2016 F150 5.0L, 12889 km, Pennzoil Platinum 5w-20

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
364
Location
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Code:




OIL Pennzoil Platinum 5w-20

KM IN USE 12889 km, 372 hrs (7.5 months)

KM ON TRUCK 22869 km

SAMPLE TAKEN May 29, 2017



ALUMINUM 9

CHROMIUM 2

IRON 50

COPPER 4

LEAD 0

TIN 0

MOLYBDENUM 52

NICKEL 0

SILVER 0

TITANIUM 0

POTASSIUM 4

BORON 4

SILICON 11

SODIUM 13

CALCIUM 2282

MAGNESIUM 10

PHOSPHORUS 508

ZINC 646

BARIUM 0



WATER 0

Fuel 0

SUS V40 45.5

cSt V100 8.1

VI 152

Sulfation 26

Oxi 22

Nitration 11

TBN 1.7

TAN 3.71



Slightly concerned with the iron in this sample, and the low TBN. I assume it was still from breaking in though given the low km on the engine. This would be the 3rd oil change on the truck. I did two shorter intervals(2500 km, then 7500 km) then this full interval following the IOLM. It was changed at 1%. The run had a variety of truck duty. Several 1/4 mile passes, -30C to +30C weather, towing, daily driven with short trips typically. Fram Ultra filter used which looked perfect when I cut it open. Pennzoil Ultra Platinum 5w-20 was put back in along with another Fram Ultra.
 
Break in metals; to be expected. Half of all your total km's came in this one OCI.
Fret not, stay the course, no problems here.
 
36.gif
 
That's a full cycle on a new motor. My experience has been Ford motors continue to drop wear metals until you get around 15-20k miles (24-32k kilometers).
 
Originally Posted By: advocate
Code:


TBN 1.7

TAN 3.71


Slightly concerned with the iron in this sample, and the low TBN.

I was always wondering that people paid $40k+ for a new truck, but try to squeeze $0.01 extending OCI over all limits. TAN is more than 2 times higher than TBN - what we are talking about? Who cares about iron if it less than 150 ppm? Oil needed to be changed 5000 km before!
Greedy always pay twice...
 
If it was my truck and with what I would call extreme weather conditions in Edmonton, I wouldn't run the oil past 7,500 kms.

But hey, not my truck or my money.
 
I would think that the oil life monitor would be able to determine if it's "severe service" and adjust accordingly. I've upgraded to the fram ultra filter. And using Pennzoil platinum for added protection. Ford says to follow the monitor, which will go up to 10k miles or up to 1 year. And that is using conventional oil. This sample was only 7 months. And it was cut short by the iolm to about 8000 miles rather then the max of 10k miles.
 
Originally Posted By: advocate
I would think that the oil life monitor would be able to determine if it's "severe service" and adjust accordingly. I've upgraded to the fram ultra filter. And using Pennzoil platinum for added protection. Ford says to follow the monitor, which will go up to 10k miles or up to 1 year. And that is using conventional oil. This sample was only 7 months. And it was cut short by the iolm to about 8000 miles rather then the max of 10k miles.


I've had doubts that the IOLM on Ford gasoline engines was anything more than a mileage counter, but I guess maybe it does do some calculations. I'm glad to see that.

As was mentioned in other posts, it's a new engine shedding some extra metal. When you factor in the use of the truck and where/when it was being used, the higher numbers seem like a non issue at this point. See what it looks like after a summer oci and with the break in metals subsiding.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dustyroads
Originally Posted By: advocate
I would think that the oil life monitor would be able to determine if it's "severe service" and adjust accordingly. I've upgraded to the fram ultra filter. And using Pennzoil platinum for added protection. Ford says to follow the monitor, which will go up to 10k miles or up to 1 year. And that is using conventional oil. This sample was only 7 months. And it was cut short by the iolm to about 8000 miles rather then the max of 10k miles.


I've had doubts that the IOLM on Ford gasoline engines was anything more than a mileage counter, but I guess maybe it does do some calculations. I'm glad to see that.

As was mentioned in other posts, it's a new engine shedding some extra metal. When you factor in the use of the truck and where/when it was being used, the higher numbers seem like a non issue at this point. See what it looks like after a summer oci and with the break in metals subsiding.


It is not just a mileage counter. It would take into consideration colder temps during the Edmonton winter. Mine counts down faster in winter. And when I stored my F150 5.0 for 4 months last year, the IOLM lost 20% when I restarted it, without putting on any mileage during storage and without starting the engine during storage. I follow the IOLM with Pennzoil yellow bottle (which meets the Ford 945 spec) and change at 5%. No trouble or significant oil burning in nearly 100,000 miles.
 
This is a new truck that has (essentially) 14k miles on it, with the last 7.5k being only it's third OCI ever.
And this new truck is seeing some drag racing, etc.
THIS UOA IS A COMBO OF BREAK-IN WEAR AND SOME SPIRITED DRIVING!

Some of you are Nervous Nellies for no good reason ...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
THIS UOA IS A COMBO OF BREAK-IN WEAR AND SOME SPIRITED DRIVING!

So what? Oil does not care about lyric and reasons, engine does not either. Oil is severely overrun. Period.
 
Keep in mind too that there was absolutely 0 top up oil. It stayed within the hash marks. So this was a pretty accurate run on that oil. I could have topped up a little here and there maybe a cup at most. May have refreshened the additives a bit and shown a higher tbn and lower tan.
 
Originally Posted By: timeau
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
THIS UOA IS A COMBO OF BREAK-IN WEAR AND SOME SPIRITED DRIVING!

So what? Oil does not care about lyric and reasons, engine does not either. Oil is severely overrun. Period.



What, pray tell, makes you think this oil is "overrun"? (My presumption is that you're being specific to this UOA, and not making a general statement).

It's too early to know the specific wear trends of this particular engine. But we do know that "new" engines will shed break-in metals. And that's what we see here.
So it's your statement that 7.5k miles is too long here? Or that if he would have changed oil sooner, the wear rates would have been different?

Other than the Fe and a slight bit of Al, there's nothing to indicate a cause for concern. Vis, FP, contamination all well in line with expectations and at desirable levels. What is "overrun" about this lube?
 
Last edited:
This used oil sample is still serviceable, possibly for another 2-3k km.
Engine is still breaking-in.
 
Originally Posted By: advocate
I would think that the oil life monitor would be able to determine if it's "severe service" and adjust accordingly. I've upgraded to the fram ultra filter. And using Pennzoil platinum for added protection. Ford says to follow the monitor, which will go up to 10k miles or up to 1 year. And that is using conventional oil. This sample was only 7 months. And it was cut short by the iolm to about 8000 miles rather then the max of 10k miles.


Ford's OLM takes many factors into consideration and adjusts the % remaining accordingly. The miles on the oil is really only a factor when you run an easy cycle.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: timeau
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
THIS UOA IS A COMBO OF BREAK-IN WEAR AND SOME SPIRITED DRIVING!

So what? Oil does not care about lyric and reasons, engine does not either. Oil is severely overrun. Period.



What, pray tell, makes you think this oil is "overrun"? (My presumption is that you're being specific to this UOA, and not making a general statement).

I can repeat the second time, not a big deal: TBN is more twice lower than TAN. Yes, in this particular case, not a general statement. The TBN itself is very low, 1.7. But together with so high TAN - no doubts.

Just curious, what were *your* criteria to find out if oil is depleted or still sutable?
 
Originally Posted By: advocate
I would think that the oil life monitor would be able to determine if it's "severe service" and adjust accordingly. I've upgraded to the fram ultra filter. And using Pennzoil platinum for added protection. Ford says to follow the monitor, which will go up to 10k miles or up to 1 year. And that is using conventional oil. This sample was only 7 months. And it was cut short by the iolm to about 8000 miles rather then the max of 10k miles.


No, it's using a synthetic blend as per Ford factory fill and recommendation in the owner's manual.
 
Originally Posted By: timeau
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: timeau
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
THIS UOA IS A COMBO OF BREAK-IN WEAR AND SOME SPIRITED DRIVING!

So what? Oil does not care about lyric and reasons, engine does not either. Oil is severely overrun. Period.



What, pray tell, makes you think this oil is "overrun"? (My presumption is that you're being specific to this UOA, and not making a general statement).

I can repeat the second time, not a big deal: TBN is more twice lower than TAN. Yes, in this particular case, not a general statement. The TBN itself is very low, 1.7. But together with so high TAN - no doubts.

Just curious, what were *your* criteria to find out if oil is depleted or still sutable?



My criteria is very simple ... When wear metal rates escalate and/or there is a coinciding approach to reasonable condemnation levels.
I am using SAE study and UOA analysis as the basis for this.

When TAN crosses over TBN, typically nothing bad happens. Despite all the fear mongering, I have yet to see where the higher acid level does any harm.

The SAE 2007-01-4166 study clearly shows that wear rates continue to drop despite TAN going 2x above TBN.

I would estimate that less than 2% of all the UOAs I have include both TBN and TAN, but when you consider I have over 15k UOAs, that still makes for plenty of study data. Of all the times I've seen TAN crossover TBN, often up to 2x, I have yet to see one shred of evidence that wear is affected.

I get the theory here; acid takes over and eats away at metal surfaces. But IF that were to happen, where do you think the metals would end up?
- Do they evaporate into thin air? No, metals cannot evaporate under operational conditions.
- Are they filtered out by a Purolator or the OCOD? No, they would be sub-micronic typically, or perhaps only a few microns in size, so there would be absolutely no hope they'd be in the media.
So where would they be, IF this phenomenon were to be true? They would be right in the oil where a UOA can find them. And yet, they are not present in all my data. Nor did the cross-over affect the wear in the SAE study.

Which leads to a very logical conclusion here ...
Theory of acid crossover does not manifest into reality; TAN even at 2x TBN means nothing other than it's a cautionary tale of the uninformed.

There is a truckload of UOA evidence to show that typically wear rates are continuing to drop in most any vehicle, even out to 15k miles. I cannot say how much further that continues, because the data gets too thin after that point, for macro data analysis. The SAE study showed the exact same thing. This happens regardless of the oil vis, the FP data, the acid level, the insoluble data, etc.


The inputs (vis, FP, soot/ox, etc) are all items to monitor, which might indicate a FUTURE shift in wear. They are not, in and of themselves, reasons to dump a load of oil. That is because they are precursors to potential events, they are NOT condemnation points in their own singularity. Now, I'd admit that if there was a grotesque shift in an input that indicated something was OUTSIDE of "normal" conditions (say, the coolant leak in your engine was now thickening the 5w-20 to a 60 grade .... or your soot had jumped to 7% ....) I would totally agree. But that is the NON-NORMAL event here. I am limiting my conversation to "normal" things we see in healthy engines. Most folks don't pay for TBN/TAN due to the added costs. But the majority of time I see the data, crossover has already happened; it's "normal" to see TAN crossover TBN. And yet it's ALSO "normal" to see wear rates continue to drop. Hence, crossover does not affect wear! If more folks would pay for the data, it'd just be ever more evident to more people.

Until wear rates are affected in a trend slope that would indicate wear is escalating to a damaging level, and/or those wear metals came to a condemn-able level, it's not time to OCI.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top