Conventional Quaker State 5W/20, Kia 2.4L, 11.5Kmi

[Zapper321]

This is my first post of a UOA. This is in my 125,132-mile Kia Optima on conventional Quaker State 5W/20 after 11,513 miles. 1 quart was added due to a slight leak.

Before this I was using Valvoline Syn Power.
Any thoughts? Thanks.
Code:
IRON 21

CHROMIUM 0

LEAD 1

COPPER 1

TIN 0

ALUMINUM 3

NICKEL 0

SILVER 0

SILICON 13

BORON 47

SODIUM 37

MAGNESIUM 10

CALCIUM 2233

BARIUM 0

PHOS 804

ZINC 892

MOLY 118

TITANIUM 0 0

POTASSIUM 1



FUEL
VIS 100 7.96

WATER 0 0

COOLANT NO NO

 

[CharBaby]

Well, as I see it, I am the first one to respond but, I don't know if my post will be the first to pop up.

With the exception of Iron, it looks fine. NO TBN?

Not every UOA would look this good with 11,500 miles on it. How many months was this OCI?

What is your typicle miles/months for your OCI's?

 

[scurvy]

Even with iron, it looks great for a one-shot UOA. 1.8 ppm/1k miles is excellent. Keep doing what you're doing and run a UOA once in a while to see if any trends develop.

 

[Artem]

Originally Posted By: Char Baby
NO TBN?




x2. For all we know, TBN is @ 0 and was at zero for a while...

 

[addyguy]

I highly doubt it.

If TBN had truely gone to zero, wear metals would be higher. Also, a quart of top-off almost guarantees there was some TBn left.

Amazing results - modern 'convetionals' really will go the distance!

 

[KCJeep]

Wow that's a long haul on QSGB. Looks very good, TBN would have been really interesting.

 

[dnewton3]

First of all, Welcome to the site!

I must say, I applaud your fearless use of oil! That UOA is Simply awesome!

11.5k miles on dino oil, and very low wear.

The wear metals are fine. The Fe is cumulative, and will head upwards with the miles. No problem there whatsoever. The extremely low Cu, Pb and Al show nothing is wrong.
Vis good. Very low fuel. No water or coolant. With Calcium that high still, TBN cannot be too bad; Calcium is an anti-acid among other things it does as an additive. The concern for low TBN would be that acids would build up and attack the sensitive metals.

I find this report very encouraging, but not suprising. I ran the same 5w-20 dino QS in my Fusion for 7.5k miles, and could have easily gone 9k, and probably 10k miles.

Dino engines are way more capable than most people would believe.

You are to be commended on a great run on your oil, and an apparently well running little engine.

If this is the kind of results you're running, I see no reason whatsoever to change your plan. It really cannot get any "better". The Fe is "averaging" a wear rate of 2ppm/1k miles; that is a very decent wear rate. As long as the Cu and Pb stay low, the Fe could safely go up to 30ppm or 40ppm. That means you could run this oil out to 15k miles or more! However, I would strongly suggest you get TBN when running out past 10k miles. You want to know if that Fe is from wear, or acids working on the steel.

Very impressive all the way around. No other way to look at it.

 

[ltslimjim]

Good UOA, good air filtration, but it 'would' help to see a TBN value.

Iron tracks up with mileage on an OCI, but the other numbers are key/low. Numbers 'look' good, which are visible, to indicate no problems with the vehicle. A TBN is recommended for long intervals like this on any oil to verify continued practice, strongly recommended.

 

[cp3]

I'll throw in another vote for TBN next time. I does look great, no doubt but personally, I would just want to verify the OCI with the TBN.

 

[Topo]

Now i'm really wondering when synthetic is ever needed in normal applications, that was an amazing report. I have to get through mys stash of synthetics then I'm going back to a Dino oil, I have seen as good or better UOA on Dino than synthetics lately.

 

[Topo]

This type of UOA'S are killing me. I'm a synthetic junkie. I don't like seeing these types of report..LMAO!

 

[Loobed]

Did you add Moly, or does QSGB come with 118 ppm Moly?

 

[Bill in Utah]

Yep.

UOA with 101 moly.

PQI test of QS conventional. Look at the moly.

Excellent oil! I do 7000-9000 OCIs on it. Been very happy with its performance.

Bill

 

[HTSS_TR]

I do 6-7k/6mo with dino in my LS400 for many OCI's, and 12-14k/12mo with syn. More than 10-11k miles with dino is a little too much for me to sleep well.

 

[jigen]

How long was the oil in use?

 

[dnewton3]

Reports like these make me shrug with a combination of contempt and laughter when I read things like "I change my synthetic every 5k miles; it's cheap insurance" or "Use synthetics; they're better."


I would presume the OEM OCI is either 5k or 7k miles (or there abouts) and yet here's 11.5k miles, and the fluid is clearly capable of more (still in need of TBN test for verification,) but the wear and contamination are WELL in control.

But - Oh - I suppose a synthetic would be "better" (as if there were any way to get lower than 1-3ppm of Cu, PB and Al and an Fe average less than 2ppm/1k miles) after 11.5k miles ... Or at least some people would have us believe.

I had a great UOA from this very same fluid; probably could have gone 10k miles as well, if not limited by OEM warranty issues.

 

[04SE]

Ok, I am done contemplating my oil decision for the Optima. My Optima will be getting PYB (for the added moly) from now on. Once this M1 OCI is up, I am going to just use the dino juice and spend the savings on a six pack of Shiner Bock.

 

[JOD]

People hate to hear it, but the fact is used oil provides for lower wear, until of course, it doesn't. It's been documented in both lab tests and UOA's, so your UOA is no surprise--as long as your engine didn't see a lot of short trips where the oil never got up to temps (then I'd be surprised).

How often do you change your air filter? It's obviously working well.

One caveat: make-up oil helps a lot. If you fix the leak and you don't have any consumption, you may want to either shorten it up a bit, or do what I do and drain a quart and top up at some point of the OCI, like maybe at 6-7K.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3


But - Oh - I suppose a synthetic would be "better" (as if there were any way to get lower than 1-3ppm of Cu, PB and Al and an Fe average less than 2ppm/1k miles) after 11.5k miles ... Or at least some people would have us believe.



Two things come to mind:

-while this is a great UOA, you seem to be ascribing a level of prescience to a UOA which simply isn't there. It's not a engine wear measurement device, and if you believe it is, then I don't really think you understand the methodology involved. Given that you visited the Blackstone lab, that seem odd to me. I'd think you'd have a better grasp of the limitations of spectrographic analysis. I realize that Blackstone is an important sponsor of the site, but lets look at what a UOA really does: it helps you determine how the oil is holding up during use, can alert to problems such as fuel or antifreeze in the oil and can (possibly, but not always) alert one of a catastrophic failure. It's not a test of engine wear.

-you seem to be on a jihad against any oil with the word "synthetic". I absolutely HATE the whole "real synthetic" nonsense. I wish the word didn't even exist so oils could be discussed by group; nor do I have any real affinity for a G IV or G V oil in most applications. That said, the "conventional" oil used in this UOA and a "synthetic" as commonly defined are both still mineral-based oils. The G III synthetics are just more severely hydro-cracked.

If you actually look at the physical parameters of G II and III oils, 5 of the 6 overlap (saturates, aromatics, PP, etc). Only VI is required to be "better". So, the bottom line is that there *may* be very little difference between one company's group II base oil and other company's group III base oil.

This is a long-winded way of saying that the distinction to which you seem to cling so clearly is one you've mostly manufactured in your own mind.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: JOD
This is a long-winded way of saying that the distinction to which you seem to cling so clearly is one you've mostly manufactured in your own mind.


I think the distinction that some of us draw between a "synthetic" oil and a "conventional" oil is the price. If one jug of oil from one manufacturer is half the price of another from the same manufacturer (i.e PYB versus PP), then I call the latter bottle "synthetic."

Obviously, these days, as you pointed out, synthetics aren't just automatically part of one group or another (i.e. IV or V). The lines have blurred. From a pricing standpoint, however, the distinction is very clear.

I'm not particularly concerned whether the oil is Group II, III, III+, IV, or V. My concern is having the oil perform adequately over the factory mandated OCI of 3750 miles and to do so at a reasonable price.

My distinction is that for 3750 mile OCIs, PYB is half the price of PP, M1, Syntec, and RP. That spread grows if I were to consider PU, M1 EP, or Edge. Given that, I have no doubt that PYB can go longer than 3750 miles, application dependent of course.