2017 Ford F-150 2.7 Ecoboost
- Thread starter bigj_16
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Even if it is 5W-20, over at PQIA, the visco of the virgin is 8.54, which means it is shearing/diluting pretty fast. This upcoming M1 EP sample is going to be the one I am really interested in. Unfortunately, it is 2800 miles of highway roadtrip (80-85 mph), mostly, rather than the combination of city/highway in these UOA's. Still, it should give an indicator of shear/dilution.
You may want to try another lab if you suspect fuel dilution. Unless something has changed at Blackstone, they cannot accurately measure fuel levels.
Yep. This is a TGDI engine. Lots of fuel in the crankcase is typical.
OAI can measure fuel in the oil.
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Even if it is 5W-20, over at PQIA, the visco of the virgin is 8.54, which means it is shearing/diluting pretty fast. This upcoming M1 EP sample is going to be the one I am really interested in. Unfortunately, it is 2800 miles of highway roadtrip (80-85 mph), mostly, rather than the combination of city/highway in these UOA's. Still, it should give an indicator of shear/dilution.
You may want to try another lab if you suspect fuel dilution. Unless something has changed at Blackstone, they cannot accurately measure fuel levels.
Yep. This is a TGDI engine. Lots of fuel in the crankcase is typical.
OAI can measure fuel in the oil.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
While fuel dilution is discussed here with great enthusiasm there is nothing to indicate that it affects engine life materially.
Since everyone else is off topic here's my bit on early changes. There was a time when they seemed like a good idea. Still do to many. Yet our LS based truck engines, both 6.0 and 5.3 can run to half a million miles and do thousands of hours of stationary operation, hauling a 9000+ pound load in Florida climate with the oil changed strictly by the OLM.
Maybe those fords have a bad OLM or it needs reprogramming. GM had issues with engines needing shorter intervals.
I think Ford is looking to the new GF-6 oil to "remedy" thier oil issues. Nothing to back this up. Just a guess.
Steve, if this were the Coyote motor or another NA port injected engine, I would totally agree with you. These TGDI engines, are almost a whole new ball game. 10 years from now, we will probably be laughing at this, but right now there are some real issues to address, such as LSPI and shearing/dilution.
And since I started this thread, feel free to hijack it
While fuel dilution is discussed here with great enthusiasm there is nothing to indicate that it affects engine life materially.
Since everyone else is off topic here's my bit on early changes. There was a time when they seemed like a good idea. Still do to many. Yet our LS based truck engines, both 6.0 and 5.3 can run to half a million miles and do thousands of hours of stationary operation, hauling a 9000+ pound load in Florida climate with the oil changed strictly by the OLM.
Maybe those fords have a bad OLM or it needs reprogramming. GM had issues with engines needing shorter intervals.
I think Ford is looking to the new GF-6 oil to "remedy" thier oil issues. Nothing to back this up. Just a guess.
Steve, if this were the Coyote motor or another NA port injected engine, I would totally agree with you. These TGDI engines, are almost a whole new ball game. 10 years from now, we will probably be laughing at this, but right now there are some real issues to address, such as LSPI and shearing/dilution.
And since I started this thread, feel free to hijack it
Last edited:
I have to confess I am pretty much clueless when it comes to a UOA .
Sheer is the breaking down of long oil molecules ?
Fuel dilution is having gas in the oil ?
If I am accurately grasping a tiny bit of all of this , I think I would favor a shorter OCI , over a longer OCI ?
Thanks ,
Sheer is the breaking down of long oil molecules ?
Fuel dilution is having gas in the oil ?
If I am accurately grasping a tiny bit of all of this , I think I would favor a shorter OCI , over a longer OCI ?
Thanks ,
Looking at your lab results, the results of my 2014 Chevy Silverado with the 5.3 direct injection engine with 7.5K miles on the oil change using 0W-20 is almost identical.
Originally Posted By: delasueno
Looking at your lab results, the results of my 2014 Chevy Silverado with the 5.3 direct injection engine with 7.5K miles on the oil change using 0W-20 is almost identical.
Would it be possible to post it or link?
Looking at your lab results, the results of my 2014 Chevy Silverado with the 5.3 direct injection engine with 7.5K miles on the oil change using 0W-20 is almost identical.
Would it be possible to post it or link?
While it's not a V-6 2.7 EcoBoost it's the 2.3 EcoBoost in our 2017 Explorer which I had an UOA done recently. I changed out the ff at 2,000 miles with the dealers conventional oil, hopefully 5W-30, after another 3,200 miles I changed to Mobil 1 5W-30. I did not do an UOA for either of those because I figured both were still full of break in material. After 7,000 miles with the I drained and did an UOA. Overall it was quiet good, though the 7,000 miles were done in a 2 month period, so mostly highway. My next fill is with Motorcraft 5W-30 for no more than 5,000 miles. 
Whimsey
Whimsey
Whimsey
I am paying attention to your UOA's!
The difference is that your engine is obviously not exactly the same. What is interesting, is that yours shows viscosity drop with a quality oil, although over a longer stretch of miles, and it is still in grade. I am going to be using M1 5W-30, hopefully the new Dexos Gen. 2.
I am paying attention to your UOA's!
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: CKN
Originally Posted By: FordBroncoVWJeta
Why have you done 2 oil changes with 3200 miles on the truck?
This is BITOG....money is flushed on here needlessly-that's why. That truck won't last longer than an owner following the factory recommended OCI.
That is most certainly not true. We've found that our Ford vehicles last longer with more frequent OCI's and in particular, higher viscosity. With modular engines lasting over 900K miles using 10W-40 and 5K oci's.
While there's merit to both cases, what's the point of spending money to make an engine last 900k when some other part of the car like the transmission or rust will do it in by the 200-400k range.
Originally Posted By: CKN
Originally Posted By: FordBroncoVWJeta
Why have you done 2 oil changes with 3200 miles on the truck?
This is BITOG....money is flushed on here needlessly-that's why. That truck won't last longer than an owner following the factory recommended OCI.
That is most certainly not true. We've found that our Ford vehicles last longer with more frequent OCI's and in particular, higher viscosity. With modular engines lasting over 900K miles using 10W-40 and 5K oci's.
While there's merit to both cases, what's the point of spending money to make an engine last 900k when some other part of the car like the transmission or rust will do it in by the 200-400k range.
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Whimsey
I am paying attention to your UOA's!
The difference is that your engine is obviously not exactly the same. What is interesting, is that yours shows viscosity drop with a quality oil, although over a longer stretch of miles, and it is still in grade. I am going to be using M1 5W-30, hopefully the new Dexos Gen. 2.
Keep in mind you sampled your oil early on and I did mine after removing the ff at 2,000 miles and the dealer's replacement oil after 3,200 miles of use. My UOA was after 7,000 miles on the 2nd replacement oil fill. Maybe the earlier oil changes before the UOA oil change helped with the UOA results. I will do an UOA with a 5,000 mile UOA with the Motorcraft 5W-30. I put it in because I had it and it's Ford's oil recommendation. But as I said I'll do no more than 5,000 miles with it. Then I'm back to Mobil 1 5w-30 as I've been able to keep accumulating that oil with their rebates.
Whimsey
Whimsey
I am paying attention to your UOA's!
Keep in mind you sampled your oil early on and I did mine after removing the ff at 2,000 miles and the dealer's replacement oil after 3,200 miles of use. My UOA was after 7,000 miles on the 2nd replacement oil fill. Maybe the earlier oil changes before the UOA oil change helped with the UOA results. I will do an UOA with a 5,000 mile UOA with the Motorcraft 5W-30. I put it in because I had it and it's Ford's oil recommendation. But as I said I'll do no more than 5,000 miles with it. Then I'm back to Mobil 1 5w-30 as I've been able to keep accumulating that oil with their rebates.
Whimsey
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: CKN
Originally Posted By: FordBroncoVWJeta
Why have you done 2 oil changes with 3200 miles on the truck?
This is BITOG....money is flushed on here needlessly-that's why. That truck won't last longer than an owner following the factory recommended OCI.
That is most certainly not true. We've found that our Ford vehicles last longer with more frequent OCI's and in particular, higher viscosity. With modular engines lasting over 900K miles using 10W-40 and 5K oci's.
While there's merit to both cases, what's the point of spending money to make an engine last 900k when some other part of the car like the transmission or rust will do it in by the 200-400k range.
He doesn't say he had an 2.7 last 900K.........
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: CKN
Originally Posted By: FordBroncoVWJeta
Why have you done 2 oil changes with 3200 miles on the truck?
This is BITOG....money is flushed on here needlessly-that's why. That truck won't last longer than an owner following the factory recommended OCI.
That is most certainly not true. We've found that our Ford vehicles last longer with more frequent OCI's and in particular, higher viscosity. With modular engines lasting over 900K miles using 10W-40 and 5K oci's.
While there's merit to both cases, what's the point of spending money to make an engine last 900k when some other part of the car like the transmission or rust will do it in by the 200-400k range.
He doesn't say he had an 2.7 last 900K.........
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 5,294
I don't think a lot of these small displacement high boost engines are going to go the distance like some of Ford's naturally aspirated larger displacement engines traditionally have.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,807
Originally Posted By: LoneRanger
I don't think a lot of these small displacement high boost engines are going to go the distance like some of Ford's naturally aspirated larger displacement engines traditionally have.
Likely, but it will be a good test to see how long it can last with that viscosity and dilution. My guess is the turbocharger will be the first problem (if there is one--a problem that is).
I don't think a lot of these small displacement high boost engines are going to go the distance like some of Ford's naturally aspirated larger displacement engines traditionally have.
Likely, but it will be a good test to see how long it can last with that viscosity and dilution. My guess is the turbocharger will be the first problem (if there is one--a problem that is).
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
While fuel dilution is discussed here with great enthusiasm there is nothing to indicate that it affects engine life materially.
Since everyone else is off topic here's my bit on early changes. There was a time when they seemed like a good idea. Still do to many. Yet our LS based truck engines, both 6.0 and 5.3 can run to half a million miles and do thousands of hours of stationary operation, hauling a 9000+ pound load in Florida climate with the oil changed strictly by the OLM.
Maybe those fords have a bad OLM or it needs reprogramming. GM had issues with engines needing shorter intervals.
I think Ford is looking to the new GF-6 oil to "remedy" thier oil issues. Nothing to back this up. Just a guess.
Steve, if this were the Coyote motor or another NA port injected engine, I would totally agree with you. These TGDI engines, are almost a whole new ball game. 10 years from now, we will probably be laughing at this, but right now there are some real issues to address, such as LSPI and shearing/dilution.
And since I started this thread, feel free to hijack it
Agree. The oil world has gotten pretty boring and predictable except for fuel dilution and LSPI, which seem to be THE issues now. As you point out this may be just a new normal and harmless. But absent any comforting comments from OEMs, we're just left to speculate.
On the other hand, Ford bumping up viscosity requirements for some EcoBoost engines, GM shortening OCIs for a good part of its DI fleet and Mazda seemingly resolving the issue suggest this phenomenon may not be altogether benign. And it makes one really wonder about makers that seemingly have done nothing, like Hyundai, Kia and Honda. Guess time will tell...
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
While fuel dilution is discussed here with great enthusiasm there is nothing to indicate that it affects engine life materially.
Since everyone else is off topic here's my bit on early changes. There was a time when they seemed like a good idea. Still do to many. Yet our LS based truck engines, both 6.0 and 5.3 can run to half a million miles and do thousands of hours of stationary operation, hauling a 9000+ pound load in Florida climate with the oil changed strictly by the OLM.
Maybe those fords have a bad OLM or it needs reprogramming. GM had issues with engines needing shorter intervals.
I think Ford is looking to the new GF-6 oil to "remedy" thier oil issues. Nothing to back this up. Just a guess.
Steve, if this were the Coyote motor or another NA port injected engine, I would totally agree with you. These TGDI engines, are almost a whole new ball game. 10 years from now, we will probably be laughing at this, but right now there are some real issues to address, such as LSPI and shearing/dilution.
And since I started this thread, feel free to hijack it
Agree. The oil world has gotten pretty boring and predictable except for fuel dilution and LSPI, which seem to be THE issues now. As you point out this may be just a new normal and harmless. But absent any comforting comments from OEMs, we're just left to speculate.
On the other hand, Ford bumping up viscosity requirements for some EcoBoost engines, GM shortening OCIs for a good part of its DI fleet and Mazda seemingly resolving the issue suggest this phenomenon may not be altogether benign. And it makes one really wonder about makers that seemingly have done nothing, like Hyundai, Kia and Honda. Guess time will tell...
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: LoneRanger
I don't think a lot of these small displacement high boost engines are going to go the distance like some of Ford's naturally aspirated larger displacement engines traditionally have.
Likely, but it will be a good test to see how long it can last with that viscosity and dilution. My guess is the turbocharger will be the first problem (if there is one--a problem that is).
One of my many concerns , too .
Thanks ,
Originally Posted By: LoneRanger
I don't think a lot of these small displacement high boost engines are going to go the distance like some of Ford's naturally aspirated larger displacement engines traditionally have.
Likely, but it will be a good test to see how long it can last with that viscosity and dilution. My guess is the turbocharger will be the first problem (if there is one--a problem that is).
One of my many concerns , too .
Thanks ,
Originally Posted By: LoneRanger
I don't think a lot of these small displacement high boost engines are going to go the distance like some of Ford's naturally aspirated larger displacement engines traditionally have.
I agree.
I don't think a lot of these small displacement high boost engines are going to go the distance like some of Ford's naturally aspirated larger displacement engines traditionally have.
I agree.
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: LoneRanger
I don't think a lot of these small displacement high boost engines are going to go the distance like some of Ford's naturally aspirated larger displacement engines traditionally have.
Likely, but it will be a good test to see how long it can last with that viscosity and dilution. My guess is the turbocharger will be the first problem (if there is one--a problem that is).
The first gen EB motors had some issues with timing chains, but turbos have never been an issue. Thankfully!
Originally Posted By: LoneRanger
I don't think a lot of these small displacement high boost engines are going to go the distance like some of Ford's naturally aspirated larger displacement engines traditionally have.
Likely, but it will be a good test to see how long it can last with that viscosity and dilution. My guess is the turbocharger will be the first problem (if there is one--a problem that is).
The first gen EB motors had some issues with timing chains, but turbos have never been an issue. Thankfully!
Timing chain ? Isn't that sort of mature technology ?
How long have timing chains been used on engines ?
Wonder if a bean counter mandated reducing cost on a perfectly goof part / system that worked . And ended up causing problems ? I just wonder ?
Best wishes ,
How long have timing chains been used on engines ?
Wonder if a bean counter mandated reducing cost on a perfectly goof part / system that worked . And ended up causing problems ? I just wonder ?
Best wishes ,
I suspect that 5W20 was installed in both vehicles that the original poster put up. The second one had a bit of fuel dilute I think, but not enough to be flagged for a concern. (Probably in the neighborhood of 1%)
And that second one was just a bit thinner than the first.
And that second one was just a bit thinner than the first.
Originally Posted By: Whimsey
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Whimsey
I am paying attention to your UOA's!
The difference is that your engine is obviously not exactly the same. What is interesting, is that yours shows viscosity drop with a quality oil, although over a longer stretch of miles, and it is still in grade. I am going to be using M1 5W-30, hopefully the new Dexos Gen. 2.
Keep in mind you sampled your oil early on and I did mine after removing the ff at 2,000 miles and the dealer's replacement oil after 3,200 miles of use. My UOA was after 7,000 miles on the 2nd replacement oil fill. Maybe the earlier oil changes before the UOA oil change helped with the UOA results. I will do an UOA with a 5,000 mile UOA with the Motorcraft 5W-30. I put it in because I had it and it's Ford's oil recommendation. But as I said I'll do no more than 5,000 miles with it. Then I'm back to Mobil 1 5w-30 as I've been able to keep accumulating that oil with their rebates.
Whimsey
Are you going to do a UOA on the MC?
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Whimsey
I am paying attention to your UOA's!
Keep in mind you sampled your oil early on and I did mine after removing the ff at 2,000 miles and the dealer's replacement oil after 3,200 miles of use. My UOA was after 7,000 miles on the 2nd replacement oil fill. Maybe the earlier oil changes before the UOA oil change helped with the UOA results. I will do an UOA with a 5,000 mile UOA with the Motorcraft 5W-30. I put it in because I had it and it's Ford's oil recommendation. But as I said I'll do no more than 5,000 miles with it. Then I'm back to Mobil 1 5w-30 as I've been able to keep accumulating that oil with their rebates.
Whimsey
Are you going to do a UOA on the MC?
- Status
Similar threads
