2016 F150 3.5EB, 4,498m with Schaeffers 5W-30 9000

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
381
Location
Washington, USA
Here’s my latest UOA. This is my oil cycle that included the torn MC FL-500 filter (pics posted in the filer section). Not sure if I’m starting to see fuel dilution because my motor is breaking in or because I changed the oil with very little warm up. Normally I go for a drive to warm everything up and make the oil flow better out my fumoto valve. This time around I was too busy (lazy) and just warmed the engine in the driveway for 5 minutes before putting it up on ramps. The oil was very thick and flowed slowly (it was about 38d outside). I mentioned that in my notes to Blackstone, hence their comments. I’m going back to getting the engine nice and warm before my next oil change.

Other than staying in the viscosity spec better than the Mobil 1, the Schaeffers isn’t doing anything special to justify it’s higher cost. I figured that would be the case, but it’s fun to experiment. I’m already looking forward to dropping in some “cheap” Castrol Magnatec at the next oil change.

For reference, here’s how the four UOAs align (from right to left)
- 1st: Mobil 1 5W-30 (Sept-Dec 2016) - Average fall winter driving with some idling. Did have multiple weekend road trips (200+ miles). Regular fuel/octane and MC filter (no issues). 161 hrs, 32 @ idle (20%;) OLM at 43%
- 2nd: Mobil 1 5W-30 (Jan-April 2017) - Lots of idling and a few weekend road trips (200+ miles). Premium fuel/octane and MC filter (no issues). 203 hrs, 61 @ idle (30%); OLM at 29%
- 3rd: Schaeffer 5W-30 Supreme 9000 (April 2017-Sept 2017). Easy use with limited idling. Multiple road trips, including one 1,100 weekend haul. Premium fuel/octane. Fram Ultra filter (no issues). 178 hrs, 25 @ idle (14%); OLM at 39%
- 4th: Schaeffer 5W-30 Supreme 9000 (Sept 2017-Jan 2018). Another average fall winter driving routine with plenty of idling. One 500+ mile road trip. Regular fuel/octane and a MC filter (torn!). 192 hrs, 57 @ idle (30%); OLM at 37%

 
I don't see Antimony listed on the UOA. It's called Penetro, via Schaeffer's, Strange? BlkStne can test for it, but hey I'm not the chemist. My point being, if they missed Antimony, what else are they not testing.




Respectfully,

Pajero!
 
We read all kinds of post about filter efficiency where one filter takes a beating for its higher than FU micron filtering then we see this uoa with a torn filter no less.
Makes me wonder.
 
A lot of mine is my driving conditions.
Probably 80% plus highway with the cruise on.

Typically over 40 mile trip per cold start.

Every truck I have had has done well.
My 7.3 was outstanding with 304k on the clock when it was stolen.

That being said, I hope his and yours perform just as well.
 
Last edited:
Just curious how much did you have to pay for the Schaeffer's? I just picked some up from a local dealer and he charged me 70 dollars for a 12 quart case. I figured I'd give it a try for that price. Been using Castrol edge in my car and Walmart is usually around 25 dollars for a 5 quart jug. The Schaeffer's I got equalls out to around 29 dollars for 5 quarts. So not much different. Buying Schaeffer's online is definitely more expensive
 
Engine is looking steady in terms of wear now. Overall very good and nothing to fear.

It's nice to hear someone actually admit they understand that spending more money didn't really gain them anything!

Ford requires a lube meeting their spec (for your vehicle it's WSS-M2C946-A). Believe it or not, there's a host of conventional lubes that also meet that spec. Just once, I'd like to see someone step out of their comfort zone and actually try a dino in the EB engines. I suspect it would fare every bit as well as many of these "syns", because they pass the same standards for Ford's spec. Not the least of which are Mobil Super, Valvoline Premium Conventional, Pennzoil, etc ...
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
We read all kinds of post about filter efficiency where one filter takes a beating for its higher than FU micron filtering then we see this uoa with a torn filter no less.
Makes me wonder.



I don't wonder. I know.

There's no data that shows premium filters do anything above the average in terms of wear reduction, in "normal" applications. There's also no discernible evidence that torn filters result in horrid wear. This UOA would be an example, for one.

As a group, we've beat this horse to death. So many people link up SAE studies that tout how finer (tighter) filters are "better", but those come from ALTs which grossly distort the conditions to achieve their desired resort. Typically there is no correlation to real world data because the inputs

One study that is from real world testing (the "bus" study) does show good correlation between UOA wear metals, and particulate levels in the lubes. So if you believe that study (and I'm inclined to say it's one of the more trustworthy ones done), then you must ALSO conclude that when UOAs show no statistical difference in wear, the filters used did not do anything substantial to distinguish themselves!

Hence, if running a premium filter in one OCI, and then having a torn media filter on the next OCI, does not make a major difference in wear rates, well then the filters are NOT the input that controls wear!

Can't claim that "better" filters make a difference, and then not be able to produce statistically viable data to prove it.

Only BITOGers believe in filter fairies, but then cannot produce any credible evidence of particulate pixie dust.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 07hemi
Just curious how much did you have to pay for the Schaeffer's? I just picked some up from a local dealer and he charged me 70 dollars for a 12 quart case. I figured I'd give it a try for that price. Been using Castrol edge in my car and Walmart is usually around 25 dollars for a 5 quart jug. The Schaeffer's I got equalls out to around 29 dollars for 5 quarts. So not much different. Buying Schaeffer's online is definitely more expensive


I got mine off Amazon for around $80 for a 12qt case. No one stocks it around me, so i just it shipped.
 
At these shorter intervals and with such a low number of miles on the machine, these numbers should be good. Hard to separate oils given the limited stress test. Both are fine oils. That said. It looks like this engine will stand up nicely over time.

Originally Posted By: 07hemi
Just curious how much did you have to pay for the Schaeffer's? I just picked some up from a local dealer and he charged me 70 dollars for a 12 quart case. I figured I'd give it a try for that price. Been using Castrol edge in my car and Walmart is usually around 25 dollars for a 5 quart jug. The Schaeffer's I got equalls out to around 29 dollars for 5 quarts. So not much different. Buying Schaeffer's online is definitely more expensive

These prices are more indicative of Schaeffers pricing.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: Trav
We read all kinds of post about filter efficiency where one filter takes a beating for its higher than FU micron filtering then we see this uoa with a torn filter no less.
Makes me wonder.



I don't wonder. I know.

There's no data that shows premium filters do anything above the average in terms of wear reduction, in "normal" applications. There's also no discernible evidence that torn filters result in horrid wear. This UOA would be an example, for one.

As a group, we've beat this horse to death. So many people link up SAE studies that tout how finer (tighter) filters are "better", but those come from ALTs which grossly distort the conditions to achieve their desired resort. Typically there is no correlation to real world data because the inputs

One study that is from real world testing (the "bus" study) does show good correlation between UOA wear metals, and particulate levels in the lubes. So if you believe that study (and I'm inclined to say it's one of the more trustworthy ones done), then you must ALSO conclude that when UOAs show no statistical difference in wear, the filters used did not do anything substantial to distinguish themselves!

Hence, if running a premium filter in one OCI, and then having a torn media filter on the next OCI, does not make a major difference in wear rates, well then the filters are NOT the input that controls wear!

Can't claim that "better" filters make a difference, and then not be able to produce statistically viable data to prove it.

Only BITOGers believe in filter fairies, but then cannot produce any credible evidence of particulate pixie dust.


That's interesting, thanks for the enlightening info.
 
Interesting. With all due respect, I'll still rather not use a filter brand with a reputation for torn media. Especially for the same money or less I can use a brand not noted for torn media.

Having said that, I'll worry less if I find torn or twisted filter media in one of my applications.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
No big benefit for sure.

Nice slug of moly there.

I'd say, you might have even been better off with M1. It actually had less iron (shocking).


Now that the engine is broken in try M1 5-30 once again. If you are going to keep doing UOA, only do one after the 2nd OCI with the same oil.
 
I’m running another MC filter now. Normally my OCD would make me yank it off, but this UOA has me holding steady for now. I’ll probably leave it on, but this is my last MC/Puro filter until they have gotten their act together. I see no reason to give them my money for poor quality. The $3 difference between it and the Fram Ultra is no big deal.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
We read all kinds of post about filter efficiency where one filter takes a beating for its higher than FU micron filtering then we see this uoa with a torn filter no less.
Makes me wonder.


In a clean engine.... 99.99% of the time, the oil filter is "just along for the ride".
 
I have a few questions for the collective.

What is the stated purpose of a standard consumer UOA?

How consistent is the typical consumer level UOA collection methodology?

What particle sizes can a typical UOA pick up?

What particle sizes would correspond to serious, major or catastrophic wear?

How many UOA do we have from vehicles with a known torn filter?

How many of those vehicles do we also have a similar prior UOA with a known good filter?

How many UOA with similar runs with a known good and subsequent known torn filter which also include particle counts do we have?

Considering the population of known torn filters, what sample size would we need to make a statement with 95% certainty using an industry standard confidence calculator? 98% certainty?

If we replace the terms “known good” and “known torn” with “high efficiency” and “low efficiency” what would our answers be?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top