3ppm per 1000 miles, we shall see tomorrow. Ill have another 1k to add up. be interesting to see the changes.
2017 F150 2.7l DIY Bypass
- Thread starter Purpfox
- Start date
- Status
dnewton3
Staff member
3ppm/1k miles for Fe is very, very "normal" over a broad spectrum of examples, and many engines actually exhibit less as an average, even those without BP filtration.
Here my two 4.6L engines both average less than 1ppm/1k miles, on 10k mile OCIs, on just about any oil you feed them. See the most recent UOAs on page 5.
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...22/5/5w-20-ford-4-6l-engines-uoa-testing
Here my two 4.6L engines both average less than 1ppm/1k miles, on 10k mile OCIs, on just about any oil you feed them. See the most recent UOAs on page 5.
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...22/5/5w-20-ford-4-6l-engines-uoa-testing
Last edited:
dnewton, absolutly correct. Im a bit heavvy on the throttle with this truck. twin turbos, with a nice tune make for a good time. I'd be willing to bet that if i went back to the stock tune i would likley reduce the iron. 18-20 psi of boost puts a little more strain than the oem 14-15 psi. I a satisfied with 3ppm Fe for my driving habbits.
I dispute the "wear metals per mile" hypothesis as either a measure of engine wear rate or an oil's performance. There are many reasons for this and there is not time enough to describe all of them. However, everything from oil related deposits to individual component wear (such as a single, fuel pump cam lobe, such as the Audi failures) can wildly skew the numbers. Leading to meaningless data in either direction.
In the aviation world, it's not only commonplace but 100% required (on some engines) to perform oil analysis. We regularly see worn out engines that are physically coming apart, providing superb wear metal numbers. This aircraft engine camshaft is example number 1, with superb UOA results and a significant wear rate:
![[Linked Image]](http://cujet.com/assets/images/DSC00149_resize_with_arrow.jpg "[Linked Image]")
With that in mind, I'm much more interested in the particle counts. With my point of view, circulating particulates are a major cause of timing chain wear. Elimination of said particulates, along with sufficient viscosity is and has always been, the answer to long chain life. Furthermore, it seems sufficient viscosity is also a factor in ring/cylinder life, independent of UOA results.
In the aviation world, it's not only commonplace but 100% required (on some engines) to perform oil analysis. We regularly see worn out engines that are physically coming apart, providing superb wear metal numbers. This aircraft engine camshaft is example number 1, with superb UOA results and a significant wear rate:
With that in mind, I'm much more interested in the particle counts. With my point of view, circulating particulates are a major cause of timing chain wear. Elimination of said particulates, along with sufficient viscosity is and has always been, the answer to long chain life. Furthermore, it seems sufficient viscosity is also a factor in ring/cylinder life, independent of UOA results.
Last edited:
Well some interesting findings this evening. Particle count took a jump back up. Not sure where or why it would jump up like this
Code
Sample # 40543 40442
Lab #
Analyst
Unique ID 40543 40442
Wear Status 0 0
Cont Status 0 0
Chem Status 21 21
Unit Usage 47500 46750
Oil Usage 1750 1000
Oil Added
Aluminum 1.78 2.1 2.2
Antimony 0 0.92 0.47
Barium 0 0.05 0.01
Boron 277.25 192.25 238.81
Cadmium 0.26 0.83 0.17
Calcium 3,018 2,598 2,816
Chromium 0 0.2 0.15
Copper 0.04 0.76 0.59
Iron 1.3 5.1 5
Lead 0 0 0
Magnesium 23.12 105.37 105.41
Molybdenum 89.5 69.76 80.75
Nickel 0 0.4 0.21
Phosphorus 893.6 796.16 919.8
Potassium 2.03 1.84 1.73
Silicon 5.96 6.68 6.58
Silver 0.04 0.04 0.03
Sodium 3.58 4.94 4.93
Tin 0.36 0 0
Vanadium 2.1 1.77 2.44
Zinc 1,181 1,107 1,160
Manganese 0 0 0
Titanium 0 0.32 0.42
Add Depletion 60 76
Cnts >4 7,291 1,404
Cnts >6 645 290
Cnts >10 73 55
Cnts >14 36 32
Cnts >18 13 13
Cnts >22 10 5
Cnts >26 6 5
Cnts >32 4 3
Cnts >38 3 2
Cnts >56 1 1
Cnts >70 0.5 1
ISO >4 20 18
ISO >6 17 15
ISO >14 12 12
Glycol Vol 0.1168 0
IR Oxidation 11.53 14.8 14.29
IR Nitration 4.95 15.14 12.77
IR Sulfation 34.27 32.6 32.71
Visc 40C 70.7 60 60.1
Visc 100C 13 11.4 11.4
Visc Idx 186
Total Base 12.61 11.02 11.5
Spec Gravity 0.8456
PC Vol < 6u 0.37 0.07
PC Vol 6-14u 0.15 0.07
PC Vol >14u 0.4 0.17
Soot LEM/TGA 0.028 0
MxD Ot >25 0 0
PPM Water 0 0
MxD Ot >50 0 0
Total Fe 0 0
Total Non Fe
Fe >21
Fe >25 0 0
Fe >50 0 0
Fe >100 0 0
Fe >38 0 0
Fe >70
Code
Sample # 40543 40442
Lab #
Analyst
Unique ID 40543 40442
Wear Status 0 0
Cont Status 0 0
Chem Status 21 21
Unit Usage 47500 46750
Oil Usage 1750 1000
Oil Added
Aluminum 1.78 2.1 2.2
Antimony 0 0.92 0.47
Barium 0 0.05 0.01
Boron 277.25 192.25 238.81
Cadmium 0.26 0.83 0.17
Calcium 3,018 2,598 2,816
Chromium 0 0.2 0.15
Copper 0.04 0.76 0.59
Iron 1.3 5.1 5
Lead 0 0 0
Magnesium 23.12 105.37 105.41
Molybdenum 89.5 69.76 80.75
Nickel 0 0.4 0.21
Phosphorus 893.6 796.16 919.8
Potassium 2.03 1.84 1.73
Silicon 5.96 6.68 6.58
Silver 0.04 0.04 0.03
Sodium 3.58 4.94 4.93
Tin 0.36 0 0
Vanadium 2.1 1.77 2.44
Zinc 1,181 1,107 1,160
Manganese 0 0 0
Titanium 0 0.32 0.42
Add Depletion 60 76
Cnts >4 7,291 1,404
Cnts >6 645 290
Cnts >10 73 55
Cnts >14 36 32
Cnts >18 13 13
Cnts >22 10 5
Cnts >26 6 5
Cnts >32 4 3
Cnts >38 3 2
Cnts >56 1 1
Cnts >70 0.5 1
ISO >4 20 18
ISO >6 17 15
ISO >14 12 12
Glycol Vol 0.1168 0
IR Oxidation 11.53 14.8 14.29
IR Nitration 4.95 15.14 12.77
IR Sulfation 34.27 32.6 32.71
Visc 40C 70.7 60 60.1
Visc 100C 13 11.4 11.4
Visc Idx 186
Total Base 12.61 11.02 11.5
Spec Gravity 0.8456
PC Vol < 6u 0.37 0.07
PC Vol 6-14u 0.15 0.07
PC Vol >14u 0.4 0.17
Soot LEM/TGA 0.028 0
MxD Ot >25 0 0
PPM Water 0 0
MxD Ot >50 0 0
Total Fe 0 0
Total Non Fe
Fe >21
Fe >25 0 0
Fe >50 0 0
Fe >100 0 0
Fe >38 0 0
Fe >70
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted by Cujet
I dispute the "wear metals per mile" hypothesis as either a measure of engine wear rate or an oil's performance. There are many reasons for this and there is not time enough to describe all of them. However, everything from oil related deposits to individual component wear (such as a single, fuel pump cam lobe, such as the Audi failures) can wildly skew the numbers. Leading to meaningless data in either direction.
In the aviation world, it's not only commonplace but 100% required (on some engines) to perform oil analysis. We regularly see worn out engines that are physically coming apart, providing superb wear metal numbers. This aircraft engine camshaft is example number 1, with superb UOA results and a significant wear rate:
With that in mind, I'm much more interested in the particle counts. With my point of view, circulating particulates are a major cause of timing chain wear. Elimination of said particulates, along with sufficient viscosity is and has always been, the answer to long chain life. Furthermore, it seems sufficient viscosity is also a factor in ring/cylinder life, independent of UOA results.
The aviation world sees far different operating conditions and extremes, including lower oxygen concentrations resulting in A/F corrections and considerations, severe temps swings, leaded fuel, redundancy in design (for obvious reasons), different metals used in some applications, different fuel delivery methods, different oil pump systems, etc.
It is true that there are times UOAs will not pick up all wear, especially when the wear particles are larger than what the UOA will detect. But there are LOTS of examples where wear rates were accurately tracked, and used to decipher/discover a wear problem. And there are lots of UOAs that show good wear, and were confirmed in tear down.
Knowing the engine design unique characteristics is key, as it the operational conditions. Engines that don't have a real Achilles heel can fair very well with UOAs to track wear, despite your objections.
You assert that PCs are going to help understand the conditions? OK- to what end? Show me the correlation between PCs and timing chain failure, or more importantly, how we can use PCs to predict timing chain wear, and when it would be prudent to change the timing chain before failure. And what size particle is the delineation of where timing chain wear becomes affected? And is this true for all manner of timing chains, or is it different for link-plate versus roller? Single or double row? Show me any data that helps us use PCs as a predictive tool to understand wear rates and when to change oil and/or a lubricated component.
I don't disagree that reducing a particle counts is a good thing; tighter filtration leads to less foreign material in the bloodstream so to speak. But how does one use the PC tool to a meaningful useful end? Show me the data that indicates it's actually helpful as a PREDICTIVE TOOL and not a reactive tool.
Further, where UOAs can tell us composition of the elements, PCs cannot. PCs tell us size and quantity, nothing more. PCs cannot distinguish between Fe (and the steel components thereof), Cu, Al, Pb, etc. If you saw an uptick in the PC quantity, what does that tell you besides "Hey, there's more stuff in here!" The PC has no ability to direct you to a potential source of the wear metal. In fact, PCs won't even tell you if it's metal, or soot, or some other insoluble. PCs cannot distinguish the make-up of the particles.
You state that UOAs are not accurate, but there are LOTS of SAE studies that show good correlation between UOA wear data and other physical measurements such as component mass weight assessment, electron bombardment, etc. There is even data that shows there is good correlation between PCs and UOA wear data in an SAE study.
I'll entertain your dissension, but you need to bring facts to the table for the discussion please. Make a claim? Back it up please. Show me that PCs are more accurate and useful than UOAs, if that is your claim. How would we use a PC analysis to accurately predict wear trends, and determine potential contributor of the wear condition?
I dispute the "wear metals per mile" hypothesis as either a measure of engine wear rate or an oil's performance. There are many reasons for this and there is not time enough to describe all of them. However, everything from oil related deposits to individual component wear (such as a single, fuel pump cam lobe, such as the Audi failures) can wildly skew the numbers. Leading to meaningless data in either direction.
In the aviation world, it's not only commonplace but 100% required (on some engines) to perform oil analysis. We regularly see worn out engines that are physically coming apart, providing superb wear metal numbers. This aircraft engine camshaft is example number 1, with superb UOA results and a significant wear rate:
With that in mind, I'm much more interested in the particle counts. With my point of view, circulating particulates are a major cause of timing chain wear. Elimination of said particulates, along with sufficient viscosity is and has always been, the answer to long chain life. Furthermore, it seems sufficient viscosity is also a factor in ring/cylinder life, independent of UOA results.
The aviation world sees far different operating conditions and extremes, including lower oxygen concentrations resulting in A/F corrections and considerations, severe temps swings, leaded fuel, redundancy in design (for obvious reasons), different metals used in some applications, different fuel delivery methods, different oil pump systems, etc.
It is true that there are times UOAs will not pick up all wear, especially when the wear particles are larger than what the UOA will detect. But there are LOTS of examples where wear rates were accurately tracked, and used to decipher/discover a wear problem. And there are lots of UOAs that show good wear, and were confirmed in tear down.
Knowing the engine design unique characteristics is key, as it the operational conditions. Engines that don't have a real Achilles heel can fair very well with UOAs to track wear, despite your objections.
You assert that PCs are going to help understand the conditions? OK- to what end? Show me the correlation between PCs and timing chain failure, or more importantly, how we can use PCs to predict timing chain wear, and when it would be prudent to change the timing chain before failure. And what size particle is the delineation of where timing chain wear becomes affected? And is this true for all manner of timing chains, or is it different for link-plate versus roller? Single or double row? Show me any data that helps us use PCs as a predictive tool to understand wear rates and when to change oil and/or a lubricated component.
I don't disagree that reducing a particle counts is a good thing; tighter filtration leads to less foreign material in the bloodstream so to speak. But how does one use the PC tool to a meaningful useful end? Show me the data that indicates it's actually helpful as a PREDICTIVE TOOL and not a reactive tool.
Further, where UOAs can tell us composition of the elements, PCs cannot. PCs tell us size and quantity, nothing more. PCs cannot distinguish between Fe (and the steel components thereof), Cu, Al, Pb, etc. If you saw an uptick in the PC quantity, what does that tell you besides "Hey, there's more stuff in here!" The PC has no ability to direct you to a potential source of the wear metal. In fact, PCs won't even tell you if it's metal, or soot, or some other insoluble. PCs cannot distinguish the make-up of the particles.
You state that UOAs are not accurate, but there are LOTS of SAE studies that show good correlation between UOA wear data and other physical measurements such as component mass weight assessment, electron bombardment, etc. There is even data that shows there is good correlation between PCs and UOA wear data in an SAE study.
I'll entertain your dissension, but you need to bring facts to the table for the discussion please. Make a claim? Back it up please. Show me that PCs are more accurate and useful than UOAs, if that is your claim. How would we use a PC analysis to accurately predict wear trends, and determine potential contributor of the wear condition?
Last edited:
You can't use PC alone. You need feragrophy and spectrometry to validate the types of wear and what specific components can generate the wear. Oil analysis is just a tool. The more tools you use the better the quality of your results.
Update with referance and almost 3k miles
Code
Sample Date Oil Ref 2/14/19 2/7/19 1/30/19
Sample # 40549 40543 40442
Lab #
Analyst
Unique ID 40549 40543 40442
Wear Status 0 0 0
Cont Status 0 0 0
Chem Status 0 21 21
Unit Usage 48680 47500 46750
Oil Usage 2930 1750 1000
Oil Added
Aluminum 2 2 2 2
Antimony 0 4 1 0
Barium 0 0 0 0
Boron 277 197 192 239
Cadmium 0 0 1 0
Calcium 3018 2590 2598 2816
Chromium 0 0 0 0
Copper 0 1 1 1
Iron 1 8 5 5
Lead 0 0 0 0
Magnesium 23 107 105 105
Molybdenum 90 74 70 81
Nickel 0 1 0 0
Phosphorus 894 870 796 920
Potassium 2 2 2
Silicon 6 8 7 7
Silver 0 0 0 0
Sodium 4 5 5 5
Tin 0 0 0 0
Vanadium 2 2 2 2
Zinc 1181 1089 1107 1160
Manganese 0 0 0 0
Titanium 0 0 0 0
Add Depletion 57 60 76
Cnts >4 1,741 7,291 1,404
Cnts >6 193 645 290
Cnts >10 36 73 55
Cnts >14 15 36 32
Cnts >18 2 13 13
Cnts >22 0 10 5
Cnts >26 0 6 5
Cnts >32 0 4 3
Cnts >38 0 3 2
Cnts >56 0 1 1
Cnts >70 0 0.5 1
ISO >4 18 20 18
ISO >6 15 17 15
ISO >14 11 12 12
Glycol Vol 0.0261 0.1168 0
IR Fuel
IR Oxidation 11.53 16.08 14.8 14.29
IR Soot
IR Nitration 4.95 18.77 15.14 12.77
IR Sulfation 34.27 33.73 32.6 32.71
Visc 40C 70.7 64.2 60 60.1
Visc 100C 13 12.1 11.4 11.4
Visc Idx 186
Total Acid
Total Base 12.61 10.6 11.02 11.5
Specific Grav 0.8456
PC Vol < 6u 0.09 0.37 0.07
PC Vol 6-14u 0.05 0.15 0.07
PC Vol >14u 0.03 0.4 0.17
Soot LEM/TGA 0.029 0.028 0
Soot Vol
PPM Water 0 0 0
Code
Sample Date Oil Ref 2/14/19 2/7/19 1/30/19
Sample # 40549 40543 40442
Lab #
Analyst
Unique ID 40549 40543 40442
Wear Status 0 0 0
Cont Status 0 0 0
Chem Status 0 21 21
Unit Usage 48680 47500 46750
Oil Usage 2930 1750 1000
Oil Added
Aluminum 2 2 2 2
Antimony 0 4 1 0
Barium 0 0 0 0
Boron 277 197 192 239
Cadmium 0 0 1 0
Calcium 3018 2590 2598 2816
Chromium 0 0 0 0
Copper 0 1 1 1
Iron 1 8 5 5
Lead 0 0 0 0
Magnesium 23 107 105 105
Molybdenum 90 74 70 81
Nickel 0 1 0 0
Phosphorus 894 870 796 920
Potassium 2 2 2
Silicon 6 8 7 7
Silver 0 0 0 0
Sodium 4 5 5 5
Tin 0 0 0 0
Vanadium 2 2 2 2
Zinc 1181 1089 1107 1160
Manganese 0 0 0 0
Titanium 0 0 0 0
Add Depletion 57 60 76
Cnts >4 1,741 7,291 1,404
Cnts >6 193 645 290
Cnts >10 36 73 55
Cnts >14 15 36 32
Cnts >18 2 13 13
Cnts >22 0 10 5
Cnts >26 0 6 5
Cnts >32 0 4 3
Cnts >38 0 3 2
Cnts >56 0 1 1
Cnts >70 0 0.5 1
ISO >4 18 20 18
ISO >6 15 17 15
ISO >14 11 12 12
Glycol Vol 0.0261 0.1168 0
IR Fuel
IR Oxidation 11.53 16.08 14.8 14.29
IR Soot
IR Nitration 4.95 18.77 15.14 12.77
IR Sulfation 34.27 33.73 32.6 32.71
Visc 40C 70.7 64.2 60 60.1
Visc 100C 13 12.1 11.4 11.4
Visc Idx 186
Total Acid
Total Base 12.61 10.6 11.02 11.5
Specific Grav 0.8456
PC Vol < 6u 0.09 0.37 0.07
PC Vol 6-14u 0.05 0.15 0.07
PC Vol >14u 0.03 0.4 0.17
Soot LEM/TGA 0.029 0.028 0
Soot Vol
PPM Water 0 0 0
Still would like to know what contaminated the last sample, unless i had a pair or sub par bottles. Ill be cleaning my air filters this weekend and inspect for any intrusion points.
I almost want to swap in a fram tg to see if it helps bring the numbers down from the oem filter.
I almost want to swap in a fram tg to see if it helps bring the numbers down from the oem filter.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted by Purpfox
You can't use PC alone. You need feragrophy and spectrometry to validate the types of wear and what specific components can generate the wear. Oil analysis is just a tool. The more tools you use the better the quality of your results.
Now THAT I do agree with! I've always said that UOAs are a tool, and just one of many you can use to put together a more accurate (admittedly not perfect) picture of the health of equipment. Sad thing is that most folks don't understand how to use the tools; the pros and cons of each tool often escape people.
UOAs (both macro and micro data), PCs, visual inspections, audible clues, equipment genealogy and unique history, etc ..... these all go into a toolbox to help us understand the long term effects and short term causes of life-cycle issues.
You can't use PC alone. You need feragrophy and spectrometry to validate the types of wear and what specific components can generate the wear. Oil analysis is just a tool. The more tools you use the better the quality of your results.
Now THAT I do agree with! I've always said that UOAs are a tool, and just one of many you can use to put together a more accurate (admittedly not perfect) picture of the health of equipment. Sad thing is that most folks don't understand how to use the tools; the pros and cons of each tool often escape people.
UOAs (both macro and micro data), PCs, visual inspections, audible clues, equipment genealogy and unique history, etc ..... these all go into a toolbox to help us understand the long term effects and short term causes of life-cycle issues.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Cujet
I dispute the "wear metals per mile" hypothesis as either a measure of engine wear rate or an oil's performance. There are many reasons for this and there is not time enough to describe all of them. However, everything from oil related deposits to individual component wear (such as a single, fuel pump cam lobe, such as the Audi failures) can wildly skew the numbers. Leading to meaningless data in either direction.
In the aviation world, it's not only commonplace but 100% required (on some engines) to perform oil analysis. We regularly see worn out engines that are physically coming apart, providing superb wear metal numbers. This aircraft engine camshaft is example number 1, with superb UOA results and a significant wear rate:
With that in mind, I'm much more interested in the particle counts. With my point of view, circulating particulates are a major cause of timing chain wear. Elimination of said particulates, along with sufficient viscosity is and has always been, the answer to long chain life. Furthermore, it seems sufficient viscosity is also a factor in ring/cylinder life, independent of UOA results.
I am wondering if the meta loff the cam lobes is too large for the uoa machine to read?
I dispute the "wear metals per mile" hypothesis as either a measure of engine wear rate or an oil's performance. There are many reasons for this and there is not time enough to describe all of them. However, everything from oil related deposits to individual component wear (such as a single, fuel pump cam lobe, such as the Audi failures) can wildly skew the numbers. Leading to meaningless data in either direction.
In the aviation world, it's not only commonplace but 100% required (on some engines) to perform oil analysis. We regularly see worn out engines that are physically coming apart, providing superb wear metal numbers. This aircraft engine camshaft is example number 1, with superb UOA results and a significant wear rate:
With that in mind, I'm much more interested in the particle counts. With my point of view, circulating particulates are a major cause of timing chain wear. Elimination of said particulates, along with sufficient viscosity is and has always been, the answer to long chain life. Furthermore, it seems sufficient viscosity is also a factor in ring/cylinder life, independent of UOA results.
I am wondering if the meta loff the cam lobes is too large for the uoa machine to read?
As to the cam wear, if it was large particles a feragrophy would have been needed to se those. Or a patch made.
The ow40 is doing great so far. 250 miles left for the next 1000mile sample. No change in fuel economy either. Viscosity shows to be more stable and tbn should last to 10k plus.
The ow40 is doing great so far. 250 miles left for the next 1000mile sample. No change in fuel economy either. Viscosity shows to be more stable and tbn should last to 10k plus.
Originally Posted by Purpfox
As to the cam wear, if it was large particles a feragrophy would have been needed to se those. Or a patch made.
The ow40 is doing great so far. 250 miles left for the next 1000mile sample. No change in fuel economy either. Viscosity shows to be more stable and tbn should last to 10k plus.
Thank you.
As to the cam wear, if it was large particles a feragrophy would have been needed to se those. Or a patch made.
The ow40 is doing great so far. 250 miles left for the next 1000mile sample. No change in fuel economy either. Viscosity shows to be more stable and tbn should last to 10k plus.
Thank you.
Any updates?
Updates, at least on the 2.7 EcoBoost even the 5 um beta 1000 filter could not bring down the particle count. At least not in combination with oem cartridge filter.
I just upgraded to the 18 3.5 EcoBoost. Hopefully after we move into the new house in August i can set up something for the new truck to test, and be able to run a quality oil filter
I just upgraded to the 18 3.5 EcoBoost. Hopefully after we move into the new house in August i can set up something for the new truck to test, and be able to run a quality oil filter
Originally Posted by Purpfox
Updates, at least on the 2.7 EcoBoost even the 5 um beta 1000 filter could not bring down the particle count. At least not in combination with oem cartridge filter.
You need an honest "depth-filtration" style filter to really make a difference. Like the good ol' Frantz toilet paper roll.
Updates, at least on the 2.7 EcoBoost even the 5 um beta 1000 filter could not bring down the particle count. At least not in combination with oem cartridge filter.
You need an honest "depth-filtration" style filter to really make a difference. Like the good ol' Frantz toilet paper roll.
That may be a test on the 3.5 ecoboost, but first I'm testing some base lines with the fram filter only until i can find a suitable Frantz type system.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked