Not sure if it's applicable, but rather than a leaky injector, if the 2.0 has a mechanical HP fuel pump, check that the diaphragm isn't damaged. On the 3.5 eco, the pump is driven off a cam at the rear of the driver's side camshaft. When the diaphragm tears, fuel gets dumped into the head as it pumps.
'18 escape 2L EB >10% fuel dilution
- Thread starter pb
- Start date
- Status
Do you know what your Long Term Fuel Trims are by chance?
That is a lot of fuel for that run.
That is a lot of fuel for that run.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by deven
Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by deven
Geez people are going to scare the crap out of OP. Just keep doing what you are. For 7500 miles on oil and 14,400 on the engine that is a fabulous report minus the fuel dilution. Just keep doing UOA's to keep an eye on the fuel dilution. People here overreact way too much.
Who is scaring anyone here? The advice has been prudent. If the OP gets it checked by the dealer then there is documentation on the fuel dilution. If a real problem is discovered like a faulty injector then he gets it fixed under warranty and early on rather than waiting for something possibly to happen.
We are talking about the dealer here. They will just look at him in a puzzling way and say everything is normal and that its just designed that way. If it doesn't throw a code then they aint doing diddly squat let alone something like fuel injectors. That's why dealers frustrate me.
It's worth the effort. The option of doing nothing has more possible downfall. The OP should bring that analysis report with him. I would find it hard to believe that any service advisor or tech would ignore a >10% fuel dilution report from a certified lab.
Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by deven
Geez people are going to scare the crap out of OP. Just keep doing what you are. For 7500 miles on oil and 14,400 on the engine that is a fabulous report minus the fuel dilution. Just keep doing UOA's to keep an eye on the fuel dilution. People here overreact way too much.
Who is scaring anyone here? The advice has been prudent. If the OP gets it checked by the dealer then there is documentation on the fuel dilution. If a real problem is discovered like a faulty injector then he gets it fixed under warranty and early on rather than waiting for something possibly to happen.
We are talking about the dealer here. They will just look at him in a puzzling way and say everything is normal and that its just designed that way. If it doesn't throw a code then they aint doing diddly squat let alone something like fuel injectors. That's why dealers frustrate me.
It's worth the effort. The option of doing nothing has more possible downfall. The OP should bring that analysis report with him. I would find it hard to believe that any service advisor or tech would ignore a >10% fuel dilution report from a certified lab.
gathermewool
Site Donor 2023
I'd have asked them to reanalyze, if they have enough sample left.
I would ask them now to clarify if this is real or a typo.
If no error, then next time, take two sample and send one to another lab.
I would ask them now to clarify if this is real or a typo.
If no error, then next time, take two sample and send one to another lab.
Originally Posted by Danh
P
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
Instead of refilling with more 5w30 alone, fight the fuel dilution the best you can by filling to the Add line with 5w30, then put in 1 pint of Schaeffer Moly EP #132, an oil thickener made out of decent base oils and a little antimony, other stuff I can't remember from some old analyses I saw. Amazon.com it.
Either that or put in 3 quarts Mobil1 5w30 with 1 quart of Mobil1 15w50, do not fill above about halfway between Add & Full lines.
We can debate how much fuel dilution there is. The 6.7 kv100 is getting too low. Good iron ppm anyway, not bad.
You contradicted your post by stating its too low but the wear metals are not out of line. Did you design and test the engine thus have knowledge what viscosity is too low to protect the engine during operation?
Well, Ford specs a 5w-30 for this engine and this sample is not even a 20-weight. So if Ford thinks a 5w-30 is needed a sub-20 weight may not be optimal.
No it was tested and Ford knows a 5W30 will shear thus the 30 grade recommendation. Also it is well within a 20 grade oil with the shear why do you insist on being facetious and dramatic?
P
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
Instead of refilling with more 5w30 alone, fight the fuel dilution the best you can by filling to the Add line with 5w30, then put in 1 pint of Schaeffer Moly EP #132, an oil thickener made out of decent base oils and a little antimony, other stuff I can't remember from some old analyses I saw. Amazon.com it.
Either that or put in 3 quarts Mobil1 5w30 with 1 quart of Mobil1 15w50, do not fill above about halfway between Add & Full lines.
We can debate how much fuel dilution there is. The 6.7 kv100 is getting too low. Good iron ppm anyway, not bad.
You contradicted your post by stating its too low but the wear metals are not out of line. Did you design and test the engine thus have knowledge what viscosity is too low to protect the engine during operation?
Well, Ford specs a 5w-30 for this engine and this sample is not even a 20-weight. So if Ford thinks a 5w-30 is needed a sub-20 weight may not be optimal.
No it was tested and Ford knows a 5W30 will shear thus the 30 grade recommendation. Also it is well within a 20 grade oil with the shear why do you insist on being facetious and dramatic?
Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
Originally Posted by Danh
P
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
Instead of refilling with more 5w30 alone, fight the fuel dilution the best you can by filling to the Add line with 5w30, then put in 1 pint of Schaeffer Moly EP #132, an oil thickener made out of decent base oils and a little antimony, other stuff I can't remember from some old analyses I saw. Amazon.com it.
Either that or put in 3 quarts Mobil1 5w30 with 1 quart of Mobil1 15w50, do not fill above about halfway between Add & Full lines.
We can debate how much fuel dilution there is. The 6.7 kv100 is getting too low. Good iron ppm anyway, not bad.
You contradicted your post by stating its too low but the wear metals are not out of line. Did you design and test the engine thus have knowledge what viscosity is too low to protect the engine during operation?
Well, Ford specs a 5w-30 for this engine and this sample is not even a 20-weight. So if Ford thinks a 5w-30 is needed a sub-20 weight may not be optimal.
Yes, dave1251 is confused. The way HTHS correlates with engine wear, there is a cliff it falls off of. Non-linear, very.
Get HTHS too low, and wear increases dramatically at some point.
And yes, Ford specs HTHS 3.0 (approximately), which tells us Ford isn't comfortable going down much lower than that.
For this ecoboost, add a little more hard driving, with some hot weather potentially, and that fuel dilution can then cause a lot of extra wear.
Margin is important.
Rings appear to be the most sensitive though.
See the graph below, telling the story of Stribeck Curve physics:
![[Linked Image]](https://revtecmotor.com/index_htm_files/10190@2x.jpg "[Linked Image]")
![[Linked Image]](https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/attachments/usergals/2018/08/full-37311-29717-piston_ring_wear_vs_hths_at_130c_oil_temp.jpg "[Linked Image]")
From another thread recently:
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
...... increased wear can occur for oils that are less than 2.6 HTHS when oil temperature gets elevated some. But it also says if you are using a 20 wt you really have no headroom, but are right at the verge of having more engine wear is the oil temps start to rise above "normal".
You throwing your unverified theory and hope it sticks. There is nothing in this which verifies your bias any additional wear is observed on this engine with a 20 grade oil.
Originally Posted by Danh
P
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
Instead of refilling with more 5w30 alone, fight the fuel dilution the best you can by filling to the Add line with 5w30, then put in 1 pint of Schaeffer Moly EP #132, an oil thickener made out of decent base oils and a little antimony, other stuff I can't remember from some old analyses I saw. Amazon.com it.
Either that or put in 3 quarts Mobil1 5w30 with 1 quart of Mobil1 15w50, do not fill above about halfway between Add & Full lines.
We can debate how much fuel dilution there is. The 6.7 kv100 is getting too low. Good iron ppm anyway, not bad.
You contradicted your post by stating its too low but the wear metals are not out of line. Did you design and test the engine thus have knowledge what viscosity is too low to protect the engine during operation?
Well, Ford specs a 5w-30 for this engine and this sample is not even a 20-weight. So if Ford thinks a 5w-30 is needed a sub-20 weight may not be optimal.
Yes, dave1251 is confused. The way HTHS correlates with engine wear, there is a cliff it falls off of. Non-linear, very.
Get HTHS too low, and wear increases dramatically at some point.
And yes, Ford specs HTHS 3.0 (approximately), which tells us Ford isn't comfortable going down much lower than that.
For this ecoboost, add a little more hard driving, with some hot weather potentially, and that fuel dilution can then cause a lot of extra wear.
Margin is important.
Rings appear to be the most sensitive though.
See the graph below, telling the story of Stribeck Curve physics:
From another thread recently:
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
...... increased wear can occur for oils that are less than 2.6 HTHS when oil temperature gets elevated some. But it also says if you are using a 20 wt you really have no headroom, but are right at the verge of having more engine wear is the oil temps start to rise above "normal".
You throwing your unverified theory and hope it sticks. There is nothing in this which verifies your bias any additional wear is observed on this engine with a 20 grade oil.
A Ford dealership needs to diagnose and fix the cause of that fuel dilution. You'll have to be prepared with what to say in case they try to brush it off as no big deal.
Originally Posted by JAG
A Ford dealership needs to diagnose and fix the cause of that fuel dilution.
I say it should be checked, even though I expect deven's prediction of a puzzled look followed by being told that's the way it's supposed to be. At least it can be documented.
A Ford dealership needs to diagnose and fix the cause of that fuel dilution.
I say it should be checked, even though I expect deven's prediction of a puzzled look followed by being told that's the way it's supposed to be. At least it can be documented.
dnewton3
Staff member
Time for some calm reasoning here ...
First of all, the wear itself isn't bad at all, especially for a vehicle with only 14k miles on it, on it's (presumable) second OCI with UOA. I'd say it's very good for such a young engine.
Next, the FD is concerning. Not much can be done about the oil load; it's gone already. But now that an issue is suspected, a few things can be done moving forward:
- at each UOA, take TWO samples. Send one in; hold the other back for a "back up" in case you get a repeat of the high fuel. Do this for every OCI; take a sample and hold it back. Put a time/date/miles label on it. If you ever have to make a claim in or near warranty, this will be a great thing you can hang onto as "proof" in addition to the reports themselves. It will cost you pretty much nothing to do this.
- start recording in your maint manual the oil level between OCIs; develop a record as more evidence. If the IOLM was at 24%, and you had 7500 miles on it, that makes the projected OCI around 10k miles. In 10k miles, the oil level would be expected to go down with normal consumption and evaporation. If the level stays constant (never moves off full) or rises (goes above full), you'll want a record of that for every OCI cycle
- contact the OAI lab and speak with them directly (or email), and get details about this report and ask clarifying questions about the FD at 10%
- notify your local Ford servicing dealer about the issue; get it on record and show him the data. He'll do nothing about it, but at least it's recorded. If you have to take it in for "service" to get it recorded, so be it. This also will be evidence of your concerns as the history of the vehicle evolves. This can pan in your favor should the unthinkable become a reality. Especially if a failure happens just outside of warranty.
- remember that FD is an input; it's a predictor to watch for change. I disagree with most folks in that I don't change oil based on inputs; I track wear trends and then make pragmatic choices off output data. Only one of two things can be true here: 1- the FD reading is a mistake, or 2- the FD is correct. Either way, wear was not affected. If the FD is a mistake, then the near-panic is unwarranted. If the FD is real, then it's proof that FD fears are overblown because nothing bad happened here flying in the face of FD fear mongers. Admittedly, no one wants FD that high; I get that. But let's keep the big picture in mind here. At some point, FD can be a big issue, but only in that it affects wear. At this point, if the FD at 10% is "true", then it's proof that FD has not yet affected wear.
Let's assume the FD is true at this point. I'd be worried about either a leaking injector or a leaking HP fuel pump. (I assume the HP fuel pump is like all the other Fords; it's inside the valve cover driven off a cam lobe?)
First of all, the wear itself isn't bad at all, especially for a vehicle with only 14k miles on it, on it's (presumable) second OCI with UOA. I'd say it's very good for such a young engine.
Next, the FD is concerning. Not much can be done about the oil load; it's gone already. But now that an issue is suspected, a few things can be done moving forward:
- at each UOA, take TWO samples. Send one in; hold the other back for a "back up" in case you get a repeat of the high fuel. Do this for every OCI; take a sample and hold it back. Put a time/date/miles label on it. If you ever have to make a claim in or near warranty, this will be a great thing you can hang onto as "proof" in addition to the reports themselves. It will cost you pretty much nothing to do this.
- start recording in your maint manual the oil level between OCIs; develop a record as more evidence. If the IOLM was at 24%, and you had 7500 miles on it, that makes the projected OCI around 10k miles. In 10k miles, the oil level would be expected to go down with normal consumption and evaporation. If the level stays constant (never moves off full) or rises (goes above full), you'll want a record of that for every OCI cycle
- contact the OAI lab and speak with them directly (or email), and get details about this report and ask clarifying questions about the FD at 10%
- notify your local Ford servicing dealer about the issue; get it on record and show him the data. He'll do nothing about it, but at least it's recorded. If you have to take it in for "service" to get it recorded, so be it. This also will be evidence of your concerns as the history of the vehicle evolves. This can pan in your favor should the unthinkable become a reality. Especially if a failure happens just outside of warranty.
- remember that FD is an input; it's a predictor to watch for change. I disagree with most folks in that I don't change oil based on inputs; I track wear trends and then make pragmatic choices off output data. Only one of two things can be true here: 1- the FD reading is a mistake, or 2- the FD is correct. Either way, wear was not affected. If the FD is a mistake, then the near-panic is unwarranted. If the FD is real, then it's proof that FD fears are overblown because nothing bad happened here flying in the face of FD fear mongers. Admittedly, no one wants FD that high; I get that. But let's keep the big picture in mind here. At some point, FD can be a big issue, but only in that it affects wear. At this point, if the FD at 10% is "true", then it's proof that FD has not yet affected wear.
Let's assume the FD is true at this point. I'd be worried about either a leaking injector or a leaking HP fuel pump. (I assume the HP fuel pump is like all the other Fords; it's inside the valve cover driven off a cam lobe?)
Originally Posted by dave1251
You throwing your unverified theory and hope it sticks. There is nothing in this which verifies your bias any additional wear is observed on this engine with a 20 grade oil.
Really? Thats all you got? I present facts and engineering/physics principles, and yours are emotional junk.
Read my posts again, maybe this time you won't miss the point: There needs to be a margin of viscosity to avoid the sudden increase in wear. This cliff occurs at different levels for different engines and driving conditions, but it is there for all engines. Or, are you saying Ford didn't recommend 5w30 viscosity levels in the 1st place? Anything you can say that actually makes sense for a change?
You throwing your unverified theory and hope it sticks. There is nothing in this which verifies your bias any additional wear is observed on this engine with a 20 grade oil.
Really? Thats all you got? I present facts and engineering/physics principles, and yours are emotional junk.
Read my posts again, maybe this time you won't miss the point: There needs to be a margin of viscosity to avoid the sudden increase in wear. This cliff occurs at different levels for different engines and driving conditions, but it is there for all engines. Or, are you saying Ford didn't recommend 5w30 viscosity levels in the 1st place? Anything you can say that actually makes sense for a change?
Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
Originally Posted by dave1251
You throwing your unverified theory and hope it sticks. There is nothing in this which verifies your bias any additional wear is observed on this engine with a 20 grade oil.
Really? Thats all you got? I present facts and engineering/physics principles, and yours are emotional junk.
Read my posts again, maybe this time you won't miss the point: There needs to be a margin of viscosity to avoid the sudden increase in wear. This cliff occurs at different levels for different engines and driving conditions, but it is there for all engines. Or, are you saying Ford didn't recommend 5w30 viscosity levels in the 1st place? Anything you can say that actually makes sense for a change?
No what you presented is theory nothing more and it is not a one applicable to this engine. All you presented was one biased test. If HTHS below 2.6 was harmful then Toyota and Honda engines are blowing up as we speak. Who is the emotional one? Normally the one who makes the accusation is the one who is emotionally compromised.
Originally Posted by dave1251
You throwing your unverified theory and hope it sticks. There is nothing in this which verifies your bias any additional wear is observed on this engine with a 20 grade oil.
Really? Thats all you got? I present facts and engineering/physics principles, and yours are emotional junk.
Read my posts again, maybe this time you won't miss the point: There needs to be a margin of viscosity to avoid the sudden increase in wear. This cliff occurs at different levels for different engines and driving conditions, but it is there for all engines. Or, are you saying Ford didn't recommend 5w30 viscosity levels in the 1st place? Anything you can say that actually makes sense for a change?
No what you presented is theory nothing more and it is not a one applicable to this engine. All you presented was one biased test. If HTHS below 2.6 was harmful then Toyota and Honda engines are blowing up as we speak. Who is the emotional one? Normally the one who makes the accusation is the one who is emotionally compromised.
- Status