Castrol GTX 5w20 - 5,383 mi - 2003 F150 5.4L

Status
Not open for further replies.

jca

Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
44
Location
California
This is the first UOA that has been done on this engine. Castrol GTX 5w20 was used since new with OCI average
around 5,000 mi. The additional quart was added around 3,700.

Comments: The Castrol GTX appears to have worked well up to 62,454 miles on your Triton V-8. This oil was
run right at the universal average change interval of 5,400 miles for a Ford 5.4L, and wear metals read normally
for the most part. Copper (from brass/bronze parts) is the only exception, but isn't a concern at just 9 ppm.
The viscosity was in the 5W/20 range, and no contamination showed up. The TBN was strong at 3.7. A TBN is
low at 1.0. Check back at the next oil change to see what develops with copper.

Code:
MI/HR on Oil 5,383

MI/HR on Unit 62,454

Sample Date 10/7/2011

Make Up Oil 1



AVERAGES

ALUMINUM 4 3

CHROMIUM 1 1

IRON 7 15

COPPER 9 4

LEAD 1 1

TIN 0 1

MOLYBDENUM 6 62

NICKEL 1 1

MANGANESE 0 2

SILVER 0 0

TITANIUM 0 1

POTASSIUM 0 1

BORON 6 54

SILICON 11 14

SODIUM 294 28

CALCIUM 1808 2234

MAGNESIUM 7 112

PHOSPHORUS 709 715

ZINC 834 859

BARIUM 0 1





PROPERTIES

SUS Viscosity @ 210°F 56.0 46-59

cSt Viscosity @ 100°C 9.07 6.0-10.2

Flashpoint in °F 395 >355

Fuel %
Antifreeze % 0.0 0.0

Water % 0.0
Insolubles % 0.4
TBN 3.7
 
Nice results and thanks for posting. I guess this shows that Castrol uses a very good base oil, like other majors, in their conventional oil. Why run synthetic with results like these? Especially, if you normally run a 5K-6K OCI......
 
Last edited:
I agree with Mongo that Castrol uses very good base oil for GTX, arguably as good or better than the base oil in SYNTEC or EDGE if you look at the oil on paper.
 
Almost the EXACT same results I got on my Duratec 3.0 in my Tribute, using Valvoline 5W-20, which has a very similar add-pack to GTX. Looks good!
 
Originally Posted By: mongo161
Nice results and thanks for posting. I guess this shows that Castrol uses a very good base oil, like other majors, in their conventional oil. Why run synthetic with results like these? Especially, if you normally run a 5K-6K OCI......


Because a UOA only measures oil life, it does NOT measure engine wear.
 
Originally Posted By: qr25de
Originally Posted By: mongo161
Nice results and thanks for posting. I guess this shows that Castrol uses a very good base oil, like other majors, in their conventional oil. Why run synthetic with results like these? Especially, if you normally run a 5K-6K OCI......


Because a UOA only measures oil life, it does NOT measure engine wear.


You are trying to encompass too much in one statement. A UOA can measure wear when used the proper way. You can't tell much from a single UOA but you can tell a lot from a series of them interpreted properly.
 
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Originally Posted By: qr25de
Originally Posted By: mongo161
Nice results and thanks for posting. I guess this shows that Castrol uses a very good base oil, like other majors, in their conventional oil. Why run synthetic with results like these? Especially, if you normally run a 5K-6K OCI......


Because a UOA only measures oil life, it does NOT measure engine wear.


You are trying to encompass too much in one statement. A UOA can measure wear when used the proper way. You can't tell much from a single UOA but you can tell a lot from a series of them interpreted properly.


A series of them over a whole lot of mileage running the same lubricant to create a "trend". Yes. Coupled with Particle Count data, then we get into valuable information.

However, that's now how they get used on here.
 
^There should be a new standard in the UOA sections as a sticky for good 'rules of thumb' and reminders for situations just like this.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


A series of them over a whole lot of mileage running the same lubricant to create a "trend". Yes. Coupled with Particle Count data, then we get into valuable information.

However, that's now how they get used on here.


Very sad and very true!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top