2016 Ford 3.5EB 10K miles castrol 0w40

Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
2,390
Location
TN
Not to much towing this round. Fill is actually 5qt's Castrol 0w40 and 1 qt 0w30

16097L01987-E-I-540661-Sev3_1.jpg
 
I’ve noticed the high fuel dilution as well. The test facility noted abnormal to critical in your samples. I would have to say, you are pushing your OCIs out too far and you are not changing the filter at every oil change. I would suggest you change the oil and filter at 5,000 miles. DO NOT rely on the oil life monitor, just reset it when you do your 5,000 mile oil change. Try a high quality 5W30 blend or synthetic.
 
He’ll be OK out to 5,000 miles and anything after that is luck pushing. Oil and filters are cheap, engines aren’t.
 
Oil held up!!! Fuel dilution is not a issue in these engines. I too use Edge 0w40 in my 2.7 Ecoboost and have used the oil since the very first oil change. I've stuck with 5k OCIs for the first 30k miles but I'm currently extending this interval out to 10k and your UOAs are proof this oil is up to the task. Fuel dilution is even less of a issue with the 2.7s so I'm not concerned one bit.
 
Name one manufacturer that recommends anything less then a 5k OCI under normal driving conditions for a turbo/DI equipped application.
 
Last edited:
Fuel dilution is very common with the EB motors here on BITOG, especially the 3.5. I have yet to experience it myself, but my guess is it will start showing up as I add up the miles.

The one thing I miss from the Polaris Lab reports are the universal averages. But I don’t see anything alarming with these numbers since you’re running a full OCI. My OCD would go nuts with this level of fuel and I’d drop to a 5,000 mile interval...but honestly, without a spike in wear metals, there’s no evidence Ford’s computer isn’t accurate for your driving habits.
 
I agree fuel dilution is common in these engines but its not a issue that translates to higher wear numbers. Now would I recommended 10k miles with your standard 5w30 blend or synthetic...No way!! But I do trust any Euro 0w40 (especially Castrol) to handle 10k miles with ease in these Ecoboosts....yes!
 
What is gasoline? It is a solvent. It thins out oil. You are gambling with the proper lubrication of your engines. A used oil sample only warns of problems down the road. You can use them as a warning or you can use them to justify extended oil change intervals. A little blast from the past is in order.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OHug0AIhVoQ
 
OCI's are far too long. While it's wonderful to think that all wear metals AND PARTICULATES show up in the UOA, that's simply not so. Fuel dilution has LONG BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH EXCESSIVE WEAR AND DEPOSITS, PERIOD. Oil changes are the only way to drain out contaminates.

The EB is a tough engine, designed to take all sorts of abuse. However, we must always remember that there is risk in pushing limits. If I were to predict which direction this will go, I'd say timing chain wear, phaser wear, carboned up piston rings, intake valve deposits and turbo coking.

Also remember that very large quantities of fuel are required to create such dilution, this leaves behind all sorts of components that ARE NOT FUEL, and ARE NOT OIL. Gums, varnish, and so on. As most of the fuel evaporates, what 5% means is that much of your oil is not oil. BTW, the industry norm states that 5% fuel dilution renders the oil unable to protect.

Here is an example form a 2013 Ecoboost 3.5L from 2450 miles of driving:

externimage.php


This was spun in a centrifuge and analysed. 70% acid water, 23% raw fuel, and 7% oil saturated with abrasive particulate matter.


I've done some testing years ago on my 3.5EB. I came to the conclusion that 5K OCI's are about the limit.
 
Last edited:
Fuel is about "normal" for what we have come to expect from EBs.

However, show me that it matters. Not by whining about the condition of the lube, but rather, show me that it actually has some detrimental effect in wear. Go on ... I double-dog dare you ...

Fe is around 2.1 ppm/1k miles. That is NOT, by ANY stretch of the imagination, a bad wear rate. Many, many engines that run incredibly long lives run wear rates at, or higher, than that. The other metals are fine as well.

When will some of you learn that conditions of the lube (vis, FP, Fuel, TBN/TAN) are only PREDICTORS of a POTENTIAL for wear trend changes? Wear rates are determined by the wear metals, not the input conditions of the lube.

10k mile OCIs are perfectly fine here, and these successive UOAs prove it.
 
Last edited:
dexos1 Gen2 specifically addresses timing chain wear (along with LSPI), i doubt this spec will slow down dilution, so the add pack is where the protection takes place even as we cringe at the levels of fuel. I would trust a uoa to warn of excessive wear in this area.
 
For comparison, consider this ...
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthr...5_3#Post4610564
here's another UOA, shorter OCI at 4k miles, and the Fe is at 8ppm. So, the exact same wear rate exists (2.x ppm/1k miles).
And the engine here has a very low fuel content, so you cannot blame fuel here, can you? This engine isn't even DI.
So why is it that no one complains about a MPI engine running 4k mile OCIs resulting in Fe at 2ppm/1k miles,
But every freaks out at a GDI engine running 10k mile OCIs resulting in Fe at 2ppm/1k miles?

I'll tell you why ... ignorance and/or arrogance. Bitog lube bigotry. Bench racing emotions rather than using intellect.


Here's another example
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4600134/'03_Hyundai_Santa_Fe_2.7L_V6_-#Post4600134
2.2ppm / 1k miles. OCI at 3k miles. Using PUP lube.
No one complained about the lube or wear in this UOA. No one mentioned fuel because it's fine. No one mentioned a shorter OCI because it's already at 3k miles.
All the "inputs" were exactly where an anal-retentive BITOGer would want them to be, but the Fe wear was still identical to the EB engine in the host thread here.


You can go on and on finding other examples such as these.
Any engine that is averaging less than 3ppm/1k miles is doing fine, regardless of how long or short the OCIs are, or how much fuel they have, etc.


This isn't just one UOA for the EB engine here; there are six successive UOAs showing the wear data is fairly steady. Certainly I agree that using a cautious approach is prudent here. The fuel MIGHT, at some point, cause a wear trend shift. But so far, it's abundantly clear that these OCI durations are NOT resulting in damage. The EB engine in this thread is doing just fine, despite all the fear mongering.


QUIT LOOKING AT INPUTS AND START FOCUSING ON RESULTS!
 
Last edited:
What fuel at those numbers, the 0w40 was a wise choice. Viscosity ended at a thick 30 weight.
 
Did Castrol change the 0w-40 formula a bit in the last year+? I noticed your last two reports have higher calcium and lower magnesium. Did you use 0w-30 in the fill before this last tested fill also?

Just trying to figure out if they changed formulas recently..
 
Originally Posted By: jdavis
Did Castrol change the 0w-40 formula a bit in the last year+? I noticed your last two reports have higher calcium and lower magnesium. Did you use 0w-30 in the fill before this last tested fill also?

Just trying to figure out if they changed formulas recently..



The last 5 oci have been 5qt 0w40 and 1 qt 0w30. I have about 3 qt of 0w30 left and then I will be 100% 0w40 or perhaps I will switch to Kendall.

Always good to see healthy debate on the EB engines but I am in the camp that the fuel dilution issues are not a great concern. This is my second 3.5 and I have a 2.0 and a 2.3. They all dilute and they all have normalish looking UOA's, except of course for the fuel. My sort of outlier on this sheet (UOA #5) is when I towed over 7000 miles in the summer heat at high speeds (speed limit), so I am fine with those results as well.

And for the record I use the 0w40 Castrol Edge because it is cheaper than the 0w30 not because of a viscosity reason. I feel the 30 and the 40 are pretty close in specs and it does not make a huge difference.
 
Last edited:
https://www.avweb.com/news/maint/185087-1.html

https://www.amsoil.com/techservicesbulletin/MotorOil/TSB MO 2004-07-02 Fuel Dilution.pdf

wear particle sizes are often 5 to 10 microns and larger. So, why does this matter? Size is important because the most commonly used test method to assess active machine wear - elemental spectroscopy - has a limit to the size of particles it can detect, elemental analysis can't detect particles larger than 3 to 8 microns in size, rendering it useless in situations of advanced machine wear, or where the failure mode naturally generates larger particles, such as fatigue or severe sliding wear.

Particle contamination accounts for 60 to 80 percent of all lubrication-related failures.

I understand people here put an awful lot of faith in UOA results. The fact remains, UOA is a tool and nothing more. There are many aspects of oil that are not tested with UOA. It's not uncommon to see failed engines that exhibited excellent UOA results.

I recently replaced an aircraft engine that had acceptable UOA results, ran quite well, and had nearly self destructed inside. It had excessive camshaft and rod bearing wear.
 
Originally Posted By: Cujet
https://www.avweb.com/news/maint/185087-1.html

https://www.amsoil.com/techservicesbulletin/MotorOil/TSB MO 2004-07-02 Fuel Dilution.pdf

wear particle sizes are often 5 to 10 microns and larger. So, why does this matter? Size is important because the most commonly used test method to assess active machine wear - elemental spectroscopy - has a limit to the size of particles it can detect, elemental analysis can't detect particles larger than 3 to 8 microns in size, rendering it useless in situations of advanced machine wear, or where the failure mode naturally generates larger particles, such as fatigue or severe sliding wear.

Particle contamination accounts for 60 to 80 percent of all lubrication-related failures.

I understand people here put an awful lot of faith in UOA results. The fact remains, UOA is a tool and nothing more. There are many aspects of oil that are not tested with UOA. It's not uncommon to see failed engines that exhibited excellent UOA results.

I recently replaced an aircraft engine that had acceptable UOA results, ran quite well, and had nearly self destructed inside. It had excessive camshaft and rod bearing wear.



It's also quite common to see engines with marginal maintenance last for decades past where some would cry heresy and recommend overly frequent efforts. To wit; over-maintaining something has never proven to prevent any catastrophic event any more than marginal efforts have caused them.

UOAs are direct views of the lube health. They are indirect views of the equipment health. But they are, by far, the cheapest and easiest manner to view/track wear trends. They certainly not perfect, but nothing is.

The point I make is that NO ONE complained about the wear rate of 2.0ppm/1k miles in some of those engines, but they harbor great disdain for EB engines with high fuel, even though they exhibit the exact same wear rate of 2.0ppm/1k miles.

If one wants to profess that the UOAs do not disclose all issues (and I'd agree to some manner that is true), then why not complain about ALL UOAs? Why do some folks ignore a wear rate of "X" in some engines, but other engines with the same wear rates of "X" are scrutinized with impunity? Can you say "bias"?

Changing the oil more frequently in this engine isn't likely to reduce the wear rate.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top