This is the third OC on this truck, all following the IOLM.
Oil in sample is Citgo SuperGard 5w-30, which is labeled as a syn.
The oil and filter were changed at the time of sampling, I used the same Citgo SuperGard and MotorCraft filter.
9,190 mi. on sample
29,190 mi. total on truck.
Fe...............30
Cr...............<1
Pb...............<1
Cu................4
Sn...............<1
Al................4
Ni...............<1
Ag...............<1
Ti...............<1
V................<1
Si...............30
Na................2
K................<1
Mg...............14
Ca.............2045
Ba...............<1
P...............712
Zn..............719
Mo.............. 35
B................<5
Viscosity cST 100C........7.3
Fuel.......................3%
Viscosity is low, but wear levels remain in check. I will continue to follow the IOLM as long as wear metals remain in check.
'16 F150 2.7 Ecoboost
- Thread starter roadrunner1
- Start date
- Status
It bothers me that the viscosity has dropped out of the 30 range, and that fuel dilution is 3%. 9.3 cSt is the low limit for 30 weight, so 7.3 is 20% below that. Maybe you should talk to your dealer about the fuel dilution, which is also contributing to the loss in viscosity; what is acceptable on the Ecoboost? Is 5w30 the recommended viscosity for the 2.7 Ecoboost? I would consider going to an oil thick enough to keep viscosity in the 30 grade at the end of an OCI.
I'd try to get the iron number down with a different 5W-30. Maybe the Castrol 5W-30 Euro A3/B4.
At 9,190 mi. an Fe # of 30 is not high. I don't like the lowered viscosity either, but wear numbers seem to be in check. I will sample at next OC and see if fuel dilution has settled in at this level, as long as wear rates stay at an acceptable level there really isn't an issue.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,575
Originally Posted By: roadrunner1
At 9,190 mi. an Fe # of 30 is not high.
Originally Posted By: roadrunner1
At 9,190 mi. an Fe # of 30 is not high.
Id run a shorter interval on same product or change oil brands like Merkava said and do another OCI with 9190 or as close to that mileage as possible for comparison. Did you get the truck on a good run prior to changing the oil? Is it short tripped alot? These might be the indicators and might reflect the need to reduce the oil change interval if another oil gives you similar results. Maybe need to reduce to 7k mile changes instead of 9...
Last edited:
Roadrunner,
Is this the first UOA on this truck?
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Roadrunner,
Is this the first UOA on this truck?
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,575
Originally Posted By: roadrunner1
3 ppm per 900 mi. of Fe is not high in any engine family.
Just curious, did you check the iOLM to see what % oil life was indicated at the 9190 miles. I'm betting that it was showing about 10% life left. The iOLM in our Explorer seems to drop 10% for every 1000 miles driven, no matter the driving conditions are.
Whimsey
Originally Posted By: Whimsey
Just curious, did you check the iOLM to see what % oil life was indicated at the 9190 miles. I'm betting that it was showing about 10% life left. The iOLM in our Explorer seems to drop 10% for every 1000 miles driven, no matter the driving conditions are.
Whimsey
I would cut down the OCI to 7,500. Oil is cheap with rebates and I think you'd see better wear numbers and lower fuel dilution...
I agree the iron is nothing to be particularly worried about...
dnewton3
Staff member
rr1 -
I don't have enough data on these newer little engines yet, but given it's only 30k miles "new", and your OCIs are around 9-10k miles, this is probably a bit of break in lingering.
I hear good things about the performance of these little units; how do you like it?
Is anyone else alarmed by the extremely low viscosity?
The 2.7 is amazing to drive, its the complete package with ample power throughout the power band and a very comfortable ride.
I am well aware of the low viscosity as it was low on the previous sample also, but wear seems to be in check. If I had viscosity this low and elevated wear numbers I would be concerned. This seems to be accepted with DI & Ecoboost engines. Again wear numbers all seem OK so no alarms going off here.
At least your viscosity of 7.3 cSt is within range for a 20-weight, but I guess your 2.7 Ecoboost is supposed to take 5W-30. For whatever reason, my 1.0 Ecoboost is supposed to take 5W-20, or 0W-20 in cold climates. That's what the book says, so that's what it is getting as long as I have a powertrain warranty. I will be doing UOAs, though.
Originally Posted By: eyeofthetiger
At least your viscosity of 7.3 cSt is within range for a 20-weight, but I guess your 2.7 Ecoboost is supposed to take 5W-30. For whatever reason, my 1.0 Ecoboost is supposed to take 5W-20, or 0W-20 in cold climates. That's what the book says, so that's what it is getting as long as I have a powertrain warranty. I will be doing UOAs, though.
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Originally Posted By: eyeofthetiger
At least your viscosity of 7.3 cSt is within range for a 20-weight, but I guess your 2.7 Ecoboost is supposed to take 5W-30. For whatever reason, my 1.0 Ecoboost is supposed to take 5W-20, or 0W-20 in cold climates. That's what the book says, so that's what it is getting as long as I have a powertrain warranty. I will be doing UOAs, though.
Originally Posted By: eyeofthetiger
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Originally Posted By: eyeofthetiger
At least your viscosity of 7.3 cSt is within range for a 20-weight, but I guess your 2.7 Ecoboost is supposed to take 5W-30. For whatever reason, my 1.0 Ecoboost is supposed to take 5W-20, or 0W-20 in cold climates. That's what the book says, so that's what it is getting as long as I have a powertrain warranty. I will be doing UOAs, though.
- Status