He provided an explanation however it completely discounts Dysons’ analysis and my own experience seeing tin in a UOA while using a solvent based additive which was also Stanadyne PF. Coincidence? It must be…
It also assumes all constituents of the additive that make it into the oil don’t boil off at the normal operating temp and stay in complete balance. I do not have the knowledge or time to research this to see if would stay in equilibrium and if the additive cSt would be the same as you say.
And also discounting my own experience seeing 8% FD and dropping less than 1 cSt after 6500 miles with 10w30. My viscosity loss was less than half what you had. Also with 60% more fuel in my sample. I understand VI plays a part in this ratio but it’s not that significant since we’re comparing 10w30 vs 10w30 in a common rail engine. My last UOA is posted on here.
You do your testing with the HPL 5w40 and I’ll be the observer to see what happens. I look forward to seeing the results.
The result of the lack of viscosity loss from your 8% fuel run is most likely from oxidative thickening. Or possibly an error with viscosity measurement. I would have asked for a retest of fuel and viscosity if I saw that, but that is just me..
Just a little FYI, the 6.7 PSD does not contain tin in its bearings.
Last edited: