Schaeffer's 9000 Supreme 5w-40 ... 2001 F250 7.3 PSD...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
483
Location
Goose Creek, SC
Performed an early UOA on my PSD to rule out any fuel dilution preventing my ICP from going as high as it should. The UOA was done at a Speedco truck lube place on a Truck Check Analysis machine. I took the sample myself via the oil sample valve on my Oilguard bypass filter.

2001 Ford F250 with 7.3 Powerstroke Diesel.
100,563 miles on engine
approximately 1650 miles on oil.
OIL: Schaeffer's 9000 Supreme Synthetic 5w-40
Full Flow filter: Fleetguard LF3974 Stratapore
Bypass Filter: Oilguard 20 series.
Air filter: AFE stage-II with PG7 filter
Additives used: 8oz. LC; 4oz 132; 4oz ARX
Many Mods done, "should" be close to 350rwhp and 750 ftlb TQ.
Driven hard many times with equivalency of 15-20 1/8th mile passes done on this oil during a live tuning session.

Aluminum.......... Chromium.......... Copper............ 4 ppm
Iron.............. 7 ppm
Lead.............. 10 ppm
Tin............... Silicon........... 2 ppm
Potassium......... 3 ppm
Sodium............ Moly.............. 119 ppm
Water............. < .1%
oxidation......... 2 absorbance units
Viscosity@100c.... 14.8 cSt
Glycol............ None Detected
Fuel.............. < 2%
TBN............... 9.5
Nitration......... 2.0
Soot.............. 1.6 absorbance units


So there you go. The only thing that i wonder about is the LOW silicon. I know, I should be happy because it means good Air Filtration. The thing is, I have seen a Virging sample done by another person on Schaeffer's 9000 and the VOA had about 14 ppm of Silicon and there was a disclaimer that it was due to Schaeffer's having an extra amount of Anti-foaming additive. This UOA does not reflect that. Makes me wonder if I should get some of IH's Defoaming additive and add it to the oil to see if it eliminates the low ICP code I used to never recieve.

Hammer

[ September 03, 2005, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: 59 Vetteman ]
 
Hammer,

Thanks for the UOA. Shows that a highly modified diesel does not necessarily crater an engine.

You are correct, the virgin oil contains more silicon than that. The VOA on this oil starts at 14PPM: VOA Schaeffers 5W40

The Viscosity looks good so the oil is not being chewed up by the mods on your truck.

smile.gif


[ September 03, 2005, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: 59 Vetteman ]
 
hammer, i was going to use this oil for the winter, but now have second thoughts. just you thinking you may have to add anti foaming agent to this turns me off. one of this oils claim to fame is (no foaming). if you add the anti foaming agent and the code goes away, i would be pi@@ed.
 
quote:

Originally posted by eddyzima:
hammer, i was going to use this oil for the winter, but now have second thoughts. just you thinking you may have to add anti foaming agent to this turns me off. one of this oils claim to fame is (no foaming). if you add the anti foaming agent and the code goes away, i would be pi@@ed.

Well, I am only taking guesses right now. I'm just basically trying to rule everything else out before I spend big money on a new HPOP for this truck. The anit-foaming may be just perfect with this oil. Maybe the T-Check analysis machines read a lower Silicon number than the most common Blackstone UOA's. This is all just speculation at the moment but I think i will try the defoamer just as a chance. I honestly in my heart think though that the defoamer won't do a thing.

Hammer
 
Hammer,

When are you going to get another analysis done on the truck?

I just noticed that you only had 1650 miles on the oil. I would like to see how the Schaeffer's 9000 holds up in extended interval usage (I'm sure it will be fine).
 
Time has elapsed to EDIT my original post. The number of 20ppm for Silicon due to possible anti-foaming additives should be changed to 14ppm. I looked up the VOA and realized my mistake.

Hammer


Corrected original post

[ September 03, 2005, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: 59 Vetteman ]
 
Hammer,

On my 95 if the anti-foam is to low the engine will lope and sound like a miss at idle. This was in the 95-97 era. Now with the new oils they contain plenty of anti-foam and it has never happened again. That is why the anti-foam at IH exists. In that era, most diesel oils had low amounts of anti-foam additive and with the new HEUI at that time it was a problem. Delo, Delvac 1300S and Schaeffers 15W40 did not cause any problems because they had plenty of anti-foam.

Schaeffers has the reputation of adding anti-foam in generous amounts, even in their PCO oils. I personally think that you got a bad/low reading on your analysis due to lab error. Because you have a Sample port on your bypass, I would sample again and send it to Blackstone.
 
quote:

Originally posted by 59 Vetteman:
Hammer,

On my 95 if the anti-foam is to low the engine will lope and sound like a miss at idle. This was in the 95-97 era. Now with the new oils they contain plenty of anti-foam and it has never happened again. That is why the anti-foam at IH exists. In that era, most diesel oils had low amounts of anti-foam additive and with the new HEUI at that time it was a problem. Delo, Delvac 1300S and Schaeffers 15W40 did not cause any problems because they had plenty of anti-foam.

Schaeffers has the reputation of adding anti-foam in generous amounts, even in their PCO oils. I personally think that you got a bad/low reading on your analysis due to lab error. Because you have a Sample port on your bypass, I would sample again and send it to Blackstone.


I actually have two sample points, the Oilguard sample point and a Fumoto valve. Which one would you consider optimal?

Hammer
 
quote:

Originally posted by Go_Hogs_Go:
Hammer,

When are you going to get another analysis done on the truck?

I just noticed that you only had 1650 miles on the oil. I would like to see how the Schaeffer's 9000 holds up in extended interval usage (I'm sure it will be fine).


I was planning to do one at about 5000 miles. I normally wouldn't have done the oil sample this early, I just wanted to verify I didn't have fuel dilution causing and ICP issue.

Hammer
 
Hammer,

I use the Fumoto. I let the engine run and take one quart while it is running, then shut the Fumoto off and open again for my sample. Not sure which is the best. I don't have a sample port on my bypass filter. When I am all done, I just pour the quart back in the crankcase.

smile.gif
 
I'm also using the 5W-40 9000. Is the 9.5 TBN after 1650 miles a concern? VOA doesn't show a TBN, but Schaeffers lists 12 TBN on their data sheet. I'm planning a UOA at a 5000 miles. I'd like to get 10000 miles on an oil change. I was previously using 15W-40 Amsoil.
 
Hammer,

Something else that seems a little off is the viscosity.

According to Schaeffer's tech data page the Sup 9000 is supposed to be at 13.5-14.5 at 100 degrees celsius cSt using the ASTM D-445 method.

Your viscosity states that it's at 14.8 cSt, which seems odd.

By the way, have you seen mileage increases while using the 9000?
 
Go_Hogs_Go,

I got an solid .8 MPG improvement on my 04/04 6.0 PSD, auto, 4X4,3:73, 100% stock F-350 CC. That was changing from Motorcraft 15W40 that the dealer put in after changing a head gasket. I have my Schaeffers UOA posted here and Blackstone told me to run the oil to 7500 and test again. I had already changed it but will let this run go to the 7500 mile mark.

Jim
 
quote:

Originally posted by Go_Hogs_Go:
Hammer,

Something else that seems a little off is the viscosity.

According to Schaeffer's tech data page the Sup 9000 is supposed to be at 13.5-14.5 at 100 degrees celsius cSt using the ASTM D-445 method.

Your viscosity states that it's at 14.8 cSt, which seems odd.

By the way, have you seen mileage increases while using the 9000?


If you notice, I did use 4 OZ of Schaeffer's 132 Moly EP treatment when I changed the oil. Not so much because I thought Schaeffer's needed it but to counteract on the thin viscosity of the 8oz of Lube Control I also added and to boost the residual non-drained oil. It's possible that the 132 boosted the viscosity. I also believe the 14.8 is within the margin of error of the machine used. The truth to the matter is that this Analysis was done on a machine with effectively a non-trained operator using it at a truck quick lube place. I was basically checking for fuel dilution and I would not give the results of theis UOA much weight until they have been verified or compared to a known proper Anaylising lab such as Blackstone.

Hammer
 
Hammer,

Glad that the defoamer worked for you. I have a theory on why your engine responded better. All diesel oils rated CI have more than adequate anti-foaming for normal mech. and HEUI injectors. But you have very heavily modified your engine and it makes short order of the anti-foaming in normal oil, or the amount in OTC oil is not adequate for your application. Just a theory. Personally, I think you hit upon a cure for others that are having problems with modified engines.

From observing 132 in a few applications, I think the reaction with the oil is different that using the Lucas. The 132 does not seem to affect foaming issues, in fact it tends to defoam. But again, not scientific, just my observations.
 
As an update, I decided to go ahead and buy the Fleetrite Engine Oil Defoamer from International and try it out. It was cheap and only cost $3.13 for an 8 ounce bottle. Surprisingly, my truck really liked it. My drivability of the truck has improved. Very low rpm throttle response has definately improved. Idle is silky smooth. It seems to have a more robust start-up kick when starting the engine. Quite frankly, the truck is just plain better to operate with the defoamer being used. Unfortunately, my 1211 issues and top end fall off still exist so it did not fix that which was my goal. I think this is one additive that I will keep using.

This leads me to another thought. Most of us BITOGers have seen the Lucas oil demonstration where the Lucas ruins the anti-foaming properties of whatever oil it was added to. If you notice in my UOA report, I said I had used about 4oz of Schaeffer's 132 in this oil. I wonder if this ultra thick additive would give similar foaming results as the ultra thick Lucas did in that testing apparatus? Which then makes me wonder if adding the Defoamer is fighting potential foaming from the 132? Anyway, I thought I'd think that one out loud.

Hammer
 
Changed this oil a couple weeks ago. I sent off the oil analysis to a lab I never used before: Blanchard Caterpillar. Only cost #12. Unfortunately, they weren't as thorough as the reports I have seen on this site for Butler Caterpillar.

Anyway, In between the analysis I first posted in this thread at 1650 miles, I have done a few things to my truck that opened my engine up to contamination. I basically installed a Terminater twin HPOP (high pressure oil pump) system, a week later had to R&R it for a blown O-ring on the system. And then a few weeks later had to R&R it again for a recall on the pump. I also changed out the #8 injector. So all that R&Ring of HPOP's and the injector all exposed my engine and oil to contamination so that could have an effect on the results of this UOA I'm posting.

So here are the results:

Miles on engine: 105260
Miles since last sample: 4697
Miles on oil: 6347

AL..........6
Ba..........0
Ca..........3088
Cr..........1
Cu..........7
Fe..........16
Pb..........17
Mg..........13
Mo..........193
Ni..........0
P...........1119
K...........7
Si..........16
Na..........0
Sn..........0
Zn..........1195
soot........0
OXI.........16
NIT.........6
Sul.........21
Water.......Negative (means less than 0.5%)
Antifreeze..Negative
Fuel........Negative (means less than 4%)
[email protected]

So there you go. Now, I am going "W.T.F?" when it comes to the apparently sheared down viscoscity. Either the tesing is inaccurate; the Twin HPOPs shear the oil bad; or the pisss poor testing of fuel not indicating anything under 4% which could cause this. I still have some of the sample in a blackstone bottle in my garage, I may see if it is enough to perform a sample on the previous T-check machine. I know it is not enough for blackstone.

If I was to hedge my bets, I would guess the twin HPOPS are going to town on the oil. The newer 6.0 PSD's HPOP shears the heck out of oil compared to a normal 7.3 PSD. The pump is bigger on the 6.0 so I could see a correlation with shearing when going twin pumps.


Hammer
 
Hammer,

I didn't even give thought to the oil shear down, but then I remembered that you have a 7.3 and not a 6.0! Man, you would have to assume that the newly installed twin HPOPS are beating the hades out of your oil. The 7.3's don't hammer oil like the 6.0's do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top