2015 Ford F250 PSD - Delo 5W40 synthetic

Status
Not open for further replies.
These engines are not cheap or quick to repair. If the truck was deleted I would say stick with your plan. But if you keep it stock keep the oci reasonable and don't try to push it. Again JMO from my experience. 80% of what I work on are 6.7 PSDs

How many hours are you running per interval?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by mattd
These engines are not cheap or quick to repair. If the truck was deleted I would say stick with your plan. But if you keep it stock keep the oci reasonable and don't try to push it. Again JMO from my experience. 80% of what I work on are 6.7 PSDs

How many hours are you running per interval?


I hear what you are saying. The oil will get changed in the spring.

I have not recorded hours, just miles per oil change. But good idea I will record that also.
 
The average Fe is under 2ppm/1k miles; that's quite good. All the other wear metals are appreciably low; keep an eye on Al ... not an issue yet be seems to be seeing a slight rise. Also watch the Si. TBN is good. Fuel is low for such mileage.

Run it!
 
Originally Posted by mattd
Keep in mind that Iron level is with bypass filtration


Given the bypass kit was $200 (rough guess, cannot remember) and an engine is probably $20K seems a no brainier.
 
Originally Posted by Donald
Originally Posted by mattd
Keep in mind that Iron level is with bypass filtration


Given the bypass kit was $200 (rough guess, cannot remember) and an engine is probably $20K seems a no brainier.

While I cannot speak for MattD, I am fairly certain he's pointing out that the iron levels were what they were even though there was a bypass filtration system in place, not the cost of the bypass versus the engine.
 
Originally Posted by 2015_PSD
Originally Posted by Donald
Originally Posted by mattd
Keep in mind that Iron level is with bypass filtration


Given the bypass kit was $200 (rough guess, cannot remember) and an engine is probably $20K seems a no brainier.

While I cannot speak for MattD, I am fairly certain he's pointing out that the iron levels were what they were even though there was a bypass filtration system in place, not the cost of the bypass versus the engine.


This is what I was getting at. The iron level is abit high IMO with a bypass setup, which will remove more contaminates than what would normally be there without one. So the "true" iron level is higher. How much it's hard to say, but certainly higher. Was not questioning the cost of the bypass vs engine

I'm also not saying there is a problem, just something you need to watch, as well as the viscosity and fuel dilution, and I would also keep an eye on aluminum as newton noted. As I stated before just be cautious about extending the oci and try to track the hours and idle time.
 
Last edited:
The typical bypass system will be "absolute" around 2-3 um, brand dependent. Most UOAs that are ICP based or something similar will see everything below 5um or so. What becomes common is that the very small particulate will continue to escalate in count because the BP filter can't catch the really small stuff. But stuff that small rarely does much harm to the engine; it just free floats for the most part. OTOH, some of the larger particulate material is removed from view in the UOA with a BP that would normally be seen in a UOA without BP. But if it's not in view, it's also not in the oil stream to wreak havoc, either.

What we need to realize is that comparing UOAs, one using BP and one without, isn't really "apples to apples". I have over 16,000 UOAs in my database, many of those have BP systems. So I have a good base for comparison. The thing to understand is that systems which run long OFCIs with BP in place, have different profiles for long-term use. Though the BP element does a great job of removing a lot of particulate which is very harmful to the engine (5um to 15um), it won't get the really small stuff (below 3um) with any real efficiency, and so the small particulate just continues to accumulate in long OFCIs. But the ICP UOA will sense it, so it seems larger than what we'd see in a traditional OFCI because those flush out the really small stuff with regularity.

This lube is suitable for continued use IMO.

I would agree with mattd; caution is the proper word, not panic. Continued monitoring is warranted; the Al more so than the Fe at this point. Run it another 5k and sample.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by dnewton3
The typical bypass system will be "absolute" around 2-3 um, brand dependent. Most UOAs that are ICP based or something similar will see everything below 5um or so. What becomes common is that the very small particulate will continue to escalate in count because the BP filter can't catch the really small stuff. But stuff that small rarely does much harm to the engine; it just free floats for the most part. OTOH, some of the larger particulate material is removed from view in the UOA with a BP that would normally be seen in a UOA without BP. But if it's not in view, it's also not in the oil stream to wreak havoc, either.

What we need to realize is that comparing UOAs, one using BP and one without, isn't really "apples to apples". I have over 16,000 UOAs in my database, many of those have BP systems. So I have a good base for comparison. The thing to understand is that systems which run long OFCIs with BP in place, have different profiles for long-term use. Though the BP element does a great job of removing a lot of particulate which is very harmful to the engine (5um to 15um), it won't get the really small stuff (below 3um) with any real efficiency, and so the small particulate just continues to accumulate in long OFCIs. But the ICP UOA will sense it, so it seems larger than what we'd see in a traditional OFCI because those flush out the really small stuff with regularity.

This lube is suitable for continued use IMO.

I would agree with mattd; caution is the proper word, not panic. Continued monitoring is warranted; the Al more so than the Fe at this point. Run it another 5k and sample.





What causes Al? I assume it's the pistons? So piston scuffing? The rings make the contact with the cylinder wall, not the pistons.
 
Skirts can make light contact … especially on V engines … SBC V8's use a polymer coating. The PSD piston is machined out to have very little full OD … but it's PPM so again just something to keep an eye on.

Interesting to see if it drops in the summer.
 
Pistons are aluminum. The only other source aluminum could be from would be the front cover where the oil pump is driven. Other than that, there are no other moving parts in this engine that are aluminum. However the upper oil pan, as well as a few other things (including timing covers, valve covers/intakes) are made of aluminum but are not "wearable" items.
 
Last edited:
Ford 6.7s from 2011-2017 typically have high Al wear. Deleting stops the Al wear, which suggests that fuel in the oil is at least partially behind the Al wear.

4% fuel in the oil is the norm for these engines after 7K. The OP has way more than that. Again, the OP likely has 6-10% fuel in his oil. BP cannot remove the fuel.
 
Last edited:
I am in agreement that the fuel dilution and viscosity seems to track with aluminum and iron wear. The higher the fuel content or the longer the oil is run with high fuel content, the higher the iron and aluminum wear rate (generally speaking).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top