2011 Fusion PU 0W-20 with Liqui-Moly MOS2 11.6k

[SubieRubyRoo]

Blackstone UOA

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_kQNzXlgo1sa3RXMENKMU9lQTg/view?usp=sharing

Just another boring UOA from my wife's car... only reason this OCI didn't go to 15k is because I'm not changing oil in the driveway in the winter. Added MOS2 on this change, and did see a nice drop in iron (not sure if it's totally related). Oil was dark from the MOS2, but while draining you could still see the amber color of the oil, so it wasn't actually too dirty. I don't quite agree with Blackstone in that the reason it is lower was a shorter OCI- it was only 400 miles shorter. With a TBN of 2.4 @ roughly 12k miles, is there any way to gauge how long it could go?

Only special notes are I have been running FL-400S-sized filters instead of the FL-910s, I am not sure if this helps contribute to the low insolubles or not. This current OCI was a Bosch Distance+ 3422. It still fits under the factory plastic apron, so I see no reason not to pick up the additional filtration area. I stuck on a NAPA Platinum 41516 this change. Considering this engine is driven 70 miles per day average, and I enjoy taking it to the redline frequently (even though it's slow), I'm pretty happy with how it's wearing. I have no doubt the engine will last much longer than the 6F35 transmission. Thoughts?

 

[gabriel9766]

My mom just bought a 2010 ford fusion with the same motor and 93k on it. I dumped whatever was in it and put some PP 0w20 and A fram XG on it. I pulled the valve cover off and chaged the gasket because it was leaking and it was spotless on top. I plan to run 7.5k O/C intervals.

 

[deven]

You really can't say that the MOS2 reduced the iron wear from 12 to 8. First as the engine ages you tend to shed less and less wear metals but more importantly the values are within the variance noise. I've seen UOAs where samples have been tested twice by the same lab and wear metals have varied substantially between the two reports. It's just one of the reasons why I don't put too much importance on UOAs.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Originally Posted By: deven
You really can't say that the MOS2 reduced the iron wear from 12 to 8. First as the engine ages you tend to shed less and less wear metals but more importantly the values are within the variance noise. I've seen UOAs where samples have been tested twice by the same lab and wear metals have varied substantially between the two reports. It's just one of the reasons why I don't put too much importance on UOAs.


I didn't say MOS2 was responsible for the reduction, I said I couldn't say for sure. But Blackstone's idea that it was 4ppm lower for a 400 mile shorter OCI seems kind of generalized and kind of ignoring common sense. But then again, I'm no tribologist (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express this summer). In addition, the claim that engines tend to shed less over time doesn't really play out either, since the 12ppm reading was an OC at 58k and was by far the highest iron reading so far (over 50% higher, after being essentially unchanged for the previous 3 OCIs). I wasn't really concerned with 12ppm to start with, as all other metals were low and TBN was still robust.

Since I've been thinking about it for a while, the 4ppm iron was probably mainly due to the fact that the previous OC ran from September to June, and my wife sure likes to let the car idle for long periods of time during the winter while it's warming up. The most recent OC ran from June to November, nice warm weather with essentially no idling on startup. Thanks!

 

[tig1]

I have been using M1 0-20 for years in my 07 Fusion and Focus at 10K OCIs. I don't use any additives(and won't use any) in the oil and use the MC 910 filter. To date both engines perform very well, are very clean, and show no sign of engine wear.

 

[timeau]

Originally Posted By: tig1
and show no sign of engine wear.

I always enjoy reading such statements. It let me not to spend money for comedies.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: timeau

and show no sign of engine wear.

I always enjoy reading such statements. It let me not to spend money for comedies.[/quote

So what's so funny about my engines showing no signs of wear? Simply put, they don't.

 

[tig1]

Let's see. PU 0-20 + 11K OCI= low wear numbers. How can that be? Only 30 to 40 wt oils can produce low wear numbers. Maybe a typo? Where's Merc when you need him?

 

[timeau]

Originally Posted By: tig1
So what's so funny about my engines showing no signs of wear? Simply put, they don't.

Did you disassemble the engine? Did you see piston rings and bearings?

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: timeau
Originally Posted By: tig1
So what's so funny about my engines showing no signs of wear? Simply put, they don't.

Did you disassemble the engine? Did you see piston rings and bearings?


If people really think about it, you can't see inside an engine sitting in your La-Z-Boy recliner. People make statements like that all the time with nothing to back it up. An engine can tolerate a little excess wear and show no symptoms.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: timeau
Originally Posted By: tig1
So what's so funny about my engines showing no signs of wear? Simply put, they don't.

Did you disassemble the engine? Did you see piston rings and bearings?


Really? Actually, if you will read and understand what I said was, SHOWS NO SIGN OF WEAR. Get it. NO SIGN OF WEAR. Like increased oil consumption, decrease MPG, loss of power, unusual engine noise. Stuff like that.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Originally Posted By: timeau
Originally Posted By: tig1
So what's so funny about my engines showing no signs of wear? Simply put, they don't.

Did you disassemble the engine? Did you see piston rings and bearings?


If people really think about it, you can't see inside an engine sitting in your La-Z-Boy recliner. People make statements like that all the time with nothing to back it up. An engine can tolerate a little excess wear and show no symptoms.


To me "excess wear" means out of the tolerance range designed for any particular engine. If that's the case, then you will have SIGNS of engine problems. I have none of that with my present engines or any engine since 1978.

 

[timeau]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Actually, if you will read and understand what I said was, SHOWS NO SIGN OF WEAR. Get it. NO SIGN OF WEAR. Like increased oil consumption, decrease MPG, loss of power, unusual engine noise. Stuff like that.

PR department?

 

[kschachn]

This is like listening to two old guys in rocking chairs on a porch. Geez.

 

[aquariuscsm]

I have noticed through uoa,that MOS2 never decreases wear metals. I'm guessing motor oil comes formulated perfectly balanced with already everything your engine needs.

 

[timeau]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I'm guessing motor oil comes formulated perfectly balanced with already everything your engine needs.

Not quite right.
For some reason many people think that primary goal of companies and corporations is the happiness of their customers. Not at all: profit is their everything. This means that companies must fight for reducing their expensises. So almost every product, including engine oils, satisfy just minimal requirement and standarts. This *could* be enough, but definitely not always.
Don't be naive: almost all oil company tells that their oil has "everything your engine needs". But if you visit Liqui Moly web site, you'll find many commercially available oil additives, engine flushed, wtc. These are just marketing stategies, nothing more.

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: timeau
This means that companies must fight for reducing their expensises. So almost every product, including engine oils, satisfy just minimal requirement and standarts. This *could* be enough, but definitely not always.


Some standards are minimal (like SN), and other standards are quite high (dexos1 and further MB229.5). We trust a bottle of oil meets/exceeds every standard's test. That's all we can do. Evidence beyond that is scant.

 

[deven]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Originally Posted By: timeau
Originally Posted By: tig1
So what's so funny about my engines showing no signs of wear? Simply put, they don't.

Did you disassemble the engine? Did you see piston rings and bearings?


If people really think about it, you can't see inside an engine sitting in your La-Z-Boy recliner. People make statements like that all the time with nothing to back it up. An engine can tolerate a little excess wear and show no symptoms.


To me "excess wear" means out of the tolerance range designed for any particular engine. If that's the case, then you will have SIGNS of engine problems. I have none of that with my present engines or any engine since 1978.

It's the exact reason why your statement should be discredited. At my shop we have disassembled plenty of engines that show "no signs of wear" per your definition and after the tear down has plenty of excess wear.

UOAs tell you absolutely nothing. I've sent out samples which come back showing iron levels under 20 and when the engine is torn down its absolutely in shambles. The only good thing about a UOA is it can warn you about coolant leak, fuel dilution, insolubles and oil life. It tells you zilch about engine wear.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: deven
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Originally Posted By: timeau

So what's so funny about my engines showing no signs of wear? Simply put, they don't.

Did you disassemble the engine? Did you see piston rings and bearings?


To me "excess wear" means out of the tolerance range designed for any particular engine. If that's the case, then you will have SIGNS of engine problems. I have none of that with my present engines or any engine since 1978.

It's the exact reason why your statement should be discredited. At my shop we have disassembled plenty of engines that show "no signs of wear" per your definition and after the tear down has plenty of excess wear.

UOAs tell you absolutely nothing. I've sent out samples which come back showing iron levels under 20 and when the engine is torn down its absolutely in shambles. The only good thing about a UOA is it can warn you about coolant leak, fuel dilution, insolubles and oil life. It tells you zilch about engine wear.



Where I come from we don't tear down engines that show no signs of wear. I do agree UOAs are, for the most part, good for only the condition of the oil(dirt, coolant fuel).

 

[53' Stude]

I'll believe Tig1 and his advice