Motorcraft 5-20 9.2K, 7% IOLM 3.7L Ford

[jimbrewer]

Thank all of you for your thoughtful comments. Here is what I conclude:

1. No one offered a theory as to why TBN remained so high on a 9,000 mile run. So I'll offer my own speculation. I'm a short-haul driver. The basic (that is, alkaline) chemicals in the oil require more time at operating temperature to do their work than I can give them. That would also partially explain why the Ford IOLM seems to continue to reward me with a slow-moving clock for a few days after I take one of my infrequent long trips.

2. I'm not sure if I am impressed with the IOLM or if the Motorcraft oil is so stout it doesn't make any difference. It's true that the IOLM seemed to be pretty accurate, again, but I was creeping close to the automatic condemnation level of 10,000 miles. It may have been simply counting down the miles by then. I could have jumped in the car driven a thousand miles and it wouldn't have missed a beat based on the UOA. I conclude that the Motorcraft oil and the IOLM are both overengineered.

3. I need to step it up on changing the air filter. the undissolved solids number was very low, and silicon was about a third below average levels, so I'm not too worried. I know I changed it at least once before. Has it really been 30,000 miles? It didn't look so bad. I changed it on solar eclipse day. Maybe I should make a mental note to change my air filter every time there is a solar eclipse. I'll look around for some of that sealing grease you guys were talking about and maybe try and be a little more careful in the air filter department.

So, I learned something. There's a concrete step for me to take to take better care of my car. It doesn't involve mindlessly changing my oil at earlier and earlier intervals.

 

[oil_film_movies]

The iOLM was right.
You really did have 7% left, or around a thousand miles, left on the oil, so you changed it a bit early. Probably good to change it at 7% since it makes double-certain the pentane insolubles (aka, 'PIN' or sludge and oxidation) don't start affecting things. Your viscosity was perfect, so not much PIN was happening yet, as viscosity goes up when PIN gets out of hand.
The 1 ppm of tin must be from a little getting loose from the crank journal bearings, but 1 ppm is pretty small.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: jimbrewer
I need to step it up on changing the air filter. the undissolved solids number was very low, and silicon was about a third below average levels, so I'm not too worried. I know I changed it at least once before. Has it really been 30,000 miles? It didn't look so bad. I changed it on solar eclipse day. Maybe I should make a mental note to change my air filter every time there is a solar eclipse. I'll look around for some of that sealing grease you guys were talking about and maybe try and be a little more careful in the air filter department.
K&N makes some good air filter grease (but not good air filters) at a decent price on Amazon. Switch to a WIX or NAPA Gold filter instead of Motorcraft. I saw a substantial reduction in silicon by doing so.

 

[Kuato]

Originally Posted By: jimbrewer
Evidently so. I had forgotten about the M-1 controversy. The numbers I see for the Mazda 3 below are commensurate.

Still wondering about the high TBN. Found the VOA from Blackstone on another site: 7.1. Still seems unnecessarily high for 9K.


TBN depletion is not linear; it slows as the OCI progresses and you want it to stay high. This has been seen in many many UOAs.

TAN can be concerning when it gets high, but the virgin TAN has to be taken into account since it is the amount of increase that's important.....on my phone right now so won't search for the MC virgin UOA but may have a look later.

 

[timeau]

Originally Posted By: parshisa
Oil should’ve been dumped way before. Never let TAN to go over TBN

+1.
Definitely.

 

[rodinator1234]

There is nothing in this report that would scare me. I would continue your same routine, maybe check the air filter seal. The reality is this engine will last the life of the truck with this regime.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: timeau
Originally Posted By: parshisa
Oil should’ve been dumped way before. Never let TAN to go over TBN
+1. Definitely.
Baloney. What did the increased TAN do to the engine that would cause any concern? Wear rates are well under control and the oil is still within viscosity with low insolubles. Without knowing the virgin TAN reading to compare to the rise of TAN nothing can be stated regarding that and even with that number, the UOA is still fine.

 

[bbhero]

This is the rare occasion I would disagree with you my friend. TAN twice the TBN is not desirable in my opinion. This oil was getting ready to go into really bad mode in short order. I would rather have seen TBN at 2.5 and TAN at 4.0 maybe as high as 4.5. But going two times as much means it is getting too close to becoming no good for the motor. One part of this I think can be said though is that the OLM was quite accurate. But at the end of a run tolerances for the oil to get really bad really quickly likely get pretty tight. I would rather not get so close to dancing with that devil so to speak.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: bbhero
This is the rare occasion I would disagree with you my friend. TAN twice the TBN is not desirable in my opinion. This oil was getting ready to go into really bad mode in short order. I would rather have seen TBN at 2.5 and TAN at 4.0 maybe as high as 4.5. But going two times as much means it is getting too close to becoming no good for the motor. One part of this I think can be said though is that the OLM was quite accurate. But at the end of a run tolerances for the oil to get really bad really quickly likely get pretty tight. I would rather not get so close to dancing with that devil so to speak.
If the TBN was at 1.0 or less OR if wear rates were higher I might agree. To be sure, I am not saying the run should have been extended much further, but there is simply nothing here that indicates anything is out of the norm or provides any cause for concern.

 

[bbhero]

Yeah that's a good point there. And I think that what you've said is true.
I guess I would just have changed it put earlier to have a bit more "cushion" so to speak.. instead of running it down to 7%. But the OP did get a very good baseline from doing this way.

 

[KCJeep]

I am surprised (but guess I shouldn't be) at the nitpicking. This is a fabulous UOA and yet another strong, strong showing for Phillip 66's incredible blends. For 9,200 miles, all these numbers are just fine. Beyond fine, great actually.

I don't know the 3.7...is that a progression of the well known 3.5 introduced around 08 or 09? I am not a fan of 20 grades but this UOA gives me nothing to criticize. All I can say is that maybe, just maybe, the aluminum would have been around 2 or 3 ppm on a 5w30 of the same oil.

 

[bigj_16]

The 3.7 is a very good engine. I had two of them. Unfortunately, that size is only available in a few Lincolns now. It has been downsized to 3.5 and 3.3 in most other applications.

 

[KCJeep]

I have the 3.5 in my MKZ...have seen a select few newer ones with the 3.7 but most are 2.0 turbos. My understanding is the 3.5 I have now progressed into the well known 3.5 Ecoboost common in F150's. At any rate it seems to be a top rate engine in either version.

 

[Pajero]

New Mexico is a large sandbox full of dust! With the exception of some parts of northern NM. I added a snorkel due to dust!




Respectfully,

Pajero!

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: Pajero
New Mexico is a large sandbox full of dust! With the exception of some parts of northern NM. I added a snorkel due to dust!
Could be, but Texas is not much better at times. If the OP is using an MC filter, my experience is they pass more silicon than other brands. I would also double check all connections to ensure there are no leaks. 21 PPM is not the end of the world, but it is higher than I would like to see on a 10K UOA.

 

[jimbrewer]

The TAN vs. TBN thing is interesting. One school ( D. Newton) says TBN should be no higher than TAN.
The other says that TAN shouldn't rise more than 3 points from virgin analysis.

I wouldn't call those parameters mutually exclusive, but they sure don't have much correlation. If it's the second test, my numbers would have been right on the money.