06 Mazda 5, RLI 0W20, 5748 miles vs. Schaeffer

[bulwnkl]

I don't believe I posted the previous UOA on this board, so I'll post both numbers here. This was the first run of RLI following 3 back-to-back fills of Schaeffer's 7000 5W20 + LC20. Previously I've run and tested Red Line 5W20 and Pennzoil 5W20 + LC20.

First-ever UOA on this vehicle showed 135ppm of copper. Second run dropped to 39. Each of those runs were ~4250 miles on Pennzoil.

This is mainly an around-town vehicle for the wife and kids, with a couple of looooong freeway trips thrown in a while ago.

Mazda oil and air filters in use. Oil and filter changed. Schaeffer numbers listed are for the first Schaeffer run, which immediately followed the Red Line run. Dyson analyses both times. As ever, none of Terry's comments or feedback will be posted unless he chooses to sign up again and post them himself.

RLI (5748 oil miles) / Schaeffer (6808 oil miles)
39613 vehicle miles / 25000 vehicle miles

Fe 10 / 14
Cu 14 / 33
Sn 0 / 0
Pb 0 / 0
Cr 2 / 1
Ni 0 / 1
Al 3 / 8
Ti 0 / 0
Ag 0 / 0
Ca 1939 / 1684
Mg 7 / 9
Zn 948 / 986
P 506 / 709
Ba 0 / 0
Mo 30 / 293
Sb 74 / 0
Si 3 / 7
Na 19 / 16
B 7 / 10
K 0 / 0
V 0 / 0

V40c 42.8 / 42.7
V100c 7.9 / 7.9
TAN 2.65 / 2.03
Flash 285 / 290
Oxid 151 / 41
Nit 13 / 11
KF water 641 / 383
TBN 1.4 / 1.7
Fuel% 1.6 / 1.55
Soot Below detect / below detect
Glycol 0 / 0
Vndx 159 / 157
Sulfate 109 / 40

This is a shorter run than the Schaeffer, of course, yet it has more fuel in it (highest I've ever had, actually) and lower wear. It costs more than Schaeffer when purchased by the quart or case, though drum pricing is much more competitive in case anyone is looking to order a drum.

This looks to me to be another piece of the rather large pile of evidence that RLI is the ticket for fuel dilution problems. It just plain does better wear-wise under stress of that type.

 

[FZ1]

Closer than it looks. Motor may have had more wearing in on the Shaeffer run and the tbn was higher. Shows you what fuel dilution can do to your oci. I'd run 5k ocis.

 

[buster]

I don't see any significant difference. ???

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: buster
I don't see any significant difference. ???


Sorta agree. Try some PP and Amsoil now.

 

[Al]

The columns are obvious backwards? You said Schaeffer followed RL and then there is the high moly (RL). I know what you meant though.

 

[addyguy]

Did well on the wear, BUT part of that could be from vehicle having more miles on it. Expensive to do 5-6k RLI runs. PP would probably do almost as well, and save you lots of $$$.....

 

[HondaMan]

I have a strong opinion about fuel dilution issues in brand new engines and that is:

"There is no fuel dilution issue."

bulwnkl, my UOAs chased what you are chasing, thank goodness I did not drop dollars on an oil such as RLI.

After my research and UOAs a plenty, I finally saw little value in fighting the fuel phantom.

I am sure I am overstating as there are a few engines which are beating the oil pretty badly, but for this Mazda and my now gone Honda Odyssey, I am now convinced it was a non-issue.

I notice the LC20 approach also which is supposed to check down oxidation and nitration .... another suspect approach I feel.

As buster mentioned, I do not see the difference.

As Pablo mentioned, try another oil.

If you try another oil, please do not add LC20.
I would bet if you do, again we will all not see any difference and the fuel will be right about where it is now.

 

[bulwnkl]

Originally Posted By: Al
The columns are obvious backwards? You said Schaeffer followed RL and then there is the high moly (RL). I know what you meant though.


Perhaps there's a miscommunication? RLI is Renewable Lube, whereas Red Line is often abbreviated as RL here. The first column is Renewable Lube, the second is Schaeffer. The Schaeffer followed a Red Line run, which is apparently not (or no longer?) posted here. I find that many, many of the UOAs I've posted in the past do not come up in a search, no matter what timeframe I set. Perhaps that's because of the forum name reorganizations over time.

 

[bulwnkl]

HondaMan, I understand how you feel. However, what I've seen in the fleet at work in our older trucks vs. the new ones, and in RLI vs. conventional oils, shows me clearly that there is a fuel issue that's more of a problem in newer vehicles vs. older ones. I also see that, whether the dilution level is reduced or not, RLI affords significantly better wear control in the face of the fuel. So, although my personal RLI - 'conventional' price spread is bigger than the fleet's, it's still sometimes worth it. In this specific application, it's a close call. A couple more drains will give me a better idea of what it'll do long-term.

Pablo, I had Mark Schell out to my office the other day. We had a very nice discussion. I may give Amsoil a try in a small number of fleet vehicles; we'll see. It would have to perform (wear control and drain interval both) significantly better than RLI, given the price difference.

All: I agree that there's room (at least on BITOG

) to argue about whether the wear differences here are test-to-test variation vs. better wear control in one oil vs. another. I will review the Schaeffer iron and aluminum numbers vs. the early Pennzoil + LC numbers this evening. I'll post back if they're not about the same per mile. I recall the levels of these two elements as being stable well before the Schaeffer run, but again I'll check.

I only run annual UOAs on this vehicle as a PM check. I don't think I'll be switching oil partly because, if I plan ahead and order intelligently, I can cut my cost for RLI significantly. Plus, with my experience in my own vehicles and also in the fleet, it's easier to see what RLI can do.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
Pablo, I had Mark Schell out to my office the other day. We had a very nice discussion. I may give Amsoil a try in a small number of fleet vehicles; we'll see. It would have to perform (wear control and drain interval both) significantly better than RLI, given the price difference.


Not sure who Mark Schell is, but if you are a fleet guy, Amsoil cost is less that RLI, in fact even at the retail quart level, Amsoil ASM 0W-20 is $9.25/qt and RLI is $11.21.

 

[buster]

Amsoil 0w20 spent two years in development and has really shown to be among the best 20wts on the market IMO.

 

[bulwnkl]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Not sure who Mark Schell is, but if you are a fleet guy, Amsoil cost is less that RLI, in fact even at the retail quart level, Amsoil ASM 0W-20 is $9.25/qt and RLI is $11.21.


Mark Shell is one of the top 5, sometimes top 3, Amsoil ...dealers? in the country. Located in eastern Idaho. He quoted me a quart price on SSO lower than what you list for ASM. However, I'm not interested in quarts. I buy drums. RLI is significantly less expensive than Amsoil in drums (as in hundreds of dollars in some cases).

 

[Pablo]

I don't really follow other dealers. Sorry. But he pays the same prices that I do. I'm sure he quoted you SS0 at $8.50 quart. The ASM prices are not what I list, it's just the MSRP of both oils compared. Not sure exactly what a drum of RLI 0W-20 goes for. ASM is $1299/55gal commercial price.

 

[bulwnkl]

Checked on iron and aluminum wear rates on the early Pennz UOAs. Iron was a touch higher in ppm/mile compared to the Schaeffer run here, but stable between the Pennz runs. Aluminum wear was lower in ppm/mi on the Pennz runs than Schaeffer, and also stable between the runs. These indicate that iron and aluminum wear were stable LONG before either of these UOAs. RLI's wear rates for both elements are lower than Pennz in ppm/mile, and the RLI was run longer.

 

[benjamming]

Both times TAN was higher than TBN.
What's up with the high water this time?
Flash sure is low...

 

[JoeFromPA]

PP 5 quarts per change at a 5k oil change interval over 100k miles = $400

RLI 5 quarts per change at a 5k oil change interval over 100k miles = $800-1000?

Considering the, most likely, negligible difference in wear you'd observe between these two oils in the every-day use vehicle you have going, I'd go with a cheap quality synthetic.

Either way, your Mazda 5 so far is eating quality oils in 5-6k....so it doesn't make much sense to use the higher cost oils unless you want 300k+ miles out of it, are racing it on the weekends, etc.

I'm looking forward to trying RLI one day. I think the Subaru is going to be the candidate for it....it tends to eat oils with heat, pressure, and fuel dilution.

Joe

Edit: I mean to say use RLI 5w40 in the Subaru....that's supposed to be one rugged oil. Since I'm running Pennzoil Platinum in it now, and plan on continuing through 60k, I'll do a 5k or longer UOA on PP and then switch to RLI and see how it does.

 

[bulwnkl]

Quote:
Both times TAN was higher than TBN.


Quite right. I think that if I'd drained the Schaeffer out before that reversal, its wear levels would have been at or below the much earlier Pennz runs' levels. RLI will not exhibit so rapid a wear increase at that reversal point, IME.

 

[bulwnkl]

JoeFromPA, your analysis is why I say above that RLI is close on whether it's a payoff in this vehicle. Frankly, I hadn't intended to drain this RLI so soon. I just had a decently warm day and was ready to do it (looong trip coming up).

RLI should have no trouble running 8k on the second drain, and I may be able to get it to 10k, but I won't know unless I try.

I have thought of trying PP or something, but honestly if RLI isn't cost-effective for me then I can't see a reason to use anything more expensive than Chevron Supreme on sale. I'd likely buy the RLI even if it was slightly higher than (but close to) even just because, IMO, they're actually working to address what I believe to be real issues. I don't personally see much evidence of that from 'big oil.'