15K Run on Conventional, MC 10W30, Ford 5.4L V8

[Jim Allen]

REMEMBER THAT THIS IS A 15,000 MILE RUN ON CONVENTIONAL OIL!

Oil: Motorcraft 10W30 HDEO
Vehicle: 2005 Ford F150HD, 5.4L V8
Notes: Experimental run where the oil was run 5K, tested including a particle count, then a 3 um bypass filtration system was installed. The oil was tested again at 10K, including a particle count. Then the oil was changed at 15,496 and tested again, including a particle count. I had two UOAs done on the final oil sample at two labs, ANA Labs and Blackstone, just to compare the results on the same samples taken at the same time. That is what I will show here, the last UOAs and the (optical) particle count. The same P1 filter was use throughout the 15K run. As soon as I get a simple text program for my Mac that will work with the code boxes here (none of the ones I have will, and I end up having to spend a lot of formatting time), I will make up a chart with the 5K, 10K and 15K info.

I will tell you this; the ISO code for the virgin oil was 20/19/16. The ISO code for the 15K oil was 20/18/14 so the 15K oil with the bypass installed was actually CLEANER than the virgin oil (both the code and the actual counts since the code represent an range of counts... each code is an approximate 50% change in counts from the one above or below). The ISO code after 5221 miles without the bypass was 24/22/16, so you will note that the oil was significantly cleaned up from that state. FYI, the PC at 10K miles was exactly the same as the 15K.


Code:




Miles on Oil: 15,496

Miles on Vehicle, 44,785

Makeup Oil: 2 qts (Added when bypass installed at around 5K miles)



Particle Count ISO 4406

>4um: 5419

>6um: 1632

>14um: 148



ISO Code 20/18/14



Bstone ANA

cSt @ 212ºF 10.40 11.02

TBN 1.9 2.6

TAN 4.4 NA



ALUMINUM 4 5

CHROMIUM 1 2

IRON 28 29

COPPER 5 6

LEAD 1 1

TIN 2 0

MOLYBDENUM 12 11

NICKEL 1 1

BORON 6 3

SILICON 15 21

SODIUM 2 3

CALCIUM 2033 1557

MAGNESIUM 76 81

PHOSPHORUS 1002 1027

ZINC 1185 1183

cSt Visc @ 100c 1185 1183



INSOLUBLES 0.2 0.2

WATER 0 0

FLASHPOINT ºF 380 NA

FUEL 0 0

 

[webfors]

Details on the bypass unit installed please?!

Excellent report, and one of the more thought provoking reports in a while.

Which column comes from which lab?

 

[Jim Allen]

Good catch on the labeling, thanks. I added the names to the tops of the columns.

 

[SLCraig]

Even with the 2 quarts added. Wow.
This is real data we can use, good job.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Jim,

Nice report and run! How long did it take to acquire the miles?

I had asked Dave this question in another post and since you have a bypass system installed, perhaps you can answer. Here is his quote and my response:

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
But there is a little used process that often becomes the better blend of a hybrid lube system. Use a good dino and bypass! The benefits of premium filters, along with the savings of conventional lubes, make for some of the best ROIs out there. As most of us know, oil really never goes bad, but it does get contaminated. Bypass cleans the lube to a much greater level than full-flow alone, so if the oil can stay clean, why does one "need" a syn?

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Interesting concept, but unless I am totally off the mark, no filter combination can remove liquid contaminants (to do so would require it to be a miniature chemical refinery) and therefore no matter how well it removes particulates, the EOL will usually be determined by the reduction of additive pack or increase in acidity (at least I believe this to be true in gasoline engines). While I do not claim to be a SME on UOAs, it would seem that wear metals (which a bypass system would help remove) are not normally the reason for condemning an oil, but flash point, low TBN, high TAN and like are and these are chemical changes not necessarily physical ones. How does a bypass filter system help with this?


PS - for information and if you do not mind sharing, what is the ballpark cost for a bypass system?

 

[Towncivilian]

cSt values seem to be duplicates of the Zinc values in your table, Jim.

 

[Jim Allen]

2010FX4: The only thing I know about being able to deal with liquid stuff comes from the tests of a heated bypass system that removes fuel dilution. I do not recall the mfr of that system but it was used in a test done by the Federal government and it was a bit cranky, though when it worked on the busses on which it was used, it worked well.

The particular bypass, the Racor ABS, is good at removing oxidation byproducts, which is another oil life extender. I don't doubt I could have run this oil another 5K miles easily, especially if I would have changed the full-flow fitler (for safety's sake... it was well past it's rated age and miles) and dded some makeup oil to bolster the add pack. I just wanted to get back to a 20 grade most desperately. I will likely run 20-25K OCIs at a minimum from now on. Oil... TBD??

webfors and 2019FX4: check out the ABS video ABS

I don't know about price. I got this as a test setup for a magazine story I did a few years back and have been playing with it since. I do know you can expect to pay about $30 for a replacement filter, though it can last 50-60K in a gas application... or more. Kit is in the $250-350 range with hoses. Racor is mostly into the HD market but has kits for the LD diesel pickup market. Adapting it to other applications is not difficult most of the time (depending on engine).

The ABS is a great system and works extremely well but you need to take care about ROI. Not everyone can make this setup (or any bypass system) give a payback, especially in the short run. And double especially when it comes to engine wear. You need to think of it in terms of an oil life extender more than anything and be willing to use it to extend the OCI. If you will not do that, you will likely waste your money.

The difference in wear from running oil this clean on a gas engine is not hugely significant in the short term and especially in the normal life and ownership cycle of most passenger cars and light trucks. If you run LOTS of miles in a short period and will put lots of miles on the vehicle in just a few years, it could save you downtime and the expense of frequent oil changes and also keep wear low. The payoffs in wear come in the high mileages, where a system like this can add 100-200K useful miles to the engine. That's only an serious financial advantage to folks that run lots of miles. Otherwise, attrition and aging of the rest of the vehicle takes it out over time and long before the engine wears out.
Bottom line, if you intend to trade in five years and 150K miles, you will see no benefits in the wear department but you could make the system pay via tripling the normal OCI. And transfer the system over to your new rig maybe.

FYI, I have this system on my diesel pickup and used it after I overhauled the engine. Normally, an overhaul fills the oil with massive amounts of dirt, machining swarf and break in metal... and those are reasons to change the oil. I checked at 2500 miles and the PC was better than the virgin oil, so I didn't change the oil and will run it to about 8K miles.

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: Towncivilian
cSt values seem to be duplicates of the Zinc values in your table, Jim.

The correct cSt values ones are at the top of the list, but it's too late now for me to edit the [censored] ones, dang it. This is why I wish I could create them in a text file on my Mac and paste them into a code box. The formatting just doesn't hold when I use the available programs. So much info, so little time to input. Plus a munged up hand that makes typing a problem.

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Jim,

How long did it take to acquire the miles?



Forgot to answer. The MC 10W30 was installed on 4/9/11 and drained on 9/7/13, so it was in the crankcase for almost 2.5 years. Another thing I should have added in the first place.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Jim, How long did it take to acquire the miles?

Forgot to answer. The MC 10W30 was installed on 4/9/11 and drained on 9/7/13, so it was in the crankcase for almost 2.5 years. Another thing I should have added in the first place.

Holy low miles per month Batman! If I tried that I would have set a new world record for the most miles on a single OCI as well as voiding my warranty in short order (which I would have needed to repair the eight rods hanging out of the pan).

 

[Jim Allen]

Yeah, when you work where you live, you don't crank on the miles. I have an '86 truck, bought new, with just 143K. 2000 Honda with only 94K. The F150 was bought in '08 with 7K and I've really been cranking on the miles by comparison.. it's got 44K now.

This is why I always harp on the arbitrary time limit people put on oil. It doesn't wear a wristwatch and can't read a calendar. Meet a few operational and storage conditions and the oil is good for a good long time. Have done a 4 year OCI on a tractor with good results.

 

[jimbrewer]

Jim, your experience with Motorcraft semi-syn was exactly the same as mine. The last 3K of its 8K run, it was clicking off 2ppm iron per thousand miles. Like you, I had plenty of add-pack left. Merely, the low usage caught up with it and the TAN eventually outran the add pack.

This oil has a reputation as being "good for 5K intervals", but that's not been our experience. Its about as beefy as anything. Of course, its not particularly cheap, unless you let the dealer change it. (I do).

 

[Jim Allen]

jimbrewer: The Motorcraft HDEO "Super Duty" is pure conventional... no Gp III at all I was told.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Jim,

I forgot to say thanks for the comparison testing between the two labs and it was good to see that with the exception of the calcium levels the numbers were spot on between them. I realize that may not have been your intention, but Blackstone is a bit of a whipping post on BITOG at times, so it was good to see their results are inline with another lab.

Thanks again for the time, investments, and sharing of knowledge!

 

[Jim Allen]

You're welcome. The comparison was indeed my intention. The calcium and TBN were the most disparate numbers but it was near enough overall IMO.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
You're welcome. The comparison was indeed my intention. The calcium and TBN were the most disparate numbers but it was near enough overall IMO.

The TBN difference could be caused by the way the two labs calculate TBN (i.e. Blackstone versus Polaris). I took it as that otherwise, looking good.

 

[dnewton3]

Ahhhhhhhh ..... Data. Pure and simple, without the cloud of bias.


Jim's data shows, and he comments upon, the reality of bypass filtration. I've been trying (often in futility) to get folks to understand that it is a GREAT TOOL when understood and used properly. It is a device to extend your OCI in the effort to make ROI payout over longer periods, reducing downtime and lube costs. In "normal" use, it will never shift wear enough to make a hoot-owl's difference in real world lifecycle of the equipment, regardless of what marketing hype and your garage buddy tells you.

There are three contributors to wear control:
1) reduce contamination; filter it out, or flush it out (either one is effective)
2) lube add-pack; combination of anti-wear components and anti-agglomerates
3) establish tribochemical anti-wear barrier; longer OCIs actually are benefical as this barrier improves with age and heat

There is a balance point (unique to each individual situation) where you can simply change oil often enough to get the same effect as bypass. But to truly know where that would be, a LOT of time/money would need to be spent. And that testing alone negates any hopeful savings in the ROI. Short to moderate OCIs are very effective at controlling wear, but they are wastefull; they are "dumbed down" to the lowest common denominator so that OEM warranty is well protected. Now, I am not calling folks "dumb" just because they change oil often. But it is a wastefull practice. However, to find the alternative position (longer OCIs where you balance lube life against input costs) is VERY difficult to master correctly. This become complicated even further when additional tools (like bypass systems) are installed.


I like that the two UOAs show very similar data (note that just a couple of items are a bit "off" from each other). Many times folks will badmouth Blackstone, but often you'll see some reasonable correlation between services. There is always variablity in testing; only statistical analysis would give us an understanding of how much, and I (for one) don't have the money to send in 30+ samples of the same OCI load at a snapshot in time. I accept that the small variances will self-cancel over time, and I only look for large trending, which would indicate true problems developing. This is why you cannot fairly and accurately declare any lube "better" or "worse" than another; you must know the lab variance and the engine family variance before ever understanding the true nature of the performance.


If we look at the data Jim provides, and the data 2010_FX4 has, we can see that today's engines really don't care much about what lube you use, or how long you use it (within statistical reason). Brand bigotry, grade bias, base stock preferences, and filter choices are all essentially meaningless to the reality of how long a vehicle will last for most folks. Your vehicle will be traded, totaled or rot LONG before any use of syn or bypass will EVER make a difference in longevity. If you're running 30-50k miles a year, you can positively effect your wallet with good choices. But if you're "normal" running 15k miles or less a year, it's a fools errand. Are there exceptions to this generality? Sure - but they are few and far between.



BTW Jim - Very much looking forward to the synopsis of the d-P testing, too. Hope to see some myths shattered there as well.

 

[zerosoma]

Superb!