F-150 - 2.7L Ecoboost - M1 5w20 - 5,524 miles

[zeng]

The other UOA(PUP 5W30) you referenced to is considered good as it is fit for continuing service.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...00_#Post4184063

In relative terms, your UOA(M1 5W30) is bad and require immediate replacement.

Better still, if you are stuck at 5W30, then consider Magnatec 5w30.

JMHO.

 

[09_GXP]

Originally Posted By: zeng
The other UOA(PUP 5W30) you referenced to is considered good as it is fit for continuing service.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...00_#Post4184063

In relative terms, your UOA(M1 5W30) is bad and require immediate replacement.

Better still, if you are stuck at 5W30, then consider Magnatec 5w30.

JMHO.

I'm curious here. What makes the PUP sample serviceable and mine requiring immediate replacement? If mine does require immediate replacement why would I "step down" to Magnatec? I'm sure Castrol would recommend Edge if I am currently using M1.

 

[bulwnkl]

Remind me: What particle size range does a BSLabs UOA capture/analyze?

If you want to 'compare' the UOAs, and if it's proper or informative to do so in this situation, then you would be forced to acknowledge 30 to 50% higher iron in the same interval. Again, if it's both proper and you choose to compare, that's a distinctly unfavorable (to your result) comparison.

I've now forgotten: Are you, or are you interested in, running premium fuel for a fuel thousand miles, to see whether this Ford responds the way Mazda's SkyActives do?

 

[09_GXP]

Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
Remind me: What particle size range does a BSLabs UOA capture/analyze?

If you want to 'compare' the UOAs, and if it's proper or informative to do so in this situation, then you would be forced to acknowledge 30 to 50% higher iron in the same interval. Again, if it's both proper and you choose to compare, that's a distinctly unfavorable (to your result) comparison.

I've now forgotten: Are you, or are you interested in, running premium fuel for a fuel thousand miles, to see whether this Ford responds the way Mazda's SkyActives do?


A 32% increase in Iron is a decent jump but we are comparing heavy towing vs no towing. An increase is certainly expected with these conditions. How much of an increase? Not sure. At what point does it become an issue? Not sure.

I ran premium for probably 1/2 of the OCI. The timing does change and fuel economy increases a fair amount just not enough to offset the cost of premium at these low fuel prices.

 

[zeng]

Originally Posted By: 09_GXP
Originally Posted By: zeng
The other UOA(PUP 5W30) you referenced to is considered good as it is fit for continuing service.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...00_#Post4184063
In relative terms, your UOA(M1 5W30) is bad and require immediate replacement.
Better still, if you are stuck at 5W30, then consider Magnatec 5w30.JMHO.

I'm curious here. What makes the PUP sample serviceable and mine requiring immediate replacement? If mine does require immediate replacement why would I "step down" to Magnatec? I'm sure Castrol would recommend Edge if I am currently using M1.


First, look at the summary as tabulated below:
a)Properties: b)Your M1 5W30 FullS; c)Strawdog's PUP 5W30 FullS; d)KJ Smith's Magnatec 5W30 SemiS

a)Miles: b)5524 mi; c)5400 mi; d)9278 MI
a)Fuel dilution: b)0.5; c)0.8; d) a)KV100 cSt used: b)7.84; c)8.43; d)10.26
a)KV100 cSt virgin: b)11.0 cSt; c)10.3 cSt; d)11.2 cSt
a)KV drop %: b)28.7%; c)18.1%; d)8.4%
a)Flash P used: b)355*F; c)370*F; d)370*F
a)FP virgin : b)446*F; c)435*F; d)min 360*F
a)FP drop *F: b)91*F; c)65*F; d)*unknown
a)Insolubles: b)0.3%; c)0.2%; d)0.3%
a)TBN used: b)N/A; c)4.1; d)1.6
a)Al: b)9; c)7; d)4
a)Cr: b)1; c)0; d)1
a)Fe: b)29; c)22; d)8
a)Cu: b)6; c)12; d)4
a)Si: b)43; c)47; d)19
Note: abc denotes the most inferior properties among the samples.

In comparison with Strawdog's PUP 5W30 sample, your used sample is :
1)having lower KV@100*C of 7.84 cSt with bigger percentage drop in KV100 of 28.7%(a percentage probably most OEM's would've it condemned), despite having a higher virgin KV100 and lower fuel dilution of 0.5%;

2)having a lower used Flash Point of 355*F and experiencing biggest FP drop by 91*F, despite having a higher virgin FP of 446*F and a lower fuel dilution of 0.5%;and

3)having higher insolubles of 0.3% and generally higher wear metal ppm.

Hence, I'm of the opinion your sample is far inferior to that of Strawdog's PUP 5W30 of residual TBN of 4.1.

Also note KJ Smith's Magnatec blend 5W30 at 9278 miles is NOT inferior to your 5400 mi sample.

JMHO.

 

[09_GXP]

Not trying to be a jerk or pick fights, just wanting to make sure there is accurate info here so that future readers can learn from this exchange (which is really good.)

We can't look at KJ's Magnatec samples since it was on the 3.5L motor that has over 100k miles on it. Different motor and well broken in.

An OEM would not condemn a oil based on KV percentage drop. They will have limits on the film strength/thickness needed for the engine that can be roughly translated into viscosity since every oil is different.

IMO, if the oil was breaking down to an unusable level it would have seen significantly more wear since the engine was being worked much harder. The fact that the wear is only marginally higher bodes well. I'm very excited to see additional samples from mine and other 2.7s to see how trends compare.

 

[bulwnkl]

Originally Posted By: 09_GXP
IMO, if the oil was breaking down to an unusable level it would have seen significantly more wear since the engine was being worked much harder. The fact that the wear is only marginally higher bodes well.


Again, _if_ it is proper and if you want to compare, then you have no basis upon which to claim that this change bodes well, since you do not know what you should expect from towing vs not. Neither do you know (it doesn't appear?) whether the particle size range that BSLabs can capture in analysis would be impacted by various filtration strategies.

Or maybe you do know these things. If so, and if you wish this to be useful for posterity, it would be beneficial to state these things.

Towing vs not with my iron-sleeved Honda does not exhibit a 1/3 increase in iron when I tow at high speed, but that is not a DI Ford. The Fords in my fleet at my previous work unit also did not exhibit this level of change (in UOA reports) when towing at max, but again, those were not DI Fords. Neither of these sets of experience put anywhere remotely near this much fuel in the oil, either, but yet again, they were not DI Fords.

 

[zeng]

Originally Posted By: 09_GXP
An OEM would not condemn a oil based on KV percentage drop. They will have limits on the film strength/thickness needed for the engine that can be roughly translated into viscosity since every oil is different.

Appreciate some quantitative data/guideline on the limits mentioned above.
Btw, it's more than viscosity.

 

[09_GXP]

Originally Posted By: zeng
Originally Posted By: 09_GXP
An OEM would not condemn a oil based on KV percentage drop. They will have limits on the film strength/thickness needed for the engine that can be roughly translated into viscosity since every oil is different.

Appreciate some quantitative data/guideline on the limits mentioned above.
Btw, it's more than viscosity.

Would love to provide it but would break confidentiality agreements I have with a previous employer.

 

[09_GXP]

Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
Originally Posted By: 09_GXP
IMO, if the oil was breaking down to an unusable level it would have seen significantly more wear since the engine was being worked much harder. The fact that the wear is only marginally higher bodes well.


Again, _if_ it is proper and if you want to compare, then you have no basis upon which to claim that this change bodes well, since you do not know what you should expect from towing vs not. Neither do you know (it doesn't appear?) whether the particle size range that BSLabs can capture in analysis would be impacted by various filtration strategies.

Or maybe you do know these things. If so, and if you wish this to be useful for posterity, it would be beneficial to state these things.

Towing vs not with my iron-sleeved Honda does not exhibit a 1/3 increase in iron when I tow at high speed, but that is not a DI Ford. The Fords in my fleet at my previous work unit also did not exhibit this level of change (in UOA reports) when towing at max, but again, those were not DI Fords. Neither of these sets of experience put anywhere remotely near this much fuel in the oil, either, but yet again, they were not DI Fords.


I don't have knowledge on Blackstone's methods to know if they would account for various filtration strategies. I say it bodes well for 2 main reasons.

#1) With a GTDI engine towing will produce additional wear above what a port injection engine would due to cylinder wash. With the increased amount of fueling required to keep temps down the oil film on the cylinder wall is reduced. Another way to get to the same conclusion would be that most would agree towing or driving heavy will increase the break-in rate. The corollary to this is that wear ppm/mile will be higher particularly before an engine is fully broken in.

#2) Even running the exact same model engine over the exact same duty cycle there will be around a 10% variation in wear metals. One reason that single oil samples are difficult to judge and trending is necessary.

Thinking a few steps ahead, when I change my oil next it will be with much less towing but after winter. If the wear is lower is it due to less towing or the engine being more broken in? If the wear is the same or higher is it because towing isn't harder on the engine or winter is harder than summer?

 

[zeng]

Originally Posted By: 09_GXP
Originally Posted By: zeng
Originally Posted By: 09_GXP
An OEM would not condemn a oil based on KV percentage drop. They will have limits on the film strength/thickness needed for the engine that can be roughly translated into viscosity since every oil is different.

Appreciate some quantitative data/guideline on the limits mentioned above.
Btw, it's more than viscosity.

Would love to provide it but would break confidentiality agreements I have with a previous employer.

 

[bulwnkl]

Originally Posted By: 09_GXP
Thinking a few steps ahead, when I change my oil next it will be with much less towing but after winter. If the wear is lower is it due to less towing or the engine being more broken in? If the wear is the same or higher is it because towing isn't harder on the engine or winter is harder than summer?


All good questions. I suspect that these kinds of questions are why many professionals discourage the use of a UOA for any purpose other than oil condition monitoring, and _maybe_ for individual engine trending over a long period of time/use. This complex of questions is certainly why I repeatedly emphasized the "if" in my posts. UOA data _can_ be used for more than just this one tiny thing, but only with additional data from somewhere. Watching the fleets via analysis at work has always been very instructive for me, even if it didn't always tell me what I wanted to hear.

It is indeed well understood that cylinder-ring-piston interface wear rates go up sharply in gasoline PC engines when they're operated continuously above 80-ish% (I don't have the references handy) power. On the one hand, one would expect your engine to be working that hard if you're towing at max. OTOH, your stated rpm range does not support the notion that the engine is delivering very close to max power. Too, one finds, if one watches with an appropriate scan tool, that it is extremely common for many engines to be delivering 90%+ of available (at that rpm) power when they're just driving on the highway up a slight to moderate grade. That rarely produces 'high' iron in analysis, though, so one might be tempted to think that wear increases as one approaches max peak power rather than max available power at lower rpms. Without a fleet, or access to other data, it's sufficiently difficult to tell that UOA becomes merely a hobby. That's perfectly fine, of course.

Your previous employment may allow you to address all these things for yourself. If so, I think that's great! At the same time, if NDAs prevent you sharing, I'm struggling to see how posterity will benefit here from things you cannot write.

 

[CT8]

Bump