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

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4

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.


Like Dave Newton, my OCIs and UOAs are years apart, so I envy and admire how well and quickly you can acquire and process data on your truck. I am eager to compare how the 10W30 in my F150 looks vs the 5W20 I had in there before but I'll just have to be patient. I don't expect to see a big difference but I might be surprised. The bypass filter installed will have skewed the data anyway, so my previous "normal" will have no relation to the current one.

I also admire the way you came into the "thick & thin," said yer piece and was able to extract yourself. You're a better man than me, Gunga Din... I felt a strange need to slug it out there despite knowing it was an utter waste. Perhaps I am a "straw man" too ( : < ).

 

[buster]

Quote:
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.


No, I think in your application, a synthetic is not needed.

But synthetics do have advantages such as better oxidation stability, high temperature protection, cold temp protection and sometimes (not always) better extended drain capability.

In your case, you're better off sticking with the MS5k. If you had a turbo on this truck or were in Alaska, I'd then say a synthetic would potentially be a better choice.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
I also admire the way you came into the "thick & thin," said yer piece and was able to extract yourself. You're a better man than me, Gunga Din... I felt a strange need to slug it out there despite knowing it was an utter waste. Perhaps I am a "straw man" too ( : < ).

LOL...the part that I could not fathom is despite the fact there are engines that have literally ran hundreds of thousands of miles on both thick and thin oils; this "anecdotal" evidence was not enough to prove whatever point there was to prove--if any. It seemed to require a nearly "holy" source of information that a normal person was expected to have funded or invested completely independent AND verifiable; Ford information was not valid enough, but it was used in the rhetoric against your Ford data. As I said in my initial post, the argument was baseless...the decades of non-failing engines are proof of the pudding for both oil types and at the end of the day are what we use to gauge oil performance on anyway.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: buster
But synthetics do have advantages such as better oxidation stability, high temperature protection, cold temp protection and sometimes (not always) better extended drain capability.

In your case, you're better off sticking with the MS5k. If you had a turbo on this truck or were in Alaska, I'd then say a synthetic would potentially be a better choice.

I will agree that synthetics are more viable for cold temperatures and extended drain capability, but I am not yet convinced that synthetics give better oxidation or temperature protection for the average engine (turbos not included). My oxidation levels were the lowest ever with a conventional versus a synthetic, but we will be able to put it to the test more and more--summer is here and it is already 100F+ here in Houston and the data stream will build over time with more UOAs.

Note--I am not attempting to sell the fact that synthetics are not ever needed (I run them in my rear axle and in my ATVs), nor do I think that you are saying they are always needed, but I am saying for the average vehicle that operates within the manufacturers intended parameters, I am starting to believe they are overused and nothing is being gained by using them in lieu of a high quality conventional oil. There is a bit of a stigma that synthetics will make an engine last longer and if your engine has a high power density, is a sludge monster, or some other attribute from the norm, then yes, a synthetic will likely extend the life of that particular engine--but the average engine would not see any longer life and the owner could save $$$ (unless they have some FAR or MIR that makes it less than conventional costs).

Make sense?

 

[buster]

I agree.

Quote:
I will agree that synthetics are more viable for cold temperatures and extended drain capability, but I am not yet convinced that synthetics give better oxidation or temperature protection for the average engine (turbos not included).


Keep in mind too that most if not all 0w20's are synthetic and many 5w20's are Group II+ with some containing some small amount of syn Grp III base oils.

 

[Zako2]

It's good to see dino UOAs posted here. Nice TBN after 5,000 miles. I'd bet VWB's TBN would have been on its last legs at this point. MS5K seems like a nice sleeper oil, being priced lowest of all big brands at our Walmart.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
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?


Regular price of synthetic is about twice of dino(may be 2.5 times), if you extend synthetic OCI to double dino then the cost is about the same. If you don't change your own oil, instead buy oil+filter and have mechanic changes do the job then you should add about $10-15 labor per oil change, then synthetic is cheaper.

The problem is many drivers change syn oil too early, like 5-6k miles.

 

[modularv8]

I am curious if MS5K will prevent varnish from forming in this engine with 5k mile OCI's. It will probably take several oil changes before a comparison can be made to the current state of the engine.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Regular price of synthetic is about twice of dino(may be 2.5 times).

It is about 2.5X the cost here in Houston, but extending the synthetic to 2.5X the conventional (to recover the cost) could be questionable depending on how long it is possible to run the conventional. What if the conventional can be ran to 9K--is an OTC synthetic good for 22.5K? Somewhat doubtful and the wear metals would likely be much more than 2 separate runs of conventional. There is also the filter to consider--even with a Distance Plus would it be good to 22.5K or is it better to have 2 MCs with money to spare?

Not going to be a popular message, but as I stated in another post, the cost and benefits of synthetic does not pan out for the average engine unless there is a FAR or MIR involved. Even then, I am skeptical that synthetic is protecting the engine any better than a conventional. Time will tell...

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: modularv8
I am curious if MS5K will prevent varnish from forming in this engine with 5k mile OCI's. It will probably take several oil changes before a comparison can be made to the current state of the engine.

Good question and time will tell, but the MS5K was cleaner a lot longer than PU was in this engine (according to the seat of the pants dipstick check). In particle tests, however, MS5K was cleaner than PU out of the bottle and although not scientific, the MS5K was not any dirtier than the PU at oil change. If the insolubles rise with MS5K (which would indicate oxidation) then it may contribute to varnish deposits. I did not think that Tritons were known for varnish/sludge though (with appropriate maintenance)?

 

[HTSS_TR]

I never believe in 3k OCI woth conventional, I always do 6-7k/6mo with conventional and change oil filter on second oil change. With synthetic I do 12-13k/12mo and change oil filter once a year too. I am not sure I would feel comfortable with more than 7-8k miles with dino.

The cost of oil and filter is about the same either way, because I add the labor cost of $10 per oil change.

 

[Zako2]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
I never believe in 3k OCI woth conventional, I always do 6-7k/6mo with conventional and change oil filter on second oil change. With synthetic I do 12-13k/12mo and change oil filter once a year too. I am not sure I would feel comfortable with more than 7-8k miles with dino.

The cost of oil and filter is about the same either way, because I add the labor cost of $10 per oil change.


I was looking at Ford's maintenance manuals 2008 and newer for Fusion, Taurus, etc, and it seems like they now recommend 7,500 mile OCI for normal service duty, as long as the oil has earned Ford's approval (any major brand 5W20/5W30 dino or synthetic sold in USA does). The manual says nothing about having to use synthetic oil or even a blend for this OCI, although it does recommend using Motorcraft. The recommendation for "special conditions" is to change oil every 5,000 miles, 6 months, or 200 hours of operation (the translates into 25mph average speed). My translation is that Ford believes that any mainstream SN (and Ford approved) motor oil is good for at least 5,000 mile OCI, with 7,000-8,000 easily doable for those with long commute drives.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
I am not sure I would feel comfortable with more than 7-8k miles with dino.

HT - why is that? I am assuming that you have UOA'ed some of your oil? Do you not trust the test results or is it something else? Just curious...

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
The cost of oil and filter is about the same either way, because I add the labor cost of $10 per oil change.

Now, I am only poking fun at you, but there would still be at least $10 difference between the two...yes?

 

[ltslimjim]

I'm curious to see the 'comparative' results over time, especially with winter to come. Overall, good results on the initial run. Of course, was there ever any doubt it would hurt?

The proof is that engines need engine oil.

 

[DemoFly]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
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?

Well...I don't have a lab, or the tools, or access to additives and base stocks...or initiative.

From the looks of things Titanium seems to pack a punch in small quantities.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: buster
Quote:
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.


No, I think in your application, a synthetic is not needed.

But synthetics do have advantages such as better oxidation stability, high temperature protection, cold temp protection and sometimes (not always) better extended drain capability.

In your case, you're better off sticking with the MS5k. If you had a turbo on this truck or were in Alaska, I'd then say a synthetic would potentially be a better choice.



Herein lies the crux of almost all my posts here at BITOG ...

"Better" is very often poorly defined. And therefore the answer to the question of what is "better" is often poorly phrased.

I think most of us would agree that syntethics offer different capabilities (that is how I'm going to define "better" here). They resist oxidation to a greater degreee, they are often loaded with more additives, which gives longer service life. The often have a more desireable cold flow characteristic. Etc, etc. That is perhaps (pun intended here) a "better" definition of "better".

But my point I drive home with nausiating redundancy is that one must also include the definitions of wants and needs.

Just because there are "better" products available, does not mean that you automatically capitalize on the benefits those products offer. If one does not operate in some environment that would bring out the disparity of performance between dino and syn fluids, then no advantage can be gleaned. Here's a circular reference that is true: if you cannot benefit from the advantage, then there is no advantage to benefit from. One does not "need" a characteristic that cannot be realized.


This series of well controlled UOAs is going to show that with startling definition.

 

[dave1251]

While I was away, I looked at this UOA. Nothing about it surprises me well done!

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: Zako2
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
I never believe in 3k OCI woth conventional, I always do 6-7k/6mo with conventional and change oil filter on second oil change. With synthetic I do 12-13k/12mo and change oil filter once a year too. I am not sure I would feel comfortable with more than 7-8k miles with dino.

The cost of oil and filter is about the same either way, because I add the labor cost of $10 per oil change.


I was looking at Ford's maintenance manuals 2008 and newer for Fusion, Taurus, etc, and it seems like they now recommend 7,500 mile OCI for normal service duty, as long as the oil has earned Ford's approval (any major brand 5W20/5W30 dino or synthetic sold in USA does). The manual says nothing about having to use synthetic oil or even a blend for this OCI, although it does recommend using Motorcraft. The recommendation for "special conditions" is to change oil every 5,000 miles, 6 months, or 200 hours of operation (the translates into 25mph average speed). My translation is that Ford believes that any mainstream SN (and Ford approved) motor oil is good for at least 5,000 mile OCI, with 7,000-8,000 easily doable for those with long commute drives.



For 2012 models it is up to 10K OCI's.

 

[cb_13]

Thank you for taking the time to post this. Very good information.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: cb_13
Thank you for taking the time to post this. Very good information.

Absolutely! I should have another UOA coming up soon for 6.5K miles to see how the MS5K is doing and if it can be stretched any further.