Milesyn SXR, 0w20, 5,100mi, 2018 Mazda3 2.5L

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
861
Location
Maryland
This is a new Mazda 3 Hatchback purchased August, 2018. Factory oil was drained at 2900 miles and filled with Milesyn SXR (full synthetic) 0w20 including 1/4oz of ZDDP and 3 oz of LubriMoly #2009. Oil filter was a Fram XG 6607. This oil report shows 5100 miles of use on the oil accumulated between December 2018 and April 2019 (winter season). A magnetic drain plug is in use.

This vehicle has very adequate engine performance and gets great fuel economy. Since ownership, fuel economy grand average is 34.2 MPG. I was concerned about fuel dilution in this GDI engine. Daily commute is 15 miles (one way) taking 25-30 minutes. I have my doubts the engine fully warms up in the winter.

The replacement oil/filter was the same as above. I'm going to tweak the moly upward about 60 points. Next time around, I'll tweak the Z/P downward about 100 points.

I'm wondering why the insolubles are at 0.04... Not going to lose sleep over it or the high copper (for now).

I've been using the Milesyn for many years and I'm going to stick with it and my "recipe" for a while. My commute and typical routine has me driving this vehicle about 12,000 miles/year and I'm planning (for now) to do OCs in spring and late fall.

Enjoy...

Ray

OilReport001_Mazda3.JPG
 
Originally Posted by 53' Stude
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
For a new engine the numbers look pretty good.



Very true sir
smile.gif





Dittos. 2ppm of iron per each 1000 miles on a engine breaking in is as good as it gets.


They build them well in Hiroshima.
 
Last edited:
I wish that stuff would stay low in price. I bought a case @ $40 on Amazon. Now, it's so expensive; I can just buy anything else. Pricing is a real game changer.
 
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
For a new engine the numbers look pretty good.

Originally Posted by 53' Stude
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
For a new engine the numbers look pretty good.


Very true sir
smile.gif


Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by 53' Stude
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
For a new engine the numbers look pretty good.


Very true sir
smile.gif



Dittos. 2ppm of iron per each 1000 miles on a engine breaking in is as good as it gets.

They build them well in Hiroshima.



Thanks, thanks & thanks...

I was fairly surprised by these results. Was expecting Fe, Cr, Pb, Sn and Si to be much higher and they were perfectly normal. This engine only had 8k miles which is barely broken-in. Cu is what (kinda) surprises me. I wonder if the copper is from the crank bearings or some other source. I have some other posted reports with this brand of oil but with a well broken-in engine that is driven pretty hard by my #2 son. Wear metals there are also very good which I attribute to the moly and Z/P.

BTW, I mis-spoke in the original post. The product used was LiquiMoly #2009 (not LubriMoly). The ZDDP is the "ZDDP MAXX" product which is 2x the molarity of ZDDP Plus. Based on my calculations and tests so far, for 4.8 quarts of oil, I'll use 7ml of ZDDP Maxx to get an expected Zn of 950-1000 and P of 850-900. Those Z/P levels should still be safe for the O2 sensors. -It's actually the P that damages the sensors but I don't think that's a serious issue unless the vehicle is burning oil. By now, you're probably getting the strong (and correct) impression that I'm a fan of Moly and ZDDP. I have enough background in metallurgy to be dangerous but no real background at all in tribology.

Other thing to note is that I did a Gumout GDI solvent cleaning on the intake valves every 4,000 miles. I only used 1/3 portion of the can and not the entire can as instructed. I checked the valves with a bore-scope and they look pretty darn clean.

Anyhow, if you have any thoughts were all the Cu is coming, let me know.

Ray
 
Originally Posted by OnTheRocks
I wish that stuff would stay low in price. I bought a case @ $40 on Amazon. Now, it's so expensive; I can just buy anything else. Pricing is a real game changer.


The price of Milesyn has been fluctuating oddly for as long as I can remember using it. I'll take a wild guess and say I first started using it about 7 years ago and with 5 cars, I go thru several pails a year. I got a zillion empty blue buckets all over this place. - Do what I do... Just wait for the price to drop and buy 2 pails at a crack.


Ray
 
That much extra moly and zddp shouldn't ruin the oil chemistry. Hopefully not.
Usually that much copper is attributable to oil coolers, commonly seen in turbo Subarus. I don't think yours has that. (?)
Crank and rod bearings are likely bi-metal aluminum based ones. Polymer coatings on stop-start engines are getting popular too, still no copper there either.
My only other guess would be something not quite right in the camshaft bearings, which might have some brass (copper source) in them.

Good choice on the Fram Ultra, its the best one I know of.
 
Last edited:
OP, you're seriously overthinking this. Your engine has a very long, very proven history of being very easy on oil, and being a very low-wear engine to boot. IMHO, save your money, buy whatever SN/SN+ oil is on sale and continue to use Fram Ultras, and I'd put money on your UOAs looking exactly the same. Flashpoint is a little low, and Blackstone is known as slightly under-reporting fuel, so make sure to take your car on a 30-minute drive or so to try to boil off entrained fuel before pulling a sample.

Other than that, my only advice is: remember UOAs are a tool, and NOT the correct one to find the "best" oil. If viscosity and TBN are good, you are not likely to find any statistically significant differences from ANY oil or additive, since the "wear" metals in the report are not an actual indicator of what may or may not be going on in your engine. The only way "wear" metals in a UOA are useful is as a trend, which means at least 3 UOAs with the same oil. Then, if there are significant jumps in a given wear metal, it MAY be an indicator to start digging in to find the root cause.
 
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
OP, you're seriously overthinking this.


Yeah, so... remember, this is BITOG...
lol.gif


Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
Your engine has a very long, very proven history of being very easy on oil, and being a very low-wear engine to boot. IMHO, save your money, buy whatever SN/SN+ oil is on sale and continue to use Fram Ultras, and I'd put money on your UOAs looking exactly the same. Flashpoint is a little low, and Blackstone is known as slightly under-reporting fuel, so make sure to take your car on a 30-minute drive or so to try to boil off entrained fuel before pulling a sample.


The car is driven for much longer runs on the weekends, usually over an hour at highway speeds. Fairly long trips to the shore etc.

Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
Other than that, my only advice is: remember UOAs are a tool, and NOT the correct one to find the "best" oil. If viscosity and TBN are good, you are not likely to find any statistically significant differences from ANY oil or additive, since the "wear" metals in the report are not an actual indicator of what may or may not be going on in your engine. The only way "wear" metals in a UOA are useful is as a trend, which means at least 3 UOAs with the same oil. Then, if there are significant jumps in a given wear metal, it MAY be an indicator to start digging in to find the root cause.


I'm in the process of conducting a long term test (something that reliability engineers tend to enjoy). There are 5 family cars and all get this same brand of oil and oil treatment -and have for several years now. My son's Matrix is driven pretty darn hard and it too shows really low wear metals. The Sienna is also driven pretty hard. This is the first year I'm doing UOAs because I decided to spot-check what's happening. Once I feel I've established a baseline, I'll cut way back on the frequency. If I later decide to change oil brands, I'll be poised to watch for wear trends. Also, the dealer gave me a hard time about refusing the $500 maintenance plan that included "free" oil changes. In the unlikely event the engine has a problem, I'll be able to tell them to go jump if they give me a hard time about warranty work -especially if I'm standing there with good looking oil reports in-hand.

As for the Cu in this report. I'm not worried about it and suspect it will flush-out after a couple more OCs.

Ray
 
Last edited:
If you want to address fuel dilution, take the money from the additives used and spend it on premium fuel. The skyactiv global engine was designed for 91+octane. They use a patchwork ECU programming as a bandaid to allow running on 87 octane. In short, due to the high compression, they have to run super rich A:F. The excess fuel helps keep the combustion chamber cool and prevent detonation. When running higher octane, the ECU leans out the A:F. You'll see your flash point stay high and viscosity stay perfectly in grade.

Great car, BTW.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by badtlc
If you want to address fuel dilution, take the money from the additives used and spend it on premium fuel. The skyactiv global engine was designed for 91+octane. They use a patchwork ECU programming as a bandaid to allow running on 87 octane. In short, due to the high compression, they have to run super rich A:F. The excess fuel helps keep the combustion chamber cool and prevent detonation. When running higher octane, the ECU leans out the A:F. You'll see your flash point stay high and viscosity stay perfectly in grade.

Great car, BTW.



Thanks... I really do like this car. The only slightly negative thing is the outdated navigation system and it has Bose speakers which basically are all bass and high end and no mid-range. Other than that, it's perfect.

Do you happen to have any reference materials that describes the Skyactive ECU / timing theory? I know the vehicle has several fuel and spark pulses per cycle but, the info was just from a lecture series hosted by the Mazda product manager. It was very high level and I'd like to know more about the engine.

All my cars with electronically controlled VVT happen to require only 87 octane fuel. In our 3 warm months (end of June, July, Aug and beginning of Sep), they get mid-grade (89 octane). This Mazda 3 has a 13:1 CR in north America and 14:1 in models sold in some other countries. Since this is the first year of ownership, this the first opportunity to collect data. I can say with certainty, this vehicle suffers in cold weather. All winter, I was getting only 31-32 MPG and when temps were above 60F last year, it was getting 36-38 MPG.

[ LOL: The grand total for the oil additives comes out to $3.75 per oil change. Assuming 5,000 miles per OC, that comes to $0.0008/mile or 0.08c / mile. ...I got this covered. ]

Ray
 
I was able to tone down the bass somewhat with the settings and equalizer. It might depend on what trim level you have.

I found that 92 octane runs very well in our ‘17 CX5. During my recent oil change I detected no fuel in the oil using my Mk3 nose but that is very unscientific. I am noticing an uptick in fuel economy lately probably due to the switch to summer gasoline.

Have you watched the Dave Coleman videos on YouTube about the SkyActiv engines? There is a fair amount of information to be had there
 
Originally Posted by PimTac
I was able to tone down the bass somewhat with the settings and equalizer. It might depend on what trim level you have.

I found that 92 octane runs very well in our ‘17 CX5. During my recent oil change I detected no fuel in the oil using my Mk3 nose but that is very unscientific. I am noticing an uptick in fuel economy lately probably due to the switch to summer gasoline.

Have you watched the Dave Coleman videos on YouTube about the SkyActiv engines? There is a fair amount of information to be had there


I fiddled with the Eq settings. Fact of the matter is, I hate the Bose sound and I'm serious thinking of replacing them w/something else. The speakers are all door panel mounted so, removing them will not be hard (and immediately burning the offending carcass' will be gratifying).

Yes, Dave Coleman... He's great to watch and really seems to love his job -and yes, I've seen all his presentations.

92 octane is hard to get in my area of Maryland. We have 87, 89 and 93 (or rarely 94). Some highway stops have 85, 89, 91 and 94 but I would burn a gallon or more just getting to one of those places. I hate to admit this in open forum but... here goes... I've thought about filling-up 50/50 with 87 and 93 to average-out at 90. The day I do that is when I voluntarily go in for a long rest and mental reconditioning
crazy2.gif



Ray
 
Originally Posted by RayCJ
Originally Posted by PimTac
I was able to tone down the bass somewhat with the settings and equalizer. It might depend on what trim level you have.

I found that 92 octane runs very well in our ‘17 CX5. During my recent oil change I detected no fuel in the oil using my Mk3 nose but that is very unscientific. I am noticing an uptick in fuel economy lately probably due to the switch to summer gasoline.

Have you watched the Dave Coleman videos on YouTube about the SkyActiv engines? There is a fair amount of information to be had there


I fiddled with the Eq settings. Fact of the matter is, I hate the Bose sound and I'm serious thinking of replacing them w/something else. The speakers are all door panel mounted so, removing them will not be hard (and immediately burning the offending carcass' will be gratifying).

Yes, Dave Coleman... He's great to watch and really seems to love his job -and yes, I've seen all his presentations.

92 octane is hard to get in my area of Maryland. We have 87, 89 and 93 (or rarely 94). Some highway stops have 85, 89, 91 and 94 but I would burn a gallon or more just getting to one of those places. I hate to admit this in open forum but... here goes... I've thought about filling-up 50/50 with 87 and 93 to average-out at 90. The day I do that is when I voluntarily go in for a long rest and mental reconditioning
crazy2.gif



Ray





Our Bose system has the subwoofer in the spare tire. That separates the bass somewhat. Granted it's not a audiophile system but it's decent enough for us. We have the tweeters in the pillars along with the door speakers and dash speaker.

92 is our premium here. In general it has been surmised that running premium forces the computer to change the timing or something along that line. I find the car much more responsive with premium.

Mazda has done their homework with these SkyActiv engines.
 
Originally Posted by RayCJ


Do you happen to have any reference materials that describes the Skyactive ECU / timing theory? I know the vehicle has several fuel and spark pulses per cycle but, the info was just from a lecture series hosted by the Mazda product manager. It was very high level and I'd like to know more about the engine.



Feel free to google. I researched all this when I bought my 2012 Mazda3 skyactiv. You can find plenty of data from mazda about running rich to allow 87 octane. You'll need to do more digging to understand the A:F ECU trimming. I believe this technology was rolled out industry wide when Flex Fuel vehicles rolled out as they can actively change engine tuning (not just timing) based on running regular unleaded vs E85. Most of the links I have from this time period of research no longer work.

There are UOAs on this site proving the fuel dilution goes away when you run premium. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak.
 
I don't think it's just the Skyactiv engines that Mazda richens excessively- my 2011 Fusion was very predictable- let's call say 80*F the baseline where best mileage was achieved. In fall/winter, it was extremely predictable- with no changes in driving route or throttle application, every 10*F drop in ambient would shave 1mpg from the hand-calculated average. In hot summer, I would routinely knock down 36.8-38mpg on my work route.

Take that down to say 10*F in December, and I would see mileage fall to 29-30mpg, and no excessive idling either- wait 30 seconds for oil to circulate and then proceed on the 7-minute drive out of town before hitting the highway. However, there were no statistically significant changes to viscosity, TBN, or wear metals during cold weather.
 
Originally Posted by Matagonka
I have the same exact car. Glad to see a good report on these engine.


I hope you enjoy your Mazda3 as much as I enjoy mine. Really nice car so far!

FYI: In all my other vehicles, I typically go from 87 to 89 octane in the hottest months of the year. This is just a (old-school thinking) preventative measure but, it does help in my wife's 2007 Madza6 (confirmed observation).

My tank is 13.2 gallons. Last week I filled-up with 10.7 gallons of 89 octane because our temps were hitting in the mid/high 80's and last couple days, we've had low 90's. I now have 150 milles on that tank and the trip computer is not showing any noticeable change in fuel economy. The engine does seem slightly more responsive but, I doubt it's from the difference in fuel. It's probably related to the overall higher temperatures. This vehicle loves warmer temperatures.

I will continue using 89 octane until the next oil change and will note observations as time passes. We shall see if there are any significant differences in fuel dilution or viscosity and of course, fuel mileage will be logged. In the following year, I'll just use 87 all year.

Ray
 
Last edited:
I know back in the day the Mazda's shared platforms with Ford. Is this 2.5 Mazda one that is a shared design to the Ford 2.5?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top