2010 FX4 | M1 0W-20 AFE SN | 5.4L | 10,168mi

Messages
8,992
Location
Houston, TX
Some background on the rationale for running this oil is that a discussion while sitting around the campfire arose between me and a few Friends/Dads/Grandfathers about common oil myths. I basically “shattered” most of the knowledge they had known for years and (of course) the inevitable argument ensued and led to the dare. The items to be proved or not proved (not sure that we will actually prove anything, but there is some information to be shared that cannot be dispelled and it was interesting waiting on the results) were: 1. Switching from synthetic to conventional and back to synthetic will cause the engine to begin to leak oil and/or burn oil. 2. My 5.4L could not run/tow without there being more wear when using a 0W-20 oil—it is simply too thin for my engine. 3. Engine oils must be changed at either 3 month/3,000 mile intervals or (another viewpoint) 6 month/5,000 mile intervals 4. Because I have over 100,000 miles on the engine, I should be using a 10W-40 or 20W-50 to better “protect” such a "worn" engine. 5. Last, but certainly, not least, you have to stick with a single brand of oil for the life of an engine because using different brands will cause “problems” (undefined on this one) with the engine. I thought that I had already dispelled #3, #4, and #5 with the history of my engine thus far, but apparently, a bottle of tequila clouds the vision of those attempting to read my historical UOA information so the argument/challenge ensued. The challenge was that: 1. I could take any synthetic oil of my choosing and run it for 15K miles with no leaks developing (they examined my engine top to bottom to see if any leaks currently existed). 2. The UOA would not show a significant change in wear metals (though that is not a good measure of engine wear, it was accepted due to the UOA history I have). 3. The engine would not use more than 1 quart of oil in 15K. This was to indicate increased oil usage due to using such a thin oil (Geez, I already use 5W-20--what gives here? But some people...). Thus far, #1 is true – no leaks have developed after 10K when this was sampled (now nearly 12K and still no leaks have arisen). I consider #2 to also be true; in fact, this UOA is probably the best one to date in relation to miles per OC. Lastly, #3 will be a potential debate because I lost about 3/4 quarts when I drew the sample, but it was witnessed and measured by one of the “arguers” so it should be OK. The 15K sample will show 0.75 quarts added on the UOA (though I doubt it will change the TBN much; the FX4 holds 7 quarts of oil). I also noticed an uptick on the silicon, so I will change my air filter when I complete this run. As a side note, I would have to say one other potential “myth” may be argued—is that M1 causes engines to shed more iron than other oils (remember I did say MAY BE argued). A couple of last items--there was no appreciable difference in the noise levels in the engine (i.e. I could not tell the difference between M1, MS5K, or PU). However, the engine "spools up" faster and runs smoother than with MS5K or PU. Now, I know what you are thinking--what a seat of the pants observation! Normally, I would agree, EXCEPT, the seat of my pants has been in this truck for 117,000 miles and I KNOW how the engine feels and runs and it simply runs smoother on M1 0W-20 AFE than any other oil I have used to date. Anyway…whether we proved/dispelled anything is debatable and I told you all of that to show you this; here is the UOA of the 10K sample (the oil HAS NOT been changed!). Enjoy!
Code:
  				  Year: 2010				        Make: Ford		       Model: F-150 FX4
				Engine: 5.4L FFV			Transmission: 6R80			Axle: 9.75 Ford ELD (3.73)
 
                         		  -                          	              -
		           SYNTHETIC <<--]|[-->> CONVENTIONAL  	    CONVENTIONAL <<--]|[-->> SYNTHETIC
				       	  |		                              |						
					  |		                   	      |
Date:		                   10/13  |   07/13    04/13    11/12   08/12	06/12 |	05/12	02/12	11/11	09/11	07/11	06/11	05/11	03/11	02/11	01/11	10/10	9/10
Oil Brand/Type:			      M1  |    MS5K     MS5K     MS5K    MS5K    MS5K | PU	PU	PU	PU	PU	PU	PU	PU	PU	PU	PU	MC
Oil Viscosity:	                   0W-20  |   5w-20    5W-20    5W-20	5W-20   5W-20 | 5W-20	5W-20	5W-20	5W-20	5W-20	5W-20	5W-20	5W-20	5W-20	5W-20	5W-20	5W-20
API Service:	             	      SN  |      SN       SN       SN	   SN      SN | SM{A}	SM	SM	SM	SM	SM	SM	SM	SM	SM	SM	SM
Oil Filter:		  	      MC  |      MC       MC       MC	   MC	   MC | MC	MC	MC	MC	MC	MC	MC	MC	MC	MC	MC	MC
Air Filter:		              NG  |      NG       NG       NG	   NG      NG | NG	NG{B}	MC	MC	MC	MC{B}	MC	MC	MC	MC	MC	MC
Lab:		               	   BLKST  |   BLKST    BLKST    BLKST	BLKST   BLKST | BLKST	BLKST	BLKST	BLKST	BLKST	BLKST	BLKST	BLKST	BLKST	BLKST	BLKST	BLKST
				          | 		                              |
Truck Mileage:	            	 116,433  | 106,265   99,231   89,211  80,927  74,447 |	69,305	62,055	54,575	47,075	39,770	32,280	27,100	21,600	16,600	10,600	4,500	991
Oil Mileage:	               	  10,168  |   7,394   10,020    8,285   6,480	5,142 |	7,250	7,480	7,500	7,305	7,490	5,180	5,500	5,000	6,000	6,100	3,509	991   
                                          |            	   	     	              |
Make-Up Oil:                   	     0.0  |     0.0      0.5      0.5     0.0     0.0 | 0.0     0.25    0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0
                                    	  |		             	              |
Aluminum:		               2  |       2	   3        3	    2	    2 |	3	3	5	3	2	2	3	3	6	3	3	3	
Chromium		               1  |       1	   1        1	    1	    1 |	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0
Iron:			              10  |      10	  16       12	   10      10 |	11	8	13	8	9	7	9	10	18	13	10	18
Copper:			               1  |       2	   2        2	    2	    1 |	2	1	2	2	2	2	3	4	4	5	9	41
Lead:			               0  |	  1	   0        0	    0	    1 |	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2
Tin:			               1  |	  0	   2        1	    4	    0 |	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Molybdenum:		              75  |  	  6	   3        6	    3	   11 |	48	56	46	47	58	55	54	45	47	52	48	42
Nickel:			               0  |	  1	   1        1	    1	    0 |	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0
Manganese:		               1  |	  1	   1        1	    1       0 |	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	2	10
Silver:			      	       0  |	  0	   0        0	    0	    0 |	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	
Titanium:		     	       2  |      27  	  34       32 	   30	   24 |	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Potassium:		     	       0  |	  2	   0        4	    4	    2 |	6	0	6	5	1	0	2	3	4	2	3	14
Boron:			      	      35  |	  9	   3        4	    7	    9 |	91	249	156	144	156	233	244	230	249	278	258	272
Silicon:	             	      14  |	 11	  12       12	   11      12 |	13	11	16	19	21	19	19	17	16	29	45	111
Sodium:			    	      99  |     323	 369      362	  374	  284 |	4	4	7	5	3	3	3	4	4	4	4	9
Calcium:	              	    1236  |    2179	2200     2276	 1954	 2195 |	2647	3168	3003	3053	2941	2900	2814	2613	2740	2911	2706	2203
Magnesium:		      	     768  |	 15	  19       19 	   12	   15 |	17	15	17	17	16	12	12	11	12	12	12	14
Phosphorus:		      	     668  |     697	 706      735	  624	  655 |	688	728	671	668	710	713	676	608	629	691	643	773
Zinc:			       	     784  |	822	 832      797	  738	  765 |	762	820	724	743	861	834	813	675	718	774	752	835
Barium:			       	       0  |	  0	   0        0	    0	    0 |	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	16
     	                           	  |	                                      |						
SUS Viscosity @ 210°F		    51.2  |    50.7     51.4     52.3	 52.6    51.5 |	53.5	53.2	52.2	51.7	53.9	52.5	52.9	53.1	52.8	51.5	52.2	49.4
cSt Visc. @ 100°C (UOA)	      	    7.63  |    7.49     7.69     7.96	 8.05	 7.73 |	8.34	8.25	7.93	7.80	8.45	8.04	8.14	8.21	8.12	7.72	7.94	7.09
                                    	  |	                                      |
VOA Mobil cSt Visc. @ 100°C    	     8.6  |    7.48     7.48     7.48 	 7.48	 7.48 |	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---
MOBIL cSt Visc. @ 100°C        	     8.7  |	8.4      8.4      8.4	  8.4	  8.4 |	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---
                                	  |	                                      |
VOA PU cSt Visc. @ 100°C	     ---  |	---      ---      ---	  ---	  --- |	7.62	7.62	7.62    7.62	7.62	7.62	7.62	7.62	7.62	7.62	7.62	---
SOPUS cSt Visc. @ 100°C     	     ---  |	---      ---      ---	  ---	  --- |	8.41	8.41	8.41	8.41	8.41	8.41	8.41	8.41	8.41	8.41	8.41	---
                                   	  |	                                      |	
Flashpoint in °F (UOA)		     400  |	 400     395      510 	  390     {C} |	415	405	420	415	410	425	405	390	410	390	400	390
MOBIL Flashpoint in °F		     435  |	 446     446      446	  446	  446 |	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---
SOPUS Flashpoint in °F   	     ---  |	 ---     ---      ---	  ---	  --- |	435	435	435	435	435	435	435	435	435	435	435	---
                              	 	  |	                                      |
Fuel %				    <0.5  |	<0.5    <0.5     <0.5	 <0.5	  {C} |<0.5    <0.5    <0.5    <0.5    <0.5    <0.5    <0.5    <0.5    <0.5    <0.5    <0.5    <0.5
Antifreeze %			     0.0  |	 0.0     0.0      0.0	  0.0	  0.0 |	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	
Water %				     0.0  |	 0.0     0.0      0.2	 <0.0	  0.0 |	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Insolubles %			     0.1  |	 0.3     0.4      0.4	  0.2     0.1 |	0.3	0.3	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.1
TBN				     2.2  |	 2.5     1.4      2.7	  2.6	  3.7 |	---	---	---	5.4	---	---	5.6	4.8	5.3	9.4	7.5	---
TAN				     4.3  |	 2.3     3.0      2.6	  4.3	  --- |	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---
                              	    	  |	                                      |
                                      	  |          		                      |
   		    	   SYNTHETIC <<--]|[-->> CONVENTIONAL       CONVENTIONAL <<--]|[-->> SYNTHETIC
                                          -                   		              -

NOTES:

Acronyms:

BLKST=Blackstone M1=Mobil 1 | MS5K=Mobil Super 5000 | PU=Pennzoil Ultra


{A} Possibly SN in SM bottle; note drop in Calcium
{B} Air filter change; MC=Motorcraft, NG=Napa Gold
{C} Blackstone spilled sample; not enough to test FP and Fuel%
 
Messages
211
Location
Tx, USA
I've been waiting for this since you said this one was a secret...looks great...no major difference other than what you stated. Are you going to keep experimenting or gonna stick with this? or go back to MS5K?
 
Messages
14,810
Location
Illinois
I know M1 0-20 is outstanding for 10K OCIs, as I use it, but in my 4 cyl Fords. Do you do any heavy pulling with the V8? So you are going for 15K with this oil? One member(Fsskier) has done 20K OCIs with this oil for several hundred Ks, in engines calling for 5-30. Maybe my 10K OCI is a little whimmpy.
 
Messages
10,474
Location
Jupiter, Florida
I use M1 10W-30 (admittedly, a thin 10W-30) in my 5.4L. Not because more viscous oil protects better (it's marginally more viscous than the 0W-20 at operating temps) but because the "cam phasers" work a bit better in both my Jaguar and my 5.4L and it reduces oil consumption to "nil" in my Jaguar. The 5.4L consumes no oil.
 

CarbonSteel

Thread starter
Messages
8,992
Location
Houston, TX
Originally Posted By: tig1
I know M1 0-20 is outstanding for 10K OCIs, as I use it, but in my 4 cyl Fords. Do you do any heavy pulling with the V8? So you are going for 15K with this oil? One member(Fsskier) has done 20K OCIs with this oil for several hundred Ks, in engines calling for 5-30. Maybe my 10K OCI is a little whimmpy.
I do pull some relatively heavy loads and quite frequently (there was about 2K worth of towing in this 10K run). I am not sure what the TBN will be like at 15K on the AFE, but I am almost sure that you can extend past 10K (but that would depend on your driving habits). A UOA or two would tell you... I am going to 15K; but I will re-sample at 15K before dumping and see where I am. I have read that M1 tends to hold just above 2.x on TBN for a long time. It will also depend on the TAN rise; it started somewhere around 2.8 and is up to 4.3, but I understand that 8ish is high. Although I have never been a dedicated fan of M1 (I did run it for years in the 90s in my C4s); it is hard to dispute the results thus far and I really like the way the engine runs. How about those insolubles??? grin
 
Messages
34,044
Location
Southern NJ
This is a very good synthetic 0w20. Best MRV#'s, great VI, dexos 1, 50% PAO per Japanese MSDS. Can you handle Walmart though? grin
 
Messages
34,044
Location
Southern NJ
My Honda 2.4 always ticked at start up on cold days. Both AFE oils kept that particular engine quieter than any other oil. I have no idea if this is true or not, but on the Driven Oil website (somewhere) they said the mPAO keeps the valve-train quieter. Great oil though. 0w30 as well.
 
Messages
9,783
Location
Saskatoon canada
On tigs advice I tried AFE last year in my hemi ram. I had to sheepishly admit it was great in our brutal winters. I'd use it again. Tig had ruined me.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Messages
8,459
Location
Indianapolis, IN
First of all, I marvel at the dedication and conscious decisions you make. You don't run willy-nilly down the oil aisle, but rather make thoughtful decisions about what you're going to do, and why. That is what separates your UOAs from most others. You define a quest with specifics, test methodically, and then await the data, eschewing conjecture and deliberately look with wide-open eyes when the test is done. Kudos, sir! As for this recent UOA, I have a few thoughts: 1) clearly this engine continues to be in fine shape 2) this engine simply has no preference for a particular grade/brand/base stock; they all performance equally well 3) you can easily and safely extend your OCIs a bit; 15k miles is not out of the question at all 4) although folks freak out when TAN crosses TBN, nothing bad typically happens. You're almost double the TBN in TAN, and yet wear and everything else is just fine 5) While one UOA really isn't "science", it's obvious at a top-level view that there was no real gain, nor loss, from going back to syns, except that it cost a LOT more for the exact same results ... 6) you are proving what you set out to prove; your expectations are being answered and met Data speaking the truth in a dedicated, methodical program. The majority of BITOGers could learn from your approach, and your facts. BTW - I wonder if those guys at the campfire are reeling from their oil-data hangover? While the tequila may have affected their night vision, it is actually the fog of lube bigotry that clouds their ability to see truth. I believe I have offered before, but I'll do so again: I would like to see a bargain brand lube (API SN approved) run for a reasonable trial of a couple OCIs. I would be willing to pay for the lube of your choice, as long as it's a "bargain brand" such as a house brand (I particularly favor ST and I've had great UOAs with such). It would be of great interest to compare/contrast that type fluid to the premium syns. Interested?
 

CarbonSteel

Thread starter
Messages
8,992
Location
Houston, TX
Originally Posted By: Stang40
I've been waiting for this since you said this one was a secret...looks great...no major difference other than what you stated. Are you going to keep experimenting or gonna stick with this? or go back to MS5K?
Thanks Stang! Dad had 5 or 6 jugs of M1 5W-20 left in his stash (he basically exchanged all of the MS5K that I gave him for M1) so I may try that after this run to see if it is as smooth as the 0W-20. I do not want to become an M1 "fanboy" but... grin
 

CarbonSteel

Thread starter
Messages
8,992
Location
Houston, TX
Originally Posted By: buster
This is a very good synthetic 0w20. Best MRV#'s, great VI, dexos 1, 50% PAO per Japanese MSDS. Can you handle Walmart though? grin
LOL - for this run, the campfire gang paid for the oil and had to deal with the WM crowd. Honestly at $23 a jug (there was a mark-down when it was bought) it is a great deal for such a good oil. Hmmm...I could exchange my MS5K for AFE whistle
 
Messages
9,783
Location
Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: buster
This is a very good synthetic 0w20. Best MRV#'s, great VI, dexos 1, 50% PAO per Japanese MSDS. Can you handle Walmart though? grin
LOL - for this run, the campfire gang paid for the oil and had to deal with the WM crowd. Honestly at $23 a jug (there was a mark-down when it was bought) it is a great deal for such a good oil. Hmmm...I could exchange my MS5K for AFE whistle
So to touch on dnewtons point a bit. Now that you've established that in your application the m1 can go 15000 miles and the ms5k can run 10000 miles which of the 2 is the most cost effective per mile and did you find any pros or cons in comparing the 2. Thanks.
 
Messages
753
Location
MA
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
First of all, I marvel at the dedication and conscious decisions you make. You don't run willy-nilly down the oil aisle, but rather make thoughtful decisions about what you're going to do, and why. That is what separates your UOAs from most others. You define a quest with specifics, test methodically, and then await the data, eschewing conjecture and deliberately look with wide-open eyes when the test is done. Kudos, sir! As for this recent UOA, I have a few thoughts: 1) clearly this engine continues to be in fine shape 2) this engine simply has no preference for a particular grade/brand/base stock; they all performance equally well 3) you can easily and safely extend your OCIs a bit; 15k miles is not out of the question at all 4) although folks freak out when TAN crosses TBN, nothing bad typically happens. You're almost double the TBN in TAN, and yet wear and everything else is just fine 5) While one UOA really isn't "science", it's obvious at a top-level view that there was no real gain, nor loss, from going back to syns, except that it cost a LOT more for the exact same results ... 6) you are proving what you set out to prove; your expectations are being answered and met Data speaking the truth in a dedicated, methodical program. The majority of BITOGers could learn from your approach, and your facts. BTW - I wonder if those guys at the campfire are reeling from their oil-data hangover? While the tequila may have affected their night vision, it is actually the fog of lube bigotry that clouds their ability to see truth. I believe I have offered before, but I'll do so again: I would like to see a bargain brand lube (API SN approved) run for a reasonable trial of a couple OCIs. I would be willing to pay for the lube of your choice, as long as it's a "bargain brand" such as a house brand (I particularly favor ST and I've had great UOAs with such). It would be of great interest to compare/contrast that type fluid to the premium syns. Interested?
Thoughtfully stated, per usual, especially as regards FX4's regimented, consistent, approach. Thank-you both for your contributions to the site. Question FX4, was this some kind of wager? If so, what is in it for you? You are putting your vehicle and $$ on the line, will they pay for the next UOA? Put 0w-20 in their own vehicles? Buy you a bottle of Patron?
 
Messages
753
Location
MA
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: buster
This is a very good synthetic 0w20. Best MRV#'s, great VI, dexos 1, 50% PAO per Japanese MSDS. Can you handle Walmart though? grin
LOL - for this run, the campfire gang paid for the oil and had to deal with the WM crowd. Honestly at $23 a jug (there was a mark-down when it was bought) it is a great deal for such a good oil. Hmmm...I could exchange my MS5K for AFE whistle
Ah, question answered... smile
 

CarbonSteel

Thread starter
Messages
8,992
Location
Houston, TX
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
First of all, I marvel at the dedication and conscious decisions you make. You don't run willy-nilly down the oil aisle, but rather make thoughtful decisions about what you're going to do, and why. That is what separates your UOAs from most others. You define a quest with specifics, test methodically, and then await the data, eschewing conjecture and deliberately look with wide-open eyes when the test is done. Kudos, sir!
Thanks Dave! With regards to performance (and although I realize this is only one run) there are two things that stand out for me: 1. the Fe PPM is statistically less than any run prior (even lower mileage runs). I am not chasing numbers and I realize there can be deviations between runs, but this was great run and I am waiting to see the 15K sample. 2. the insolubles are incredibly low for a 10K run and it has grabbed my attention to say the least. Although this run was "free" (courtesy of the campfire gang) I am noticing the price of conventionals increasing to the point where cost between the two is degrading. If the trend continues then cost will be a moot point (certainly less of one). Particularly if sales are engaged and purchases are in bulk. For example, at one of the WMs in my area MS5K is approaching $16 for a 5Qt jug whereas M1 and PP were recently $22 a jug. My 10K run of MS5K had a TBN of 1.4 and for sake of argument let us assume it would read 1.0 at 12K and the M1 will read 1.0 at 16K. I typically purchase seven 5QT jugs at a time (enough for 5 OCs @ 7QTs each). So using the numbers at WM, here are my calculations: 15.97 x 7 = 111.79 (7 jugs of MS5K) 21.97 x 7 = 153.79 (7 jugs of M1) A difference of $42 which sounds like a lot on the surface, but let us calculate a little further. When we apply the miles to the cost, it becomes thus: 12,000 miles per OC x 5 OCs = 60,000 miles at a cost of $111.79 or 0.001863167 per mile for 60K miles on MS5K 16,000 miles per OC x 5 OCs = 80,000 miles at a cost of $153.79 or 0.001922375 per mile for 80K miles on M1 If my math is correct, this equals a difference of 0.000059208 (effectively ZERO). The problem is that many do not run synthetics (or conventionals for that matter) long enough to zero out the life of the oil--oftentimes as you have stated "chasing the best set of numbers in a single UOA that means nothing due to lack of consistency." and therefore they waste oil and money. I have been totally guilty of this throughout the life of my FX4 (well, at least until now), but alas, hopefully my waste is knowledge for someone else to stop the waste. Now based upon the numbers above, I would rather run the synthetic over the conventional--would you agree? Please give me your thoughts. PS...the campfire guys are now thoroughly confused and are stepping back to take stock of their current OCIs. For the most part, they realize they are indeed wasting oil, money, and time. There are two hold-outs, but with the others "converting" in short order they will have to face the truth--sooo in many ways, it is "Mission Accomplished!"
 
Top