2010 FX4 | MS5K 5W-20 SN | 5.4L | 10,020mi

[CarbonSteel]

Gang,

Here is the 4th UOA using MS5K and it is the longest run thus far. The question comes at this point--do I push a bit further or call it a day? I have not yet decided, but a 1.4TBN is likely right at the limit and my driving pattern has changed somewhat, so the oil has more sump time, but the oil has still held up very well (even as a 5W-20

). Decisions, decisions...

I will again echo the fact that in a normal engine with no special characteristics and unless one is willing to run synthetic more than 20K (to recover the cost), then you are wasting your money running a synthetic oil. I will also stand behind 5W-20 in that it is much more robust than people are willing to concede--I am nearing 100K on my truck and it is running just as well as it ever did and the wear metals are trending very well.

The numbers speak for themselves...

Blackstone Comments:

This is the longest oil run for your F150 so far, and the engine barely even noticed. You can see that iron has slowly increased over time, which is perfectly normal. Iron is the one metal that tracks most obviously with miles on the oil, so it should be reading higher at 10,000 miles than it was at 7500 miles. These metals are nicely balanced, and we found no contamination at all in the oil. The TAN read 3.0, which is not too acidic, and the TBN read 1.4.

Code:


Year: 2010 Make: Ford Model: F-150 FX4

Engine: 5.4L FFV Transmission: 6R80 Axle: 9.75 Ford ELD (3.73)



-

CONVENTIONAL > SYNTHETIC

|

|

Date: 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: MS5K MS5K MS5K MS5K | PU PU PU PU PU PU PU PU PU PU PU MC

Oil Viscosity: 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 | 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

Air Filter: 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

|

|

Truck Mileage: 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: 10,020 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

|

Aluminum: 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 0

Iron: 16 12 10 10 | 11 8 13 8 9 7 9 10 18 13 10 18

Copper: 2 2 2 1 | 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 5 9 41

Lead: 0 0 0 1 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Tin: 2 1 4 0 | 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Molybdenum: 3 6 3 11 | 48 56 46 47 58 55 54 45 47 52 48 42

Nickel: 1 1 1 0 | 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Manganese: 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

Titanium: 34 32 30 24 | 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Potassium: 0 4 4 2 | 6 0 6 5 1 0 2 3 4 2 3 14

Boron: 3 4 7 9 | 91 249 156 144 156 233 244 230 249 278 258 272

Silicon: 12 12 11 12 | 13 11 16 19 21 19 19 17 16 29 45 111

Sodium: 369 362 374 284 | 4 4 7 5 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 9

Calcium: 2200 2276 1954 2195 | 2647 3168 3003 3053 2941 2900 2814 2613 2740 2911 2706 2203

Magnesium: 19 19 12 15 | 17 15 17 17 16 12 12 11 12 12 12 14

Phosphorus: 706 735 624 655 | 688 728 671 668 710 713 676 608 629 691 643 773

Zinc: 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 1 16

|

cSt Visc. @ 100°C (UOA) 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 MS5K cSt Visc. @ 100°C 7.48 7.48 7.48 7.48 | --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

MOBIL cSt Visc. @ 100°C 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 ---

|

SUS Viscosity @ 210°F 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

Flashpoint in °F 395 510 390 {C} | 415 405 420 415 410 425 405 390 410 390 400 390

MOBIL Flashpoint in °F 446 446 446 446 | --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

SOPUS Flashpoint in °F --- --- --- --- | 435 435 435 435 435 435 435 435 435 435 435 ---

|

Fuel %
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

Water % 0.0 0.2
Insolubles % 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 1.4 2.7 2.6 3.7 | --- --- --- 5.4 --- --- 5.6 4.8 5.3 9.4 7.5 ---

TAN 3.0 2.6 4.3 --- | --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

|

|

CONVENTIONAL > SYNTHETIC

-



NOTES:



Acronyms:



BLKST=Blackstone | MS5K=Mobil | PU=Pennzoil





{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%

 

[volk06]

The TAN is now double the TBN, so how does that change things?

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: volk06
The TAN is now double the TBN, so how does that change things?

Little, if any, right? Especially since the wear metals remained the same and there were no other changes to the results. There will come a time when this would be an issue, but I do not see that as an issue for this UOA. My second run of MS5K had a higher TAN than TBN, but that run was fine as well.

 

[volk06]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: volk06
The TAN is now double the TBN, so how does that change things?

Little, if any, right? Especially since the wear metals remained the same and there were no other changes to the results. There will come a time when this would be an issue, but I do not see that as an issue for this UOA. My second run of MS5K had a higher TAN than TBN, but that run was fine as well.

I'm not so sure about that. Yes the UOA is good on terms of wear metals but doesn't this UOA show the oil can no longer effectively neutralize the acidity? This could lead to some build up eventually, the insolubles is still decent but you can't judge by that number alone as it doesn't show the whole picture. A varnished engine can still show low insolubles.

 

[Coprolite]

The wear metals look great. I too am curious if the TBN/TAN relationship might be an indicator of possible buildup being allowed or not. Do you track fuel consumption to overlay gallons used per OCI? I think 10k changes on your truck are probably the best limit, unless bypass filtration would help extend your TBN life. Of course, it does already have 100k on it, so ROI vs 10k changes will limit payback but increase OCI flexibility.

The IOLM on my Ecoboost FX4 is under observation on the first major road trip for the truck. I changed the oil on Saturday and left on my trip on Tuesday. The IOLM ticked to 99% in the first (<)25 miles based upon the 1 year limit on the oil. Once on the road, it went over 130 miles before dropping another 1% but then it started hitting an apparent 10k mile life limit, as it would predictably tick down to the next % every 100 miles on the highway. I am pretty sure that it doesn't take into any account the fuel used, as I was averaging <16 mpg for the tank so far at Texas highway speeds. I am definitely hoping this truck leans out with age and mileage.

 

[dnewton3]

Allow me to contribute here ...

Acids: typically only a concern when TBN is low (below 1.0) AND TAN is high (8.0-10.0 is the upper limit according to Blackstone in their testing methods). Hence, although TBN is fairly low here, it's not bottomed out, and the acid is not high. This example is echo'd in my recent UOA of 10k miles on dino, where the TBN was low, but the TAN was not high. Like it or not, there is life left in this lube. The TAN in these dino samples is nowhere near high enough to be an issue.

Wear metals: no suprise to me here; wear rates drop with exposure, in a healthy engine. The macro data across entire industries shows this to be true, and Ford's SAE study shows this also in the lab. You can deny the truth, but that does not make it a lie. The wear is getter BETTER as the OCI increases. The only metal to increase in magnitude is Fe; the others are essentially flat-lined. And the RATE of Fe wear is dropping as the oil ages!

Vis/Insolubles: The vis is very healthy, neither thinning nor thickening substantially, and compares quite favorably to the former PU applications. Where many would claim that synthetics hold an advantage of vis retention, these dino examples show that to not be the case, at least to this 10k mile limit. Addtionally, some are going to scream about the potential for sludge ... just where would one base that irrational fear? The vis is in great shape, indicating that oxidation is not overt. The insolubles are fine with plenty of distance before the .6 limit is reached, so soot and other solids are well in control. You can scream about the fear of sludge, but the fear is baseless as the evidence shows.

FP: to be honest, I don't much pay attention to this in a Blackstone report; their method is not a robust as some others. However, you'll notice nothing alarming in any of the FP counts, for dino or syn. This is a moot point in this application with these lubes.

Contamination: no intrusion of fuel, dirt or coolant; never has been. There might be some day, and there might never be. But at this point, the engine is in very fine mechanical shape.

OIl make up: nothing overt here. Consumption is normal, indicating no mechanical problems nor gross evaporation.



In short, the wear rates are dropping, the acid is not a problem, and the oil is not on the cusp of sludging. There is every reason to believe futher extension is viable, and only irrational phobias say otherwise.

The engine is just as safe and well protected at 10k miles on dino as it was at 5k miles with PU.

.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

$10K miles on oil that's $2.50 a quart? That's low maintenance costs!

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
$10K miles on oil that's $2.50 a quart? That's low maintenance costs!

LOL - it depends on whether you take full retail or the cost that I had when it was on special. I think my cost was about $17 for 7 quarts including the MC FL-820s filter. $1.70 per 1K; not too bad.

 

[Jim Allen]

I just KNEW this was going to be a good report. I know a little about Glenn's (2010FX4) driving scenarios and if anyone can demonstrate long UOA efficacy on conventional, it's a guy in a warm weather climate with a long commute.
Getting 10K on a decent conventional in a good driving routine is really not that big a milestone (not trying to dampen your glee at at a great UOA, Glenn ( : < ). Many of us can accomplish the same thing. All we need is a bit of attention to detail and a little research to verify the numbers will plug into the formula properly. Obviously, this formula is not going to work with every driver, every engine or every climate but I think it will work a lot of the time for a lot of people and their various cars.

As to TAN, I agree is low and no trouble on the face of it but you can't really make a hoopla one way or another until you know the virgin TAN. Isn't it the rise from the virgin number to the used number that counts the most?

I'm going to finish a 15K run on a conventional oil in my 5.4L in about 2500 miles. It's an HDEO, so it may be a little more robust than the Mobil Glenn used. Plus, I had to add some oil after a 10K sample when I made mods to the filter base and changed from a 5 um bypass element to a 3 um, but it will be interesting to compare and contrast my numbers with Glenn's. I took a sample at 10K and had UOA done. Here it is for comparison:

Motrcraft 10W30 Super Duty

Code:


Element/ Virgin/ 10K UOA (zero values not listed)



Iron- 1/ 19

Aluminum- 2/ 2

Copper- 0/ 3

Silicon- 0/ 8

Sodium- 2/ 1

Potassium- 4/ 1

Moly- 0/ 10

Boron- 2/ 2

Magnesium- 8/ 73

Calcium- 2642/ 1829

Phosphorus- 1174/ 861

Zinc- 1307/ 985

Viscosity- 11.7/ 10.7

TAN- NA/ 2.68

TBN- 7.7/ 3.72

Oxidation- 9/ 14

Nitration- 4/ 11

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Getting 10K on a decent conventional in a good driving routine is really not that big a milestone (not trying to dampen your glee at at a great UOA).

Not to worry; it is more to show that you do not need a synthetic to run a 10K OCI.

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
As to TAN, I agree is low and no trouble on the face of it but you can't really make a hoopla one way or another until you know the virgin TAN. Isn't it the rise from the virgin number to the used number that counts the most?

I went back and checked the virgin UOA I did of MS5K and I did not have a TAN ran on it so I do not have the virgin number for comparison. Still in all, I am not worried about the TAN and I think the numbers are good overall, but the concern with the markings on the ADBV on my last FL-820s will likely cause me to set a 10K OCI with this oil and filter combination. I rest easy in knowing that I would have to run PU more than 25K and a filter change would be required to level out the cost AND nothing would be gained by doing so.

 

[RISUPERCREWMAN]

What oil brand is MS5K?

 

[volk06]

Originally Posted By: RISUPERCREWMAN
What oil brand is MS5K?


Mobil Super 5000

 

[chubbs1]

Originally Posted By: RISUPERCREWMAN
What oil brand is MS5K?


Mobil Super 5k. one of the cheapest conventional at walmart IIRC.

I love this oil more and more and now I think I am going to be a convert. I have just seen too many good UOA's (this is outstanding) with this lube.

Excellent data!!!! Thank you

 

[chubbs1]

Jim Allen, do you think the very efficient bypass system is filtering out some of the additives? That is a significant drop in calcium. I would bet yes.

 

[JavierG]

Originally Posted By: chubbs1
Originally Posted By: RISUPERCREWMAN
What oil brand is MS5K?


Mobil Super 5k. one of the cheapest conventional at walmart IIRC.

I love this oil more and more and now I think I am going to be a convert. I have just seen too many good UOA's (this is outstanding) with this lube.

Excellent data!!!! Thank you

I agree. I love it as well. You should use it in your Hyundai next OC and see how it compares to M1.

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: chubbs1
Jim Allen, do you think the very efficient bypass system is filtering out some of the additives? That is a significant drop in calcium. I would bet yes.


Bypass cannot filter out additives, unless someone could build one to filter on a sub-micronic level. Plus, if that were the case, it would have filtered out ALL the wear metals as well (which are typically "seen" by the spectrograph in the 1-5 um range). The drop in calcium is part of a mystery which I commented upon when I posted this UOA the first time. Nobody had answers at the time and I still don't today... other than lab errors at some point. Same lab (Polaris) did both samples at the same time. Another possibility is a mixing error in the one bottle I took the virgin sample from, or errors in the bottles I put into the truck.

 

[Gabe]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Acids: typically only a concern when TBN is low (below 1.0) AND TAN is high (8.0-10.0 is the upper limit according to Blackstone in their testing methods).


You are probably wrong on that. HERE and HERE are a couple good articles that disagree with you.

This oil was left in too long. I am curious why we are not seeing the additional wear.

 

[FZ1]

"A man's got to know his limitations." Nice run,but that's as far as I would go. Get the wm and the contaminates outta there.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: volk06
I'm not so sure about that. Yes the UOA is good on terms of wear metals but doesn't this UOA show the oil can no longer effectively neutralize the acidity?

I'm pretty impressed by the UOA, but I wonder about the TAN versus TBN issue, too. I'm not completely familiar with the various methods used to calculate TAN and TBN, other than the fact I do know there are different methods, and subsequently different ways to compare TAN versus TBN. I think we need a resident expert to comment on this one.

Oops, I just read lower, and Dave and Jim commented on that. Now, we just need Doug and Mola in here.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: Gabe
This oil was left in too long. I am curious why we are not seeing the additional wear.

While I likely will not extend past 10K on this oil and filter combination (although it would may fare better in the summertime months) I disagree with your assessment. Nothing in this UOA nor in the one that had a higher TAN number indicates the oil was left in too long (even Blackstone stated I could go to 11K on this fill, but since I had already changed the oil, I left that part of their comments out). What do you base your opinion on? The two articles that you posted?