available to more "exotic" makes.
Oh, and I feel I got a decent deal for it!

So, thanks for your opinion. It's nice to view my issue from a different angle I guess...


Not to mention ford pounded one of these trucks for serious miles,took it and raced Baja,and upon teardowns they found minimal wear.
200000 miles today is hardly a blink.
Look at the various forums where guys own these things. There are already 150000 milers out there and they haven't dissolved yet.
Don't we have guys here with higher miles on them so far too.
 
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Well with that fuel dilution , sludge will not be a problem!


That is a positive for fuel dilution.
wink.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
'13 WRX Mobil 1 ESP 5w30, 6,296 mi
Replies
8
Views
6K
davison0976
D
  • Locked
Castrol GC, 2965 miles, '97 Nissan Maxima
Replies
9
Views
2K
ericw
Back
Top