2 UOAs: Mobil 1 10w40+Lucas OS, 7000 & 9000 miles, 2005 Dodge Caravan 3.8L

[Robvette]

You are really digging some deep holes here based on some very flawed notions

are you referring to the "wear metals have dropped out of suspension" theory? or the "wear possibly could have been reduced by increased viscosity" theory?

You conveniently and selectively ignored the below much more important comment

fwiw - I was responding to @OVERKILL s theory, not ignoring it.

The idea that "all the wear metals and contaminants are sitting in areas of low flow, never being drawn into suspension" > resulted in two consecutive UOAs with falsely low wear / contaminant numbers ... that is a theory.

It does seem like @OVERKILL is stating conclusively "these oil samples are not representative, the wear metals and contaminants are sitting in areas of low flow, never being drawn into suspension". But, this is a theory, not a conclusion from ...

a completely uncontrolled $30 spectrographic analysis

So your other thread on lucas went sideways and suddenly you whip out a lucas UOA you forgot about. Ok.

@cptbarkey I've been doing UOAs for 20 years, most just good, nothing going on, common results. These two are interesting just because the percentage of Lucas in the 9000 mile sample is greater than I've seen posted about. Also, because Lucas is ...

The devil

 

[OVERKILL]

fwiw - another explanation for low wear in these higher viscosity UOAs could possibly be “in some applications and in some operating conditions increasing viscosity reduces wear”.

You are starting with a conclusion (there is low wear) and then trying to assemble an argument to support it. Inferring wear from spectrography is already problematic, let alone doing so on a piece of equipment with no foundational historic trending data to define what "normal" is. Even then, it's no guarantee that you will see anything of value.

Also, keep in mind, while Lucas does use a heavy bright stock, it's nowhere near the viscosity of the final product, which is achieved through the use of massive amounts of VII polymer, and not the good, expensive, shear resistant type, which @RDY4WAR could expand on a bit more.

Try mulling this over:
Phosphorous, the primary AW additive in the oil, which protects things like rings, sliding followers, valve tips, rocker ends, timing component gears/teeth...etc was diluted by almost 400% from level Mobil included, based on their own testing, as part of the formulation of the product.

Objectively, how could reducing the concentration of the primary AW additive, along with all the other additives, reduce actual wear?

Bearings are hydrodynamic, as long as they remain in that state, going up in viscosity isn't providing any more protection. Many other parts of the engine operate in mixed or boundary, which is where the AW additives work to prevent wear. I've listed some of them above.

There is a reason the xW-50 oils don't contain greatly reduced concentrations of additives: they are just as necessary in a heavy oil as they are in a thin one. In fact Mobil's V-Twin 20W-50 has one of the highest concentrations of phosphorous in their entire product portfolio at 1,770ppm, just behind their 0W-30/0W-50 Racing oils at 1,940ppm. The 15W-50, which you were considering for your Corvette, has 1,320ppm, also very high. The Supercar 5W-50 has 1,200ppm and the ESP X3 0W-40 has 990ppm (dexos2).

So, who do you trust more?
- ExxonMobil, who develops these fully formulated product and spec's the additive levels required to meet the performance requirements
- Lucas, that says oils need "stabilizing" by adding base oils that can't even be used in modern formulations because they don't meet the performance requirements, dosed with some bar oil tackifier and the cheapest VII plastic they can truck-in

Seems like a pretty easy choice to me

 

[JoelB]

I was gonna say… Lucas has taken nearly all the additives below the level of any acceptable industry limits. Gee, sounds like a great idea of something you’re paying extra for!

But its thickkkkkkkkkkk

 

[edyvw]

But its thickkkkkkkkkkk

It should be a crime to use that thing.

 

[Robvette]

@OVERKILL you and I are both referring to what's observed in these UOAs. I personally have not tried to draw anything conclusively from them. I could have been more clear by saying "a possible explanation for the low UOA indicated wear metals" versus "a possible explanation for the low wear".

Everything that you've written is great information and compelling for anyone considering Lucas or a heavier fully formulated oil.

I personally do not use Lucas any longer. Not because I had a bad experience with Lucas, but because of carefully explained information like you've shared. Thank you. (It's also less expensive to buy 5L of 15w50 versus 5L of 10w40 + 1L of Lucas).

And, you definitely realize that the theory that these UOA results "are not representative, the wear metals and contaminants are sitting in areas of low flow, never being drawn into suspension" is in no way conclusive.

 

[fantastic]

Can you run this van w/o Lucas just to see if we can see anything different in another couple UOA? Just curious.

 

[OVERKILL]

@OVERKILL you and I are both referring to what's observed in these UOAs. I personally have not tried to draw anything conclusively from them. I could have been more clear by saying "a possible explanation for the low UOA indicated wear metals" versus "a possible explanation for the low wear".

Reasonably low indicated, except for the tin, which is worrying, since that's bearing material. But again, what exactly are we looking at with the additive package in such a heavily compromised state? That's my point.

Everything that you've written is great information and compelling for anyone considering Lucas or a heavier fully formulated oil.

I personally do not use Lucas any longer. Not because I had a bad experience with Lucas, but because of carefully explained information like you've shared. Thank you. (It's also less expensive to buy 5L of 15w50 versus 5L of 10w40 + 1L of Lucas).

Yes, I think our previous discussions on the matter were productive.

And, you definitely realize that the theory that these UOA results "are not representative, the wear metals and contaminants are sitting in areas of low flow, never being drawn into suspension" is in no way conclusive.

JFC, my intent was not to state this as an absolute fact as to what's taking place, but to draw attention to the fact that this could potentially be in play here along with so much else, so that drawing a conclusion (low wear metals) is folly, because that may in fact be a wholly inaccurate representation of what actual transpired over this OCI.

There is so much noise here, with the massive amount of Lucas, the almost 400% dilution of all the additives, the obscene amount of make-up oil...etc, that drawing ANY conclusion as to performance, based on this, is impossible. Combined with the total absence of any sort of baseline/trend history for the equipment, it's like peeing into a hurricane, licking your finger, holding it up, putting it back in your mouth, and telling me "yep, this one has less uranium particulate in it than the last one, must be the climate change".

So, is it possible that the reason you see 9ppm of iron in the longer run is just due to the iron not being in suspension? Sure, that's why I mentioned it as something to consider. Can we conclude that from this absolute trainwreck? No, we can't conclude much of anything. The additive package is so heavily gutted, which in turn creates so many unknowns as to the myriad performance characteristics compromised, that this is itself, the only thing we can really glean here. That the additive levels are absolutely decimated by the addition of copious amounts of Lucas, which supports the oft-stated observation on the product, that it dilutes the additive package, on full display here.

 

[Jackson_Slugger]

Not to mention he's paying $13 a qt. for Group 1 stock with no additives. I think Mobil 1 15W-50 or 20W-50 can be had for half that!

 

[Robvette]

JFC, my intent was not to state this as an absolute fact as to what's taking place, but to draw attention to the fact that this could potentially be in play here along with so much else, so that drawing a conclusion (low wear metals) is folly, because that may in fact be a wholly inaccurate representation of what actual transpired over this OCI.

There is so much noise here, with the massive amount of Lucas, the almost 400% dilution of all the additives, the obscene amount of make-up oil...etc, that drawing ANY conclusion as to performance, based on this, is impossible. Combined with the total absence of any sort of baseline/trend history for the equipment, it's like peeing into a hurricane, licking your finger, holding it up, putting it back in your mouth, and telling me "yep, this one has less uranium particulate in it than the last one, must be the climate change".

So, is it possible that the reason you see 9ppm of iron in the longer run is just due to the iron not being in suspension? Sure, that's why I mentioned it as something to consider. Can we conclude that from this absolute trainwreck? No, we can't conclude much of anything. The additive package is so heavily gutted, which in turn creates so many unknowns as to the myriad performance characteristics compromised, that this is itself, the only thing we can really glean here. That the additive levels are absolutely decimated by the addition of copious amounts of Lucas, which supports the oft-stated observation on the product, that it dilutes the additive package, on full display here.

And, it is possible, that the low UOA indicated wear metals are representative.

It's really important to acknowledge that.

Sure, coming up with a plausible explanation for how 2 consecutive UOAs showed low indicated wear metals may not be representative is worth considering, and ... the low UOA indicated wear metals may simply reflect low wear.

 

[cptbarkey]

Not to mention he's paying $13 a qt. for Group 1 stock with no additives. I think Mobil 1 15W-50 or 20W-50 can be had for half that!

Nah, way too thin for what that Caravan experienced back in 2020.

 

[Robvette]

Can you run this van w/o Lucas just to see if we can see anything different in another couple UOA? Just curious.

Yes. We're not traveling to bike races in this vehicle much any longer and we're not driving it cross country - so the next UOA won't be like these. But I will post it.

 

[Robvette]

Not to mention he's paying $13 a qt. for Group 1 stock with no additives. I think Mobil 1 15W-50 or 20W-50 can be had for half that!

Agreed. See below

I personally do not use Lucas any longer. Not because I had a bad experience with Lucas, but because of carefully explained information like you've shared. Thank you. (It's also less expensive to buy 5L of 15w50 versus 5L of 10w40 + 1L of Lucas).

 

[Bill7]

It looks like the Lucas is gutting the additive pack and adding nothing...

http://www.pqiamerica.com/June 2014/mobil1530a.htm

https://pqia.org/mobil-1-sae-0w-20-high-mileage-full-synthetic-motor-oil/

I personally would never use any additive that is that thick. It's can't be good for the engine.

 

[TiGeo]

My comment here is simply, you don't have enough data to say anything at this point. I suggest that your UOA wear metals would look in this range regardless of this oil + Lucas, just this oil, or a different thinner oil. The Lucas for sure increased viscosity and diluted the additive package...the impact of those w/r to internal engine wear is unknown based on these data.

 

[Jackson_Slugger]

fwiw - another explanation for low wear in these higher viscosity UOAs could possibly be “in some applications and in some operating conditions increasing viscosity reduces wear”.

You are aware that there were a couple of stellar looking UOA's here where the vehicle's engine grenade shortly thereafter?
It's not an exact science when randomly applied as most consumer ones are...

 

[OVERKILL]

And, it is possible, that the low UOA indicated wear metals are representative.

It's really important to acknowledge that.

But highly unlikely, given that the Lucas raped the anti-wear chemistry which is responsible for, as the name would imply, preventing wear.

Sure, coming up with a plausible explanation for how 2 consecutive UOAs showed low indicated wear metals may not be representative is worth considering, and ... the low UOA indicated wear metals may simply reflect low wear.

Low relative to what? There's no bloody baseline, we have no idea if it's low or not. And, as I said, we have no idea how accurate these numbers are anyway because of how diluted the dispersant/detergent chemistry is. We are also ignoring the bearing material (tin) that still managed to show up despite the above.

Rather than us perpetually arguing over this absolute trainwreck, I propose you try an experiment:
For the next OCI in the van, put in M1 FS 0W-40 and nothing else. Do a UOA and do a filter C&P.

I fully expect we'll see much higher levels of everything with that oil in the sump, and, I expect we'll probably get some nice garbage in the oil filter as a bonus, given the vehicle's unknown maintenance history.

Now, we could be pleasantly surprised and the engine is in sufficiently good mechanical shape that we don't find some excitement. However, with the oil consumption, I think that's unlikely. It's a theory worth testing IMHO. I did a similar run with an Expedition that we picked up used, and it was putting carbonaceous grit in the filter for many OCI's (and it didn't consume any oil).

 

[DirectRejection]

This is literally molasses.

 

[edyvw]

Yes. We're not traveling to bike races in this vehicle much any longer and we're not driving it cross country - so the next UOA won't be like these. But I will post it.

Your next UOA will be more important. Regardless that you were loaded, most of your trip is the open road.
I had 5k UOA with 500-600 miles of track time, which showed better results or equal to regular driving, actually half of it open road to mountains.
City driving and short routes are one of the most extreme conditions.

 

[Robvette]

You are aware that there were a couple of stellar looking UOA's here where the vehicle's engine grenade shortly thereafter?

well then, since this UOA is an

absolute trainwreck

I feel confident the engine is going to be fine.

Seriously, I literally paid $200 for this minivan, so every time I turn the key forward and it starts I’m thrilled!

When I bought it the oil dipstick was rusted into the dipstick tube making it impossible to check the oil. I put a battery in it, got it started, and then added a full quart of oil.

When I went home, I tried again to get the dipstick out and the plastic handle broke off. After consulting YouTube University I got the old one out, purchased a new one and checked the oil. Nothing on the dipstick. I added another quart. Checked again and still nothing on the dipstick. The 4.5 quart system was fully 3 quarts low! I’m lucky it made it home.

I went to change the plugs and all 3 on the back of the engine that face rearward had not been tightened down. I was able to remove them all without a wrench.

And … the van runs perfectly to this day!

It’ll probably outlive all of us.

It’s sitting in the driveway right now road trip ready! (Pic below from Key West)

 

[Robvette]

I'll guess some BLM land out west.

it’s hard to believe, but this is in Kansas!!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monument_Rocks_(Kansas)