2010 FX4 | MS5K 5W-20 SN | 5.4L | 7,394mi

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
9,791
Gang,

Here is another UOA of MS5K in my FX4. I had to cut the OCI shorter this time because I had a trip that would push me well over 10K and (at least for me) 10K on MS5K is a nice round number. As with the other UOAs, it continues to prove that running a synthetic for
Thanks for the note on the shorter than usual oil run. You know, with an engine that wears as well as this one, you probably would be fine going longer than 10,000 miles. Your engine wears very well (much better than most), and the oil seems to be holding up pretty well for you. The TBN was 2.5 and the TAN was 2.3, both readings are acceptable. No contamination like fuel, water, or coolant was found. Go on up to about 12,000 miles next time, if you'd like. Or, if you're more comfortable at 10,000 miles, stick with that. Either one should be fine for this Ford. Nice report!



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: 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: MS5K 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 5W-20

API Service: 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

Air Filter: 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

|

Truck Mileage: 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: 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 0.5 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 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 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manganese: 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

Titanium: 27 34 32 30 24 | 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

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

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

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

Sodium: 323 369 362 374 284 | 4 4 7 5 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 9

Calcium: 2179 2200 2276 1954 2195 | 2647 3168 3003 3053 2941 2900 2814 2613 2740 2911 2706 2203

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

Phosphorus: 697 706 735 624 655 | 688 728 671 668 710 713 676 608 629 691 643 773

Zinc: 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 1 16

|

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

MOBIL cSt Visc. @ 100°C 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 ---

|

SUS Viscosity @ 210°F 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

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

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

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 0.0

Water % 0.0 0.0 0.2
Insolubles % 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 2.5 1.4 2.7 2.6 3.7 | --- --- --- 5.4 --- --- 5.6 4.8 5.3 9.4 7.5 ---

TAN 2.3 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%
 
Shorten oci to 3000 miles.
laugh.gif







Joking of course.
 
Man you do a lot of butt time in that truck. I guess my mileage has slowed down so much that it would take me about 13 years to do those miles in my cars. On the other hand I do put some miles on the bike.
 
Originally Posted By: satinsilver
Shorten oci to 3000 miles.
laugh.gif


.......

And switch back to PU. "Oil is cheap". Sorry, inside joke or perhaps not by now.

Nice looking UOA tending. No waste here. Kudos.
thumbsup2.gif
 
Maybe I should use ms5k in my Taurus. It sure has a low viscosity that would work well in my cold winter area. I only use synthetic for the quick flow in winter starts but the ms5k might satisfy my concerns.

Nice report!

Will try to find the ccs viscosity out of curiosity
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dustyroads
Will try to find the ccs viscosity out of curiosity

5,860 @ -30ºC? This is for 5W-20 from the Mobil Website
 
Yes 5860 @ -30 (just checked myself). That part isn't quite as low as I hoped but would probably be just fine.

Thanks for your many reports!
 
One thing I meant to add and just remembered was that (at least based upon these five UOAs) that MS5K can be ran for 7,500 with nearly zero risk. Note the TBN never dropped below 2.5 from 5,000 to 8,200 mile OCIs. While this may not be indicative for every engine, one can extrapolate a bit to their logical conclusion for their own application.

Bang for the buck, I know of no other conventional that performs this well.
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Any intention of running a different oil for comparison such as PYB or Defy?

Probably not; in many ways I have vastly expanded my oil knowledge since joining in 2010 and like many here I arguably chose "best of the best" in OTC synthetics to use in my FX4 thinking that a synthetic is "needed" to make my new $40,000 truck last. I had always planned to UOA every fluid change to have a full record for the life of the truck. But somewhere along the way, I saw many posts deriding conventionals and 5W-20 oils. So I went on a mission to help dispel some of the myths and fables--some about how long conventional oil can be used and some about how 5W-20 will ruin your engine or an engine running 5W-20 will not last as long as one running 5W-30 or thicker.

When I decided to stop using Pennzoil Ultra and perhaps by some stroke of luck MS5K was on special at O’Reilly and AutoZone for $9.99 per 5 QTs with rebates added on top. I picked up about 200 QTs for a song and dance. I am working my way through them so I have enough to last well into the high 200K range or higher because I originally calculated 7.5K OCIs. I do not see PYB or Defy making that much of a difference except costing more (like the proverbial synthetic vs conventional comparison).

Now, with that said, I will change to a synthetic and back to a conventional and then back to synthetic, etc. to help dispel the myth that bad things happen to engines over 100K that start using synthetics. I have already clocked 2K on my FX4 with a synthetic since the OCI in the posted UOA and ZOMGWTHBBQ my engine is falling apart, leaking oil like a sieve, valve train and cam phasers knocking a hole in the block (ummm...not). I plan to run this synthetic for 10K and then UOA to see if it will go to 15K. Stay tuned!
 
I was more curious as to whether your wear numbers would change with a different oil since you seem to do one every time you might see a difference or not after a few consecutive changes.
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
I was more curious as to whether your wear numbers would change with a different oil since you seem to do one every time you might see a difference or not after a few consecutive changes.


I too am curious however with the current results he is getting only a fool would change anything.
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
I was more curious as to whether your wear numbers would change with a different oil since you seem to do one every time you might see a difference or not after a few consecutive changes.

One has to recall, though, that UOAs should not be used to compare how lubricants perform in comparison to each other in one vehicle, except under very narrow circumstances (i.e. shearing way out of grade when nothing else does). The strategy being used now is preferable, with as few variables as possible.

The UOA is to test the lubricant, and this lubricant was suitable at the end of this OCI and could have gone longer, as he's already demonstrated.
 
I must say, I'm a bit disappointed and confused ...
confused2.gif



I was really looking forward to a 10k mile OCI on this lube. Clearly this lube had everything in control. Vis, insols, wear metals, etc; they were all in fine shape. TBN/TAN had not even crossed over yet, and that relationship can easily sustain a cross-over of at least 2x. This lube load could have easily gone 12k miles; probably more. In short, there was at least 5k miles left in that lube.

Now, I'm teasing in a friendly BITOG way, so please don't take offense ...
Why did you chicken out and not run this out further? I realize you had an upcoming trip, but the long term data shows this engine and lube are a good pairing, and can last together MUCH longer than the typical uninformed person would believe. Me thinks a momentary flash of irrational emotion got the better of you! All your wear metals (except Fe) are essentially flat-lined and don't vary out past even one sigma node; very typical of a seasoned engine. The Fe will always track with accumulated mileage, but you're no where even remotely close to any kind of condemnation point in ppm.

You, sir, will be stripped of your OCI-Buster status, relegated to rank of Private, and are hereby commanded to say 10 Our Filters and 5 Hail Molys.
grin.gif

You may earn your stripes back by joining me in the world of heretics; try some dino house brands and see how capable they really are, and yet save even more money.



I'm sure you're aware, but for a syn to pay off, it will have to run AT LEAST 20k miles, to even beging to approach a ROI over the MS5K. (rought factor of 2x, give or take a bit based upon actual costs incurred when purchased).
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I must say, I'm a bit disappointed and confused ...
confused2.gif



I was really looking forward to a 10k mile OCI on this lube. Clearly this lube had everything in control. Vis, insols, wear metals, etc; they were all in fine shape. TBN/TAN had not even crossed over yet, and that relationship can easily sustain a cross-over of at least 2x. This lube load could have easily gone 12k miles; probably more.

Now, I'm teasing in a friendly BITOG way, so please don't take offense ...
Why did you chicken out and not run this out further? The long term history of the vehicle shows it's in excellent shape. The UOAs of MS5K show it's capable. Me thinks a momentary flash of irrational emotion got the better of you!

For a syn to pay off, it will have to run AT LEAST 20k miles, to even beging to approach a ROI over the MS5K. (rought factor of 2x, give or take a bit based upon actual costs incurred when purchased).

Overall, yet another excellent showing, if but cut way short.

I had a trip with towing that would put me into the 13K range (I am already over 2K into it since this was sent to be UOA'ed). The TBN was 1.4 at 10K and I will personally condemn MS5K at 10K (I think the TBN would have been below 1.0 at 13K and Blackstone calls it at that number too). For this run, the cost of the synthetic is moot due to the fact it was donated as a "dare". Sorry, but I could not resist the dare so in a way, a momentary flash of irrational emotion did get me but not in the way that you think
smirk.gif
.

P.S. MS5K will be back right after this run.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I must say, I'm a bit disappointed and confused ...
confused2.gif


I was really looking forward to a 10k mile OCI on this lube. Clearly this lube had everything in control. Vis, insols, wear metals, etc; they were all in fine shape. TBN/TAN had not even crossed over yet, and that relationship can easily sustain a cross-over of at least 2x. This lube load could have easily gone 12k miles; probably more. In short, there was at least 5k miles left in that lube.


Dang, I was hoping you'd offer him some sort of deal.
laugh.gif
 
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
P.S. MS5K will be back right after this run.


You have enough proof that dino works; the MS5K clearly has demonstrated it's ability.

If I offered to cover some of the costs, would you consider a house brand? (AAP, AZ, ST)? I would be willing to pay for an OCI or two, if you covered the UOA costs. Perhaps, just as you did with Mobil, start at 6k miles and UOA, then 7.5k miles and UOA ...


Consider it a "new" dare if you will!
A friendly challenge from your fellow heretic!


P.S. - I don't blame anyone for using free oil! Kind of hard to beat that ROI.
 
Last edited:
Wow, Lets make a deal! That's very nice of you. Thanks on behalf of everyone that reads this thread.
01.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top