'09 Caliber SRT4 / 5,300 mi / Havoline Syn 5w-30

[92saturnsl2]

This is the latest sample from my Dodge Caliber. I wrote "nothing out of the ordinary" on my note to Blackstone because this interval was pretty much just that. Lots of highway mileage, took a trip to Salt Lake City & back, and my commute to work is 15-20 miles one way. Plenty of spirited trips to redline, so surprised to see the low wear. Oil filter was a Mann (purolator knockoff).

Manufacturer recommends 0w-40 synthetic, but so far I've found that 30 weight oils get better gas mileage and offer good protection. I switched to a 40 weight for summer, Valvoline Durablend Semi-Syn 10w-40 this time around and a Fram Ultra filter.

The previous oils shown on the UOA are from first to last:
Motorcraft CJ-4 10w30 "Super Duty" oil
Quaker State "Torque Power" 10w-30 Synthetic
Shell Rotella T5 Semi-Syn 10w-30
Havoline 5w-30 Deposit Shield Synthetic (current UOA)

 

[chubbs1]

You could feed this engine almost anything and I think it would do OK. Great UOA! Thanks for posting it up!

 

[dparm]

Mann is not a Purolator knock-off. They have an alliance/partnership so you'll see either name on a filter.

 

[The_Captain]

Solid UOA.

 

[KCJeep]

Wow that stayed in grade really, really well for a 5w30.

TBN of 2 at 5,200 miles isn't making it look like a long drain candidate though.

Great report!

 

[dnewton3]

Clearly this engine really does not care about what you feed it. After several different grades and brands and base stock choices, the results are totally average. That is both a good thing and a bad thing.

As far as engine health goes, the wear rates are very low, the contamination is low, and the TBN is fine. No reason not to extend to 8k miles or further, with UOA confirmation (I'd recommend TAN next time as well). This engine is obviously oblivious to what you put in the crankcase. This is a bland UOA, and boring is good here.

The "bad news", so to speak, is that several of your choices are a bit expensive, and they are proving that they are not excelling past what "average" fluids can do. IOW - you paid for expensive fluids and got average results. That's not a good return on your investment. You could get this same kind of protection, for far less cost, given the OCIs you're running. In fact, you could likely get the same protection, with a quality house brand lube, for a longer OCI, and still be in excellent shape.

It seems that you're willing to experiment with lubes a bit; why not try a decent dino lube in similar circumstances and see how well they can perform? It's not like warranty is holding you back.

 

[SteveSRT8]

It's a great engine, and holds up as good as any small displacement turbo available anywhere. Even at very high power levels.

Oil abuse as a function of engine design and implementation is not discussed much here.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Oil abuse as a function of engine design and implementation is not discussed much here.


Could not agree more!

The overall success or failure of a lube system is predicated on the WHOLE system. That includes not only the lube itself, but the design of the oil circuit including the pump, pathways, return drains, etc. Also includes the filtration. And the cooling (if any, such as external air or internal coolant-based cooling). And then there's the topic of actual manufacture; even if designed well, was it produced well?

People often blame the lube, when design or production errors are in play. There are times when you can use a premium lube (PAO syn) to overcome some design fault, but it's typically just a stop gap measure and can still be overwhelmed if you don't keep an eye on it.

Other times any "normal" lube will succeed with great aplomb, because the total system is thoughtfully designed in balance, and the manufacturing is excellent.

And then there's the topic of actual useage. Had a discussion here once about how the newer 'Vettes come with Mobil 1, and how they had tested oil temps and degradation, etc. Syn supplied from the factory was based upon the "need" of engine protection at very high temps. Track testing showed lower temps when using the syn over conventional lubes. Not that the dino failed; it just didn't run as cool as the PAO. And the engine/space density added to the challenge; the tight packaging of the engine and cooling systems under hood, along with a great deal of WOT operation, made for some high under-hood heat. So, heavy footed driving and extreme track hours contributed to the "need" for syns. Of course, none of this matters to the 68 year-old man driving his wife in the 'Vette to the country club on Sundary for after-Church brunch ... GM spec'd a fluid for extreme, worst-case use, where 99% of the Corvette owners will never tread.

The "system" is more than just lube, and needs to be judged on a whole, as it performs in concert (or cacophony) in daily use and surroundings.

 

[CATERHAM]

I like this oil for it's higher the average AW additive and VI (177) levels for a 30wt oil.

Nice report.

I don't agree with BlackStone that you could run this oil to 8,000 miles, not with a TBN of 2.

 

[dnewton3]

Knowing the TBN is only half the story. This is one of the most misunderstood topics here at BITOG.

First of all, Blackstone's condemnation limit is 1.0, not 2.0.
Secondly, TBN depletion is not linear; it's parabolic.
Third, you also need to know TAN, as well as TBN, to get an understanding of the overall base/acid relationship.

And more importantly, you have to look at the wear. One big concern with acid is that it will begin to eat at some surfaces, especially when sitting stagnant. That action will show up in wear metal counts. This is why you must understand both the running ranges and trending, so that you can recognize a shift in wear rates.

In short, TBN being at 2.0 is no reason to condemn a fluid. You need to know TAN as well. And even if TAN exceeds TBN, unless you see elevated wear metals, there is no reason to panic. I've seen TAN cross TBN many times, and yet the equipment (both engines and gearboxes) run just fine for many more hours before an OCI.

TBN and TAN are indicators for continued monitoring; they are not a direct cause for immediate action. You must take them into the totality of the circumstances.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Knowing the TBN is only half the story. This is one of the most misunderstood topics here at BITOG.

First of all, Blackstone's condemnation limit is 1.0, not 2.0.
Secondly, TBN depletion is not linear; it's parabolic.
Third, you also need to know TAN, as well as TBN, to get an understanding of the overall base/acid relationship.

And more importantly, you have to look at the wear. One big concern with acid is that it will begin to eat at some surfaces, especially when sitting stagnant. That action will show up in wear metal counts. This is why you must understand both the running ranges and trending, so that you can recognize a shift in wear rates.

In short, TBN being at 2.0 is no reason to condemn a fluid. You need to know TAN as well. And even if TAN exceeds TBN, unless you see elevated wear metals, there is no reason to panic. I've seen TAN cross TBN many times, and yet the equipment (both engines and gearboxes) run just fine for many more hours before an OCI.

TBN and TAN are indicators for continued monitoring; they are not a direct cause for immediate action. You must take them into the totality of the circumstances.

That's all well and good if you order a TAN test in addition to TBN, which the OP has not done.
Without doing so, extending the OCI significantly with the TBN already depleted to 2 is not something I would do.

 

[badtlc]

Oxidation is just as important as TBN/TAN.

 

[DragRace]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM


Nice report.

I don't agree with BlackStone that you could run this oil to 8,000 miles, not with a TBN of 2.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
That's all well and good if you order a TAN test in addition to TBN, which the OP has not done.
Without doing so, extending the OCI significantly with the TBN already depleted to 2 is not something I would do.



As I said before, the Blackstone method allows for TBN of 1.0; this is 2.0+ so it's not at their condemnation limit.

Why would you condemn this fluid solely on TBN at this point?

Would you stop drinking a beer, because looking through the bottle, you can see you're nearing the bottom, but have 20% left? You'd throw away that beer, and reach for another, with the knowledge that there is plenty left, just so you have a "safety margin"?

Would you stop watching a TV show, just because you knew the end was near, because the clock shows it's almost over?

Most any condemnation limit already has a safey margin built in; when you add a self-imposed margin, you're cheating yourself out of product. It might make you feel better, and that's fine by me, but don't pretend it's not a waste, becuase it is exactly that.

And again, the TBN depletion is not linear, but parabolic. The degradtion seen thus far will slow as it continues to drop. Much of this is due to the normalization of the current add-pack to the host sump. Once it "gets acquaninted" so to speak, things settle down.

That you would not extend the OCI is fine. But you've not really put up any proof of concept other than emotional reaction. I am basing my suggestion upon the understanding the TBN/TAN relationship, the TBN degradation rate, and the clear evidence that wear rates are well in control.

The OP can choose which suggestion best suits his demeanor.