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

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: Clevy

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.

Check out my post before this one

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4

Originally Posted By: Clevy

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.

Check out my post before this one

Awesome breakdown. So I in your application if one breaks down cost per mile its pretty much equal therefore once cost is eliminated from the equation one now compares the time it takes for maintenance and factor in the fact that generally a synthetic has better operating characteristics. So to simplify as long as a person uses a syn in a prudent fashion and extends the interval the hard cost of product is equal per driven mile So all things being equal the choice is really based on performance,and because cost is equal if used til depleted then the only difference is the actual performance characteristics of the oil itself and since syns are typically better that's an easy decision. Thanks for taking the time to share. Your experience shows that when a plan is set and the tools are used (used oil analysis)and the data is actually applied to make choices you've shown that using a syn can be cost effective and can even save either money or effort once data is acquired and trends recognized. And you are using your data instead of a one or 2 time thing, and making choices based on the data. I laugh when I see used oil analysis posted and the data completely ignored. If they were just going to ignore it why pay for it. Anyways thanks again.

 

[dnewton3]

Fe is the one metal that truly tracks with mileage. The Al, Cu and Pb typically are so low it's just noise. And remember, one UOA does not indicate anything but a snap-shot. A few more will at least indicate a rough range. There are certainly dino lubes that cost less than the MS5K; you could likely improve the cost ratio by using a lesser cost dino, and probably still get very typical wear. Again, the ST dino oils show very good results, but very few try them, especially in longer OCIs (presumably out of some biased fear of hurting their investment). And so, the syn would have to push out further to make the cost ROI. Yes, there are expensive dino lubes, and that assists the syns in their ROI. But there are also really good bargains in dinos that still perform excellently; that would make the syn have to work a lot longer. I would contend that part of the reason dino lubes generally are getting closer in cost to syns, is because their performance is also getting so close to syns. The marginal disparity between cost is not far off from the marginal difference in performance. Keep in mind that the wear in this engine is so low, it really does not matter what is used. There is no way the difference of a few ppm of Fe is going send this engine to the junkyard. The vehicle will rot, get wrecked or traded long before this engine is in jeopardy of dying of wear-related illness. This engine family (the mod motor Fords) generally wear well, regardless what you put in them. Very similar to the GM Dmax. Use an approved/spec'd API lube and forget about the rest. Could you get a fractionally "better" wear rate from a syn here? Perhaps. But there are things well more worth worrying about than a couple ppm of Fe. This is why I say that unless folks run up to or near the condemnation points, it's all just banter.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

There are certainly dino lubes that cost less than the MS5K; you could likely improve the cost ratio by using a lesser cost dino, and probably still get very typical wear.

I preface this by saying please check my math and my premise because I am not a statistician and could certainly be wrong. Additionally, this calculation is based on both oils being used to zero life (which may or may not happen in real life). I want to keep this comparison as fair as possible, so I will remove the sale pricing and stick with regular pricing on both SuperTech and M1 (currently $12.97 for ST and $24.97 for M1). 12.97 x 7 = 90.79 (7 jugs of SuperTech) 24.97 x 7 = 174.79 (7 jugs of M1) A difference of $84 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 $90.79 or 0.0015131667 per mile for 60K miles on SuperTech 16,000 miles per OC x 5 OCs = 80,000 miles at a cost of $174.79 or 0.002184875 per mile for 80K miles on M1 If my math is correct, this equals a difference of 0.0006717083 per mile to use synthetic versus conventional. Provided a more expensive synthetic can be ran for more miles, then using a more expensive synthetic makes the gap even less (though one would assume just the opposite). Here is ST versus M1EP (currently $12.97 for ST and $26.97 for M1EP): 12.97 x 7 = 90.79 (7 jugs of SuperTech) 26.97 x 7 = 188.79 (7 jugs of M1EP) A difference of $98 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 $90.79 or 0.0015131667 per mile for 60K miles on SuperTech 20,000 miles per OC x 5 OCs = 100,000 miles at a cost of $188.79 or 0.0018879 per mile for 100K miles on M1EP (I will assume that 20K is possible with M1EP) If my math is correct, this equals a difference of 0.0003747333 per mile to use synthetic versus conventional. Does it cost more to run a synthetic over a conventional? if both oils are ran to zero life...mathematically it seems that it is a wash. IF the oil is NOT used to zero life (i.e. both dumped at 8K) then the conventional is the clear winner in the cost contest. Of course, synthetics are frequently on sale at WM whereas conventionals are less frequently placed on sale and this pushes the margins even further. Is this right, wrong, or other?

 

[webfors]

Don't forget to factor in the cost of additional oil filters over the life of the engine with a shorter OCI

 

[walk23]

Was there any noticed increase in mpg ?

 

[Garak]

The important thing to note in your case isn't the savings of conventional over synthetic (or the reverse if that were the case). What's really important is that it's quite clear you get the use out of the lube, to the point that the difference in the price between the two falls into background noise.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: walk23

Was there any noticed increase in mpg ?

Yes; but I attribute it more to being "conscious" that I was running AFE more so than anything the oil did.

 

[Capa]

Originally Posted By: webfors

Don't forget to factor in the cost of additional oil filters over the life of the engine with a shorter OCI

x2 Many of us on this forum have discovered that it is essentially cheaper to run a synthetic vs a convential, plus you get all of the pluses that come with a quality syn. Your UOA's are so systematic. Thanks for taking the time to do them! Also, thanks for not being so brand loyal as some here.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Capa

Originally Posted By: webfors

Don't forget to factor in the cost of additional oil filters over the life of the engine with a shorter OCI

x2 Many of us on this forum have discovered that it is essentially cheaper to run a synthetic vs a convential, plus you get all of the pluses that come with a quality syn. Your UOA's are so systematic. Thanks for taking the time to do them! Also, thanks for not being so brand loyal as some here.

Is being brand loyal a bad thing?

 

[dnewton3]

There are two ways to calculate a ROI; one is run to an artificial limit (an OCI duration) and the other is to run to condemnation limits ( xx ppm of Fe, soot, etc). Calculating a perceived ROI based upon supposition as to how far a lube might last is somewhat dubious. You really don't know how far a lube would go until you actually try it. Set limits, run up to them, and only then look at the odometer. Use the UOA for it's true purpose. In the other manner, you most certainly can calculate a ROI, but it's far too easy to favor one position or the other by pushing the OCI in/out a bit. This method is not a "true" potential calculation, but it is valid if you never intend to run out an OCI to max potential. Most any quality syn will outperform a conventional lube if you run it out long enough. 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? This is becoming a practice in some OTR fleets. The qualify of dino oils is so robust now, and with the use of bypass, mean the fluids can last a LONG time for very little relative investment. No matter. This series of UOAs shows a dedicated methodology and that is what really impresses me. What you choose to use is of little consequence contrasted to the manner in which you use it. Get the value out of your lube. I always enjoy the info!

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Calculating a perceived ROI based upon supposition as to how far a lube might last is somewhat dubious. You really don't know how far a lube would go until you actually try it. Set limits, run up to them, and only then look at the odometer. Use the UOA for it's true purpose.

I would say based upon the information that I have from my UOA stream, I have a fairly good grasp on how long a conventional oil will last in my engine and I do believe that MS5K would be EOL at 12K. For the synthetic piece, it is true I am extrapolating somewhat, but the numbers for lube life that I used are not completely unreasonable. I suppose time may tell on that part.

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?

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? No sarcasm here, I am genuinely interested in understanding how a bypass system increases oil life. As always thanks for your knowledge!

 

[CarbonSteel]

Dave??

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Calculating a perceived ROI based upon supposition as to how far a lube might last is somewhat dubious. You really don't know how far a lube would go until you actually try it. Set limits, run up to them, and only then look at the odometer. Use the UOA for it's true purpose.

I would say based upon the information that I have from my UOA stream, I have a fairly good grasp on how long a conventional oil will last in my engine and I do believe that MS5K would be EOL at 12K. For the synthetic piece, it is true I am extrapolating somewhat, but the numbers for lube life that I used are not completely unreasonable. I suppose time may tell on that part.

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?

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? No sarcasm here, I am genuinely interested in understanding how a bypass system increases oil life. As always thanks for your knowledge!

 

[bigt61]

Is it still true that synthetic oils increase fuel economy? It seems even a 1% increase in mileage would result in more savings than the cost difference of the oil. Example 80,000 miles at 20mpg = 4000 gallons of fuel burned. At $3 per gallon, that means $12,000 spent. Save 1% = $120 in savings. I know 0W-20 will save a little over 5W-20 or 5W-30, but what about a straight comparison of the same grade - dino vs synthetic?

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: bigt61

Is it still true that synthetic oils increase fuel economy? It seems even a 1% increase in mileage would result in more savings than the cost difference of the oil.

I saw an increase in economy, but I believe that it was due more to my being conscious that I had "Advanced Fuel Economy" oil in the truck than anything else and so I drove "economy minded". But with that said, information about this supposition is all over the Internet; there could be some truth to it, but I think it would be a minor savings at best. I think common sense things like proper tire inflation, non jack rabbit starts, no long term idling, etc. would have a more profound effect on MPG than synthetic versus conventional oil.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4

Originally Posted By: bigt61

Is it still true that synthetic oils increase fuel economy? It seems even a 1% increase in mileage would result in more savings than the cost difference of the oil.

I saw an increase in economy, but I believe that it was due more to my being conscious that I had "Advanced Fuel Economy" oil in the truck than anything else and so I drove "economy minded". But with that said, information about this supposition is all over the Internet; there could be some truth to it, but I think it would be a minor savings at best. I think common sense things like proper tire inflation, non jack rabbit starts, no long term idling, etc. would have a more profound effect on MPG than synthetic versus conventional oil.

However every bit helps. If you get .4 better MPG with 0-20AFE over 5-20 or 5-30 then in a 10K OCI you have paid for the oil. What's not to like?

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: tig1

If you get .4 better MPG with 0-20AFE over 5-20 or 5-30 then in a 10K OCI you have paid for the oil. What's not to like?

On that note, it could certainly pay for whatever difference is left between synthetic and conventional after the oil's life has been zeroed (if there is any difference left). So what is not to like

 

[daves87rs]

I have to say, after reading all of this (not sure how I missed it), reaffirms my gut of going ahead and running this QSUD OCI to a full year to get at least most of min ROI on the oil and filter run here. I'd take Dave up on the offer for my Cobalt (knowing Ecotecs are easy on oil helps ), but I simply do not out enough miles on my cars to give a meaningful result in a timely manner (could be waiting about 18 months or so at this rate.....