07 Navigator / MS5K 5W20 / 9,031 mi (19k on XG2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not bad iron ppm numbers for that many miles.
I'd forgotten Mobil conventional has titanium AW, and they threw in a small amount of their trinuclear (assumed) moly FM too. Not bad.
TBN still looked adequate at the end.
You got a little base-oil oxidation there, since visc increased some, not too bad though.
Wish you could see the ring pack, as I'd bet there would be more deposits there compared to a synth run, given the way conventional oil can't pass the WPD limits in dexos1 and euro tests.
 
She's circulating M1 EP now. She loses very little oil, and just tested her compression, which was excellent. Doubt the ring packs are suffering that badly.
 
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/2810708/06_Tundra,_M1_5W-30_EP,_5.4K_m#Post2810708 Particle counts look high compared to the Xg run by btanchors.
 
Originally Posted By: steveh
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/2810708/06_Tundra,_M1_5W-30_EP,_5.4K_m#Post2810708

Particle counts look high compared to the Xg run by btanchors.


Thanks for posting that link.

Firstly, the difference is huge!

Secondly, the particle count data in the link is phenomenal!
 
Had this waiting for me this morning. Other report came back with:

2 Micron 301
5 Micron 84
10 Micron 26
15 Micron 9
25 Micron 5
50 micron 0
100 Micron 0

Something disturbed me from the get go as to how I had .2% insolubles, but a particle count like that.

Other than the particle count discrepancy, the two UOA reports nearly mirror each other.
 
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Had this waiting for me this morning. Other report came back with:

2 Micron 301
5 Micron 84
10 Micron 26
15 Micron 9
25 Micron 5
50 micron 0
100 Micron 0

Something disturbed me from the get go as to how I had .2% insolubles, but a particle count like that.

Other than the particle count discrepancy, the two UOA reports nearly mirror each other.
I am fairly certain that are different ways to do particle counts and they will have differing readings. Here is a VOA of MS5K 5W-20 with a particle count for comparison.
 
Originally Posted By: Benito
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
I am fairly certain that are different ways to do particle counts and they will have differing readings.
The 2 and 3 digit ISO codes are summaries of the micron counts. It's explained very well here: https://www.empire-cat.com/uploadedFiles/Empire_Cat/Parts_and_Services/Service/ParticleCounting.pdf
Except that Blackstone uses the pore blockage method. Jim Allen and I collaborated on a particle count testing and there was a vast difference in the particle count with pore blockage versus optical counting.
 
I haven't been a big fan of M1 just about ever, but their 5000 mile oil delivered in a major way beyond the call of duty.

I don't drive this truck easy at all. I romp on it, drive 90-100 mph, tow boats 3 tons over its weight rating.

I'm seriously impressed. I was half expecting sheared out oil and high wear metals from my driving.

FX4, I actually gave the MS5K a run after reading your experiences with it.

I'll email Blackstone about the particle count.
 
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
FX4, I actually gave the MS5K a run after reading your experiences with it. I'll email Blackstone about the particle count.
cheers3.gif
 
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
I haven't been a big fan of M1 just about ever, but their 5000 mile oil delivered in a major way beyond the call of duty.

I don't drive this truck easy at all. I romp on it, drive 90-100 mph, tow boats 3 tons over its weight rating.

I'm seriously impressed. I was half expecting sheared out oil and high wear metals from my driving.

FX4, I actually gave the MS5K a run after reading your experiences with it.

I'll email Blackstone about the particle count.


I'm glad you posted this, I assumed you were driving it conservatively. Are 5.4's usually easy on oil?
 
I was the one (btanchors) who did the long chain of UOAs with the particle counts (the link was posted by steveh)

Particle counts are very tricky. In the long series of UOAs in the link posted by steveh, I was attempting to use particle counts as a way of identifying differences in filtering abilities between different oil filters.

In my case, the data was so widely scattered, I was unable to reach any real conclusion on the differences in the filters.

The only part that was repeatable in the tests was when I tested two Amsoil EaO filters. For some reason, I obtained worse results using those filters. But even then, I don't think it was enough to reach a firm conclusion (in fact I use Amsoil filters myself).

I'm not terribly surprised you obtained a different result by having the particle counts run by another lab. I suspect you would get different results if a sample was re-run by Blackstone - although it would not be wildly different.

In the end, I gave up using particle counts as I just couldn't seem to "master" them well enough to make use of the data, and it was getting expensive to have them done all the time. I was very careful in how I drew each sample, and tried to maintain as many variables as possible constant during these tests, given we're dealing with a passenger vehicle that is in normal use (in other words, not in a lab environment).

If I could come up with a new "angle" on how to use Particle Counts more effectively, I would do it - but for me, it just wasn't worth it to continue to use them.
 
I seriously doubt I'll ever have a particle count done again.

In researching particle counts in UOA'S, re-testing a count is the first step recommended after receiving undesirable results. Engine and oil aren't having any issues, so I'm going to let sleeping dogs lie.

Shark: By all information, the 5.4 engines are easy on oil. I just didn't know they were this easy. It's pretty incredible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top