1NZ-FE !echo! 184K motor, 8K oil; RL 5W-20

[simple_gifts]

No makeup oil;
Liberal doses of LC to top off (maybe 16oz)
Previous fill was RL
Lab is Blackstone;
Oilguard bypass

Al 2
Cr 0
Fe 7
Cu 1
Pb 0
Sn 0
Moly 713
Ni 1
Mn,Au,Ti 0
K 10
Boron 19
Ki 15
Na 11
Ca 2841
Mg 11
Phos 814
Zn 961
Barium 0
Sus Vis @210 55.8
Cst Vis @100C 9.01
Flash 380
Trace Fuel
H20/Glycol 0
Insol .4

TBN 1.2

B-S COMMENTS
Wear continues to look good in the latest sample from your Echo. The only thing that kept this
from being a perfect report was the trace of fuel that turned up. This certainly isn't a problem level and is
likely due to taking the sample without getting the oil up to operating temps. No other harmful contaminants
were found and the viscosity of the oil read normally. The TBN was pretty low at just 1.2 so virtually all of
the active additive in this oil has been used up. We think the 8K mile oil runs are working well but you could
push on up to 9,000 miles next time.

 

[hate2work]

Nice report

Funny that B S says the TBN is used up at 8k, but go ahead and go for 9k next run???

 

[ThirdeYe]

I wouldn't go past 8k, I don't know why blackstone would say that when the TBN is so low. Looks good other than the fuel.

 

[buster]

Do you think the LC is actually doing anything?

How does this Tbn compare to others?

More importantly, how do you know LC is compatible with RL's chemistry? Sorry I'm just not a fan of additives.

 

[REDDOG]

Simple gifts,

Looks great!-9k is definitely doable. Terry posted a few years back to use 0 as the cut off for Redline with Blackstone. I'd stick with the LC too.

REDDOG

 

[AzFireGuy79]

What kind of use was this? Short trips, lots of highway? The reason i ask is that i am running RL in my toyota and UOA's show 8k to be completely doable. My TBN was 2.1 @ 7.5 K and I do alot of mixed driving. Thanks for posting this.

 

[kr_bitog]

Seems this engine really likes moly to control the wear.
However RL used up in just 8k, show how hard this engine on oil.
No wonder my normal M1 just make the engine sound horrible after 7k km.

 

[simple_gifts]

Quote:

how do you know LC is compatible with RL's chemistry?


Paid professional help.

Use was 70% highway, mostly trips of 30 miles.

Quote:

Terry posted a few years back to use 0 as the cut off for Redline with Blackstone


I was the one who provided that link recently; Quattro Pete indicated this may no longer be true since B-S have changed the way they measure TBN. I think 8-9K OCI is what I'll be doing on this vehicle.

Quote:

However RL used up in just 8k, show how hard this engine on oil.


Seems all the oils I have used are spent @ 8-11K; With the minimal wear, I'm tempted to try to push RL to the 13K range to "see what it does" Can't really complain about the performance with this UOA. Years ago RL suffered from a bad rap on this site IIRC.

 

[buster]

Thanks. Oil held up well. RL's Tbn retention could be a bit better but as you said most oils are shot around the same amount of miles.

 

[addyguy]

Good wear numbers and visc. retention.

Oil did its job well but RL is a waste of money if you can only get 8k out of it. I ran a fill of Formula Shell 5W-30 to 8k; and I had a TBN of 1.5 at the end. I probably paid less than a quarter of what you did for the RL.

 

[AzFireGuy79]

If hes running RL, I am going to assume the cost thing is a non issue for the most part. No offense intended but you can't compare Formula Shell to RL anything! Apples and oranges really. I think he could go longer next time around, but thats a comfort thing. I would be happy with 8k. Just me.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
Funny that B S says the TBN is used up at 8k, but go ahead and go for 9k next run???


That's only because there is nothing in the report that shows any fatigue as far as wear metals. No etching ..no elevated anything. It's all low noise. Whatever is deficient in the oil in terms of buffering agents ..hasn't shown to be a liability yet.

Quote:
Years ago RL suffered from a bad rap on this site IIRC.


RL was one of the few (only?) EXPENSIVE synthetic oils that wasn't marketed for extended drains. It was a higher performance oil with way overdosed additive levels. It still is. GC suffers the same way (or did). It's not necessarily good for the long haul in some engines.

Now we have cheap(er) synthetics that aren't marketed for extended drains.

 

[simple_gifts]

Quote:

I ran a fill of Formula Shell 5W-30 to 8k; and I had a TBN of 1.5 at the end. I probably paid less than a quarter of what you did for the RL.


Are you refering to your cavalier? Not sure comparing a different oil in a different engine has much merit. As indicated above I have used numerous synthetic oils in this vehicle and yielded safe 8-10K OCIs (has others have). "Whatever" the situation is with the engine to be so hard on oil, it only reinforces my tendency for syn oil, rather than retreating to a OTC SM dino fluid.

 

[Saab9-3]

Did it protect as well though

 

[buster]

This engine would be a great test for SSO in comparison to all the other oils he has ran. Any plans on trying it?

 

[simple_gifts]

Quote:

Any plans on trying it?


no. I am a 20 weight guy; after the RL 5w-20 is gone next year, ASM might be going in, or RL 0w-20

 

[addyguy]

Alright, fair enough, comparing totally different engines and oils is meaningless.

Except that I know for a FACT that this engine will go 5-6k on a dino oil - any engine will that is not a known sludger. This one certainly isn't. 5-6k runs on dino oil will end up being cheaper that RL will.

But if you have the money and want to use RL, go for it!