2010 FX4 | MS5K 5W-20 SN | 5.4L | 5,142mi

[CarbonSteel]

Here is the first UOA with MS5K after 11 OCs with PU. I had it tested with 3 different labs to ensure that I had good numbers from which to form a decision on which way I intend to go. Although this is only the first and only UOA thus far with MS5K, there is no question that I will continue with MS5K in this truck. My next OCI will be 7.5K and I will increase from there to find the limit of the oil, However, it seems to be very robust as there was about 1500 miles of towing during this OC.

Blackstone spilled part of the sample (but gave me the test for free to compensate) and thus I do not have FP and fuel tests and the other labs did not test for these parameters (however, I have not had a problem with it to date and I doubt that I do now). The numbers between all 3 labs seem fairly consistent except the TBN from WC must use a different "scale". In any event, I will remain with Blackstone for the future as I am satisfied with the overall quality of the tests. I have updated my UOA results to include air filter changes and added footnotes where relevant.

While I understand that it may take a few OCs to "level off", thus far, this oil has performed as well as PU in my truck (check the wear metals for the 5K PU runs for comparison). The stark revelation is that this comes at a 3X cost reduction ($17 for MS5K versus $51 for PU). Again, I fully acknowledge this is only one UOA, but I also know that I would never glean 3X the longevity by using PU. Let us assume for the sake of argument that 8K is the limit for MS5K, would I be able to stretch PU to 24K? Highly doubtful, and would there be a exponential increase in wear metals at 24K? Highly likely and therefore, I must ask the question--what would I be gaining by using a synthetic oil that costs 3X as much in my truck? My initial answer is--nothing, except an extra $34 in my pocket per OC. Stay tuned; I plan to continue to UOA every OC to build a viable data stream for the conventional MS5K versus synthetic PU (I will remove the AI and WC test information with subsequent postings--this was to allow me to see that the Blackstone numbers are consistent with other labs and I thought that I would share with all of you).

Thoughts? Comments?

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: 06/12 06/12 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 | 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

API Service: 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

Air Filter: NG NG NG | NG{B} MC MC MC MC MC{B} MC MC MC MC MC MC

Lab: WC AI BLKST | BLKST BLKST BLKST BLKST BLKST BLKST BLKST BLKST BLKST BLKST BLKST BLKST

|

|

Truck Mileage: 74,447 74,447 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: 5,142 5,142 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: 1.7 1 2 | 3 3 5 3 2 2 3 3 6 3 3 3

Chromium 0.6 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

Iron: 7.9 14 10 | 11 8 13 8 9 7 9 10 18 13 10 18

Copper: 0.9 2 1 | 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 5 9 41

Lead: 0.3 0 1 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Tin: 0.2 0 0 | 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Molybdenum: 8.6 14 11 | 48 56 46 47 58 55 54 45 47 52 48 42

Nickel: 0.4 1 0 | 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Manganese: {D} {D} 0 | 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 10

Silver: {D} 0 0 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Titanium: 19 28 24 | 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Potassium: 1.8 2 2 | 6 0 6 5 1 0 2 3 4 2 3 14

Boron: 12 11 9 | 91 249 156 144 156 233 244 230 249 278 258 272

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

Sodium: 239 391 284 | 4 4 7 5 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 9

Calcium: 1835 2367 2195 | 2647 3168 3003 3053 2941 2900 2814 2613 2740 2911 2706 2203

Magnesium: 11 18 15 | 17 15 17 17 16 12 12 11 12 12 12 14

Phosphorus: 586 801 655 | 688 728 671 668 710 713 676 608 629 691 643 773

Zinc: 604 919 765 | 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 1 16

|

cSt Visc. @ 100°C (UOA) 8.29 7.9 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 | --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

MOBIL cSt Visc. @ 100°C 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 {D} {D} 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 {D} {D} {C} | 415 405 420 415 410 425 405 390 410 390 400 390

MOBIL Flashpoint in °F 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

Water %
Insolubles % {D} {D} 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 6.29 3.19 3.7 | --- --- --- 5.4 --- --- 5.6 4.8 5.3 9.4 7.5 ---

TAN 1.76 --- --- | --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

|

|

CONVENTIONAL > SYNTHETIC

-



NOTES:



Acronyms: BLKST=Blackstone | AI=Analysts, Inc. | WC=WearCheck | 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 remaining to test FP and Fuel %

{D} Not tested or not part of particular lab test

 

[DemoFly]

Beautiful

 

[Colt45ws]

Nice. You can probably go about the same OCI you were going on the PU.

 

[DragRace]

Good oil,good report,nuff said!

 

[Artem]

I don't think it's fair to compare an oil that you got on sale vs full price of the PU but since that's the way life is, with all the great oil deals these days, i'll let you get away with it this time.

Great report. I have a bunch of the stuff as well from the $9.99 OC deals and will use it with confidence now. Thanks for posting and looking forward to future UOAs.

 

[DemoFly]

I still want some lab to do a side by side comparison between titanium and molybdenum with the same base stock.

 

[dnewton3]

Very difficult to describe the joy I have in seening such data.

First and foremost, this is how to do data stream UOAs. Every bit of the success of this program goes to the detailed, steady experimentation seen here. Those of you who hop-scotch from brand to brand and grade to grade could learn something here! Kudos to the dedication this takes. It costs big money to run 11 syn/UOA combo's. The consistiency is outstanding.

Secondly, this vehicle is clearly well cared for. And it's returning excellent service in exchange for that dedication.

Lastly, I predict that there are going to be a lot of stunned, unhappy synthetic junkies that are going to "yabut" (yeah, but ...) this thread to death. However, time will show the truth for what it is. I can be patient; I am that confident of the future forthcoming results. This vehicle (and accompaning series of UOAs) is going to become a hallmark of logic and proof. Proof that under "normal" circumstances, dino oils are every bit as viable for far less cost, and that the so-called advantages of using syns (while probably true 20 years ago) are not relevant today, in normal use. I am making a significant distinction here; I am excluding greatly extended OCI and uber-stupid-cold weather starts. But normal folks using their vehicle in normal circumstances can be well served by using a quality dino fluid. And those that use syns under these conditions are fooling themselves if they think syns are somehow "better".

 

[Jim Allen]

Been so busy fighting thick and thin on another thread I missed this wonderful presentation. Pretty hard to "yabut" (word should be added to the BITOG dictionary) what you presented here. You crank on enough miles to get through these UOAs in a timely manner, so I look forward to seeing the the rest of the data.

Honestly, my only comment is that if I had to make a WAG, you could substitute any two brand name oils into this test and the comparison would be similar. Like you, I see this less a Mobil 5000 to Pennzoil Ultra comparo and more conventional vs synthetic.

 

[dnewton3]

You are correct, Jim.

There are two similar, but not completely the same, concepts.

1) syn vs dino
2) PU vs MS5K


We can say with certainty, after more data comes in, which choice provides a better ROI. (I think there's no doubt where my bet is going to be placed). We can also say with certainty, that these two individual lubes can fairly be compared/contrasted.

I suspect we'll be able to infer, but with a fairly high degree of confidence, that a quality dino vs a quality syn would be roughly approximate. After all, PU is often seen as a high-water mark for high-end syns; often (and fairly, IMO) touted with such excellent products such as M1, Amsoil, and others. IOW - we could likely take any two quality representatives (M1 vs QS dino; QS syn vs Formula Shell dino; etc) and see similar results.

Thing is, we have few (so very few ...) members that are dedicated to such endeavors. For one thing, it takes a lot of miles and money to do this, relative to a time frame that keeps most of us on the hook for more. My OCI plans are far apart, due to the fact that I don't drive a whole lot, contrasted to some other members. We are, after all, pretty mucy a society of ADD folks when it comes to info. It would take me years to develop data that we see here in months.

I am approaching my UOAs in the opposite direction. I am doing dino OEM OCIs with the least expensive qualified oils I can find. Then at warranty end, I'm tempted to try a high-end syn for a few cycles. My intent is to run up to 60k miles (the limit of my factory warranty), develop the UOA data, and also take the valve cover off for "cleanliness" pictures. Then I can see how much "better" (or not better) a syn will make the engine perform and clean.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: Artem
I don't think it's fair to compare an oil that you got on sale vs full price of the PU but since that's the way life is, with all the great oil deals these days, i'll let you get away with it this time.

Artem, quite right and I thought about that before I posted the information, but as you say "it is what it is". However, even at retail for both, the PU is still more than 2X the cost of MS5K. Could I glean 2X the use of PU versus MS5K? Maybe, it would depend on a number of things, not the least of which is the limit of the MS5K. However, the wear metals would be considerably higher at 2X the run time on the oil.

For me, this is not so much a MS5K versus PU "contest" as much as it is to show that under "normal" (and you will note that I bolded, italicized, and underlined the word normal) usage (which would include some towing for a truck) that a conventional oil can perform as well as a OTC synthetic at a 50% or better reduction in cost. The "argument" when synthetic and conventional oils are compared is usually that synthetic is so much better. To that viewpoint, I say--we shall see after 11 runs of MS5K how the synthetic compares to the conventional. At the end of the day, it is my hope that my investment clearly shows how all of you can save some money by making an very informed decision about what type of oil to use in your vehicles.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: DemoFly
I still want some lab to do a side by side comparison between titanium and molybdenum with the same base stock.

Well...what is holding you back?

 

[cp3]

Awesome! Thanx for the great contribution!

It will be cool to see a few more of the MC5K reports. The wear metals per mile (using just Blackstone's results) aren't quite as good as most of the 7k+ runs but in reality I think that's splitting hairs. And it has been said you need a few OCIs for things to level back out.

What is the recommended OCI and are you planning on going any further on the MC5K?

Again, thanx. Great stuff!

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Been so busy fighting thick and thin on another thread I missed this wonderful presentation. Pretty hard to "yabut" (word should be added to the BITOG dictionary) what you presented here. You crank on enough miles to get through these UOAs in a timely manner, so I look forward to seeing the the rest of the data.

Honestly, my only comment is that if I had to make a WAG, you could substitute any two brand name oils into this test and the comparison would be similar. Like you, I see this less a Mobil 5000 to Pennzoil Ultra comparo and more conventional vs synthetic.

Thanks Jim. I contributed my $0.02 into that "thin and thick" thread too, but it was mostly overlooked. The "straw man" resorted to the same type of argument when pressed for facts or when reasonable information was used as "defense".

Back to this thread, you are quite right--this is not a PU versus MS5K comparison, it is indeed a conventional versus synthetic one with a bit of "how 5W-20 managed to not destroy my engine despite popular opinion" along the way. Thin oil fanboy? Not at all, Ford specified 5W-20 for my engine and I am "proving" they were/are right; had they specified 5W-30 or anything else that is what would be in it.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: cp3
Awesome! What is the recommended OCI and are you planning on going any further on the MC5K? Again, thanx. Great stuff!

No worries--more knowledge is a good thing. Ford recommends 5K for severe duty and 7.5K for normal service. I plan to run this next one to 8K and see how what the TBN is doing. WearCheck had an interesting point of view in that they say when the TBN and TAN numbers cross the oil is used up and that TBN readings alone should not be used to determine further viability. For consistency sake, I will stay with Blackstone for testing, but I may add a TAN in there from time to time to see what is happening.

For me, the most interesting reading was the insolubles. I expected them to rise when using a conventional oil, but they are in fact the lowest reading to date (other than the FF that was dumped at 991 miles). Stay tuned, there will be more to come as I roll more miles.

 

[Sam_Julier]

I am new to BITOG and your history is the most comprehensive I have seen yet. Baring a mishap I hope to take my Volvo to >300,000 miles but wonder if the expense of 6,000 mile Redline OCI is necessary. Your results suggest that I might be fine spending less money.

Thank you for your effort.

 

[ottotheclown]

This is gonna affect those who believe if it costs more it has to be better!! Thanks for the effort and time. We need more like you so we can draw some ideas from data. Also the cost difference makes me think of a statement W.C.Fields once said about moral obligations.Beats the heck out of oil fill holes data too. Thanks again!!

 

[buster]

It's all about matching the right oil with the right engine.

Not all driving conditions and engine types warrant the use of a synthetic. Most oils today are synthetic blends, using Group II+ and III base oils.

Synthetics are better than conventional oils, the question is whether you will benefit from the advantages syn oils have to offer.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: buster
Synthetics are better than conventional oils, the question is whether you will benefit from the advantages syn oils have to offer.

Is not the data that I have provided (and will continue to provide) in direct conflict with that statement? For the sake of argument using the data that I have posted and consider the costs as well, please define "better". I am only speaking of normal usage (including towing) from say 25F through 105F--not 25K extended runs or -35F cold starts. Better wear? Better oxidation? Better what? I am here to learn just as much as the next guy so please do not read sarcasm into my statements for there is none intended.

 

[ottotheclown]

Nice!!!

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: buster
Synthetics are better than conventional oils, the question is whether you will benefit from the advantages syn oils have to offer.

Is not the data that I have provided (and will continue to provide) in direct conflict with that statement? For the sake of argument using the data that I have posted and consider the costs as well, please define "better". I am only speaking of normal usage (including towing) from say 25F through 105F--not 25K extended runs or -35F cold starts. Better wear? Better oxidation? Better what? I am here to learn just as much as the next guy so please do not read sarcasm into my statements for there is none intended.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: Sam_Julier
I am new to BITOG and your history is the most comprehensive I have seen yet. Baring a mishap I hope to take my Volvo to >300,000 miles but wonder if the expense of 6,000 mile Redline OCI is necessary. Your results suggest that I might be fine spending less money. Thank you for your effort.

Have you performed any UOAs on the oil to see how much life is left in it at 6K? I am not familiar with the specifications for Volvo or with Redline, or if the engine has any peculiarities to it (such as pre-disposed to sludge or the like) but is there a less expensive oil that meets them (even another synthetic like M1)? I would hazard to guess that a 6K OCI with Redline is wasting some of your $$$ and in the long run you would be better served with another oil and saving quite a bit of money in the process.