2015 F150 5.0; 10w-30/5w-40 mix 8.6k miles

Messages
114
Location
Wisconsin
Thread starter
This is a sample of 5 quarts of Pennzoil Platinum 10w-30 and 3 quarts Pennzoil Platinum Euro 5w-40. Oil changed with 14% remaining on oil life monitor. Filter was a Fram Ultra XG2. Majority of driving is short city trips and about 4 miles one way to work. Some long drives mixed in on weekends. Drove it hard and at WOT at least 4 times per day every day. Overall very pleased with this uoa.

Screenshot_20191117-200911~2.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Messages
1,441
Location
CA
Thanks for sharing. And for getting a TBN (UOA's are worthless without TBN - I don't know why people get UOA's without them). Very good data point for how a Euro oil retains TBN so much better than the oil the OLM is expecting. Maybe this 10w30 contributes to that too. Anyone looking for an extended interval oil doesn't need to stick with just M1 EP or AP.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Messages
8,456
Location
Indianapolis, IN
The lube concoction did well, but honestly no better than any 5w-20 conventional lube would do. The 5.0L Coy of that generation is very easy on oil. This is yet more proof that the 5.0 Coy is not very sensitive to viscosity selection.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Messages
8,456
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted by CharlieBauer
... And for getting a TBN (UOA's are worthless without TBN - I don't know why people get UOA's without them).
There's been no reasonable data to show that TBN/TAN has any real effect on wear rates in moderate OCIs, in today's terms. This is because of a few things: - modern sealed engine systems do not let a lot of moisture in - better design of engines results in wear rates being less susceptible to outside influences - better materials selection and better production methods make for more robust products - lower contamination of elements that influence acid formation from the host lubes and fuels - etc Most all UOAs today show zero correlation between the base/acid relationship and the wear rates. I am not claiming that lubes don't need a good base value; they do need some. But the overall data from thousands of UOAs shows the relationship of base/acid to be independent of engine component degradation, for any modern engine using modern fuels, in a typical "normal" OCI. So why worry about information that's essentially not proving to have any controllable influence over the wear rates?
 
Last edited:
Messages
114
Location
Wisconsin
Thread starter
Originally Posted by dnewton3
The lube concoction did well, but honestly no better than any 5w-20 conventional lube would do. The 5.0L Coy of that generation is very easy on oil. This is yet more proof that the 5.0 Coy is not very sensitive to viscosity selection.
Wasn't expecting better or worse. I already knew it doesn't really care about viscosity selection and I have some free oils on hand. I will say I do like the sound of the motor at idle with this brew better than with 5w-20 that the dealership had in. Possibly the least data driven method of oil selection but I like to use N=1 Observations ...‚. Dnewton3 do you have data comparing the 5.0 to the previous 5.4 and 4.6 motors?
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Messages
8,456
Location
Indianapolis, IN
The comparisons are strong; the contrasts weak. The 5.0L coy is based on the mod-motor architecture; bore spacing, deck height, con-rod length, rod/stroke ratio, etc. It's a beefed up version of the 4.6L. Which is why the wear data is essentially the same. If you look at the 4.6L, 5.4L, 6.8L, 5.0L, my sample set would be around N=700 or so? Most all of my data is based on the common, higher volume units in "normal" applications. I don't typically include things like ultra-rare or ultra-high-performance data in my subsets. I certainly enjoy seeing UOAs from Mustangs that have been "tuned" (hot-rodded) and such, but I keep that data out of my data streams; entertainment purposes only.
 
Messages
114
Location
Wisconsin
Thread starter
Originally Posted by dave1251
Looks boring 10K OCI would be easy.
I agree. This next interval will run to 0% which should be about 10k. Just wanted to get it changed before the snow came. Laying on a freezing garage floor is no fun.
 
Messages
1,441
Location
CA
Originally Posted by dnewton3
Most all UOAs today show zero correlation between the base/acid relationship and the wear rates. I am not claiming that lubes don't need a good base value; they do need some. But the overall data from thousands of UOAs shows the relationship of base/acid to be independent of engine component degradation, for any modern engine using modern fuels, in a typical "normal" OCI. So why worry about information that's essentially not proving to have any controllable influence over the wear rates?
Wear rates tell us very little except when they're significant there is some sort of issue. The OLM is by far a better indicator of when to change oil. The amount of research and expertise that went into it is incomparable to statistical analysis of wear rates. See https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/130036/1 for a fuller explanation of how oil condition is truly determined. When I see a UOA, I'm interested in measures that verify the condition of the oil and how that compares to the OLM. Of course, TBN on it's own is not enough of a measure to compare the overall condition of the oil to the OLM, but it's better than not having TBN and it is the most consistent measure we see that most members have the ability to get tested. I would love to see nitration, oxidation etc etc for a fuller picture of the condition of the oil. But wear rates are simply a binary indicator of whether there is a problem or not and not something I would use to extend oil changes because one cannot extrapolate how much further one can go. Wear rates can only be used to tell you if you went too far and on that, it is only one aspect of what too far is. So what I like about seeing TBN in this UOA provided along with the OLM at 14% is that this particular oil (which is also a mix) is most likely longer lasting than the minimal standard of oil for which the OLM was calibrated.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Messages
8,456
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Well, frankly, I disagree with you CB. UOAs are a great tool. They are not a perfect tool. But they are BY FAR the least expensive option to tract wear in a reasonable time frame. Oil conditions are inputs to the equation. They are predictors. They can only imply that things are OK. You can have a bearing going out, and yet the Vis, FP, base/acid, oxidation, fuel %, can all be OK. Nothing in the oil characteristics can predict abnormal wear of a component. These characteristics are precursors to supposition of how the fluid is aging. Wear data are outputs of the equation. They are results. They tell us how things actually are doing in terms of component wear. You can have a bearing going out, and the Cu and Pb will likely show an escalation of material shedding. Admittedly, again, UOAs are not perfect. They do not see particles generally larger than 5um. But there's a reasonable ratio which exists in "normal" wear patters between what can be seen below 5um and what cannot be seen above 5um. There are plenty of SAE studies which indicate that the UOA data from spectral analysis correlates with other methods of wear tracking such as electron bombardment; component weight analysis, laser measurements, etc. Even PC studies on filtration have shown good correlation between particulate matter presence and UOA wear data. Wear rates tell us a LOT. They are indicators of when wear is dropping, is steady, and is escalating. Quick, catastrophic events such as snapped con-rod are not going to be picked up in a UOA until it's after-the-fact. But wear related issues like bearings, piston bore scuffing, timing chain guides, etc can all be seen in UOA data. The issue is understanding the changes in wear rates, not just a static number. You have to know the means and standard deviations to determine "normalcy". Tools like statistical analysis allow us to really understand and focus on what is truly happening; what matters and what does not. IOLMs are still notoriously conservative in their limits. They are certainly better than the old "3k miles; 5k miles" approach, but IOLMs only track inputs (temps, loads, duration, rpms, etc). They do nothing but predict a condition. They don't measure a result. The inputs (oil characteristics such as FP, vis, ox, base/acid, etc) are all things to watch for; I do agree. But the reason to watch them is because when one of those conditions goes out of control, it's an indication that wear rates may change soon after. But those are not, in and of themselves, proof that wear is changing. Only wear metal data can prove wear is changing. We've seen countless examples of vis going "too thin" from VII breakdown, or "too thick" from oxidation saturation, and yet the wear rates for the OCI duration were perfectly normal. We've seen base/acid inversion, and nothing happened to wear. Etc ... The point I make is that inputs are a item to watch only in that they are a flag to indicate something MIGHT change in the output. When an input changes, it is not an automatic guarantee that an output will change; there is no assurance of correlation. When vis goes out of spec, it's not a reason to change oil for the sake of the vis; it's a reason to watch the wear rates with closer scrutiny because something MIGHT change. When an input shifts, it may or may not trigger an output change. Hence, vis, FP, fuel %, ox, etc are not reasons to change oil. They are reasons to watch for wear rate changes which might escalate to an undesirable level. I like to make analogies; helps people get their head out of the topic and look at things from a different perspective. What's more important to know about your favorite bastketball team? The starting roster at tip-off (the inputs)? (who's on the court, what PPG and RPG do they average) The score at the end of the game (the output)? (which team put more points on the board when the buzzer went off) I think you know the answer ... Outputs (results) are more telling than inputs (predictors). The reality is that IOLMs and oil characteristics do not do a great job of predicting wear. Many times something can go "abnormal" in a condition, and yet wear goes totally unaffected. I have over 16,000 UOAs in my database covering a wide ranges of equipment and lubes and environments; I would know if this were untrue. Most of the time there is no correlation between oil conditions and wear rates. Never confuse correlation for causation. Without correlation there can be no causation.
 
Top