2010 FX4 | MS5K 5W-20 SN | 5.4L | 8,285mi

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
9,791
Guys/Gals,

Here is UOA No. 15 on my FX4. With this UOA, the TBN and TAN values are extremely close to intersecting (which according to other UOA labs constitutes the condemnation point of the oil). While this is the longest that I have run any oil in it, I think I may have reached the extent of MS5K, but ask for your thoughts and opinions.

I am not sure why the 0.2 of water appeared; the oil was very hot when sampled and cooled overnight in the bottle, but that has never been an issue previously. I will have to keep an eye on this to be sure I do not have any issues with coolant leaks (although there was practically no potassium and the sodium was normal for MS5K).

The other strange thing (that I have sent an e-mail to Blackstone about) is the 510F flashpoint. With the slight rise in insolubles and if this flashpoint is correct, I think the oil may be on the edge of heavily oxidizing and therefore (if true), the limit would be about 8K on MS5K in this engine. 8K on a conventional is not bad considering that I would need to run PU about 20K to match the cost.

As as side note, I will say that I am very happy with the NAPA Gold air filter, it has nearly cut the silicon in half. At any rate, thoughts and comments are always welcome!

Blackstone comments below:

This F150 is still looking very good as it edges closer to the 100,000-mile mark. Wear metals are low and steady, showing mechanical parts that are behaving as they should. The viscosity was normal for 5W/20 and no fuel or coolant was found. The only odd thing is a little water, 0.2% to be exact. The water didn't hurt anything, but it shouldn't be there. Maybe the sample got contaminated after you drew it? The TBN was 2.7 and the TAN was 2.6, both decent readings. The oil is a little more oxidized than usual (insolubles), but not bad. Try 10K miles next.


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: 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 | 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 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

|

|

Truck Mileage: 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: 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 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 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manganese: 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zinc: 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 1 16

|

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

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 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 510 390 {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 % 0.2
Insolubles % 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 2.7 2.6 3.7 | --- --- --- 5.4 --- --- 5.6 4.8 5.3 9.4 7.5 ---

TAN 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%
 
Originally Posted By: Artem
I say you shoot for 10k. Blackstone says its do-able and I agree.

I am not so sure about that; I have no desire to start sludging and it seems the MS5K is starting to oxidize (which is/was always a concern with conventional oil). Besides, I also do not want to be "stupid" in trying to wring the last little bit out of the oil unnecessarily. I need to hear what Blackstone says about the flashpoint.

On the other hand, the wear metals are less than some of the 7.5K runs with Pennzoil Ultra.
 
^I'd say he's gotten enough value out of it, but perhaps seeing what one run to 10,000 looks like isn't a bad idea. Not sure how cold his winters are in Texas, but it's probably hardest on his oil this next OCI. What has been helping him is the less time in the sump his oil stays, regardless of the miles. 3 month interval and 8,000 miles isn't pushing it for this app.
 
Oxidizing or not, there seems to be plenty of life left to go longer, SAFELY and hence their reply.

A recent double lab UOAs that i did with Blackstone and Oil Analyzers on the same oil from my Civic revealed Blackstone showing the TBN @ 2.2 while Oil Analyzers showed 3.66 on their scale and suggested +3,500 more miles on the oil (Blackstone suggested +2k.)

I thought the oil was done after 12,400 miles but obviously both lab say otherwise and i could have taken it to 15k.

The same applies to your results. I think 10k is safely do-able. Hopefully the trace of water that was present in the oil will not be in the next sample and the results will look better.

Whatever you decide, 8k on this oil is a good run, IMO.
 
Outstanding!

Excellent value out of a good conventional oil.

I would mention a few things, in no particular order:

TAN/TBN - typically TAN rises and TBN drops. Your last report (where TAN was above TBN) would have been more concerning than the current one here where they are equal; you have no reason to condem the lube for this topic at this juncture. The TAN/TBN is somewhat of a "soft" target; it's not like the engine is going to grenade itself if the two invert past each other, and your previous UOA is a perfect example. Your engine was just fine the last time, and yet this time you put on more miles, and had less TAN. As with any characteristic being tracked, there is variability in the numbers; it's normal to see TAN/TBN move up and down a bit just as we see it with wear metals and vis and such. I would not condemn this lube choice at this mileage just because of this one reading.

Moisture - has not lead to any destructive issues; nothing else is broadcasting itself as being affected; no alarm here. While its origin may be unknown, it clearly had no consequence. Monitor in the future, but not worth any mention for condemnation at this point.

Oxidation - there is no true "oxidation" reading in a Blackstone report; they do involve that issue into the insolubles topic. Your insolubles are at .4; well below their limit of .6 so I'd not use this as a reason to condemn, but perhaps continue with close scrutiny. I know from my 4.6L data (similar engine) that .4 insolubles is the normal. Your right at a normal reading, and that is good considering you're past the typical mileage. Only if you got to .6 or higher, would I say it's worthy of concern and condemnation.

Wear metals - obviously well under control, with no unexpected items to note. For reference, the 5.4L engine is very similar to the 4.6L engine; you can reference my article for the true averages and sigmas to see just how "normal" your engine really is. These are absolutely fantastic wear rates; they are normal. And here, normal is very good! Given that you are exceeding the UA mileage limit, and getting low wear, shows outstanding engine protection. Period. No other way to look at it.

FlashPoint - probably an input error; it is done manually. I would not sweat this number.


I see 10k miles as doable at this point, and if it were my vehicle, I'd feel comfortable in doing so, But I understand your hesitation. And so, I would suggest that perhaps run another 8.5k mile OCI, and then sample again. See what happens with the FP and insol's. If they are reasonably steady (within normal variation) then I'd say go to 10k miles no problem whatsoever. I think you could go there now, but there is nothing wrong with a "double-check" of another 8.5k mile run, so that you can confirm/deny any concerns, before possible further extension.


And the finale -----
The comment you made about PU vs Mobil dino oil. Could not be a more accurate statement made. Lube oil choice should first be about equipment protection, and then about fiscal choices. If the first condition is satisfied, then the second can be addressed. It is so abundantly clear that PU was not "better" in "normal" OCIs here. Both PU and Mobil are performing to "normal" expectations; they are both statisically sound from a macro point of view. While there is not enough data for a full micro analysis, the macro analysis clearly shows how both fluids are "normal" in their ability to protect. So, why pay 2.5x (+/-) more money for the same results? Proof (real world results) and lab testing (SAE studies) simply prove this point time and time again, but some folks just do not (or cannot) accept the reality for what it is.

Even if you find this 8.5k mile OCI to your own personal condemnation point, you'd have to push the PU WAY OUT to simply meet the ROI. If you're not comfortable with that, then you've clearly made the right choice.

Excellent report; stay the course!
 
Last edited:
I agree with Newton to the fullest.

I was a long time diehard synthetic only type of guy. I'm now starting to swing the other way towards dino oil because it really does perform, esp with today's strict oil standards.

The only benefit i see with synthetic oil in OPs case would be if this OCI was dragged out to a year+, I'd imagine the synthetic would hold up longer and provide better protection month after month (esp winter time).

With such short time intervals of only 3 months per OCI and what seems like a lot of nonstop driving, the OP is definitely benefiting from the $9.99 oil changes with Mobil 8.5k... (Mobil Super 10k?)
grin2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Your insolubles are at .4; well below their limit of .6 so I'd not use this as a reason to condemn, but perhaps continue with close scrutiny.
Considering that 0.4 is double my average of 0.2 and that 0.6 is the limit, this in combination with the other factors has me watching it very closely. I think there is a fine line at a certain point where the oil begins to degrade and the possibility exists for sludge to begin. Whether I am there or not remains to be seen, but certainly I would not risk the formation of sludge for a $10.00 OC. I will likely run another at 8.5K before extending past that.

Color me cautious...but...
 
I think what is being shown here is that you're getting your money's worth out of your current fill and that you weren't running the PU nearly long enough to wear that oil out. If you don't mind having to change the oil every few months since you drive quite a bit and you like the thought of dumping the "old" and pouring in "new" more often rather than less then it looks like you've got a good choice going. I don't drive a whole lot so waiting to rack up enough miles to get to a change has my oil changing finger itching. One way I satisfy the "itch" is to sample on the conservative side of when I think I'm getting close. I am a fan of sampling while the oil is still in service and making my decision on when to change it from there. It keeps me from leaving as much unused oil life on the table.

I last changed the oil in my 4Runner over a year ago now but haven't quite crossed 5000 miles and even though 1500 of those miles have been towing near max gross into the Sierra Nevada mountains and 4x4 excursions I still think I'm going to wait another few months to sample and see how much longer the oil can stay in. If the towing and offroading don't affect oil life much then I ought to be able to maybe make it through another warm season.
 
Originally Posted By: OrdnanceMarine
I think what is being shown here is that you're getting your money's worth out of your current fill and that you weren't running the PU nearly long enough to wear that oil out. If you don't mind having to change the oil every few months since you drive quite a bit and you like the thought of dumping the "old" and pouring in "new" more often rather than less then it looks like you've got a good choice going.

The other points to consider are that PU would have to be ran 20K to equal the MS5K; it is not just a matter of me changing the oil more often than not. I do not think that PU can be ran that long and if it could the FL-820s filter would have to be changed somewhere along the way.

Also, this "experiment" is to show that conventional oil (in the same operating conditions) can provide the same amount of protection as a OTC synthetic (which so far it definitely has—in fact the wear metals have been better in this last run of MS5K than in any previous run of PU). Last but not least, it is to illustrate that different additive packs do not necessarily provide more or less protection—the protection can be the same despite the differences.
 
This is a great maintenance plan,using the oil to the fullest. Great report and maintenance plan. And 10 dollar oil changes are stellar. I'd likely just change it rather than analyze it at that cost however you are gaining valuable information.
 
Originally Posted By: Clevy
I'd likely just change it rather than analyze it at that cost however you are gaining valuable information.

Thanks for the kind words. While you are correct about the cost of analysis, it is the data that I am gathering. When I have an equal set of MS5K UOAs versus the PU ones, I will likely stop performing UOAs. However, it is my hope that the data gleaned from this "experiment" will help others to make an informed decision about what type of oil to choose instead of reaching for the synthetic by default. Synthetics definitely have their application, but for those that assume that synthetic is better can hopefully see that is not always true.
 
Absolutely positive comments overall, with good input from folks.

What some people are seeing is what I've been preaching for years. Any fluid can be over or under utilized. One must match up the lube to the maintenance plan, all with the useage factors in mind.

Yes - the cost of the entire program is self-defeating; he's spending more money on the UOAs than the OCI. But information is worth something, and he's getting it in spades. If everyone had to do this type of experiement, then no one would ever save money. 2010_FX4 is sacrificing his dollars so that the rest of us can learn from his example; that is a selfless act and it merits praise. Further, his steady, consistent pattern of use and maintenance help with the experiment by controlling the variables; less to consider when comparing/contrasting.

What many folks struggle to realize is that small shifts in attributes (wear metals, vis, FP, TBN, etc) mean nothing overall. There is variation in "normal" events (see my article).

This series of UOAs is showing that under these predetermined conditions (normal OCIs), synthetics simply cannot ever hope to pay for themselves.

As for this current load of MC5k, I see the pragmatic sense of taking a more caution approach as the runs extend. Run the 8.5k miles, and see if you find comfort in the returned results. Be aware that there will always be a bit of movement in the numbers; do no confuse variation with a "shift".

Keep 'em coming!
 
Absolutely fantastic results & record keeping.

This is a perfect example thet helps all of us justify extending our OCI's out.

Way to go!
thumbsup2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: tpitcher
Absolutely fantastic results & record keeping.

This is a perfect example thet helps all of us justify extending our OCI's out.

Way to go!
thumbsup2.gif




One thing we may need to be aware of is as those of us seeking to use our oil "to the fullest" do extend out we begin to work our way in to what might be best considered "engineering margin". In other words, if the maker says "change every 7500 miles" or even "follow the oil change indicator" we can make somewhat of a reasonable assumption that this number is not aimed right at the point of lubricant failure for the statistical mean example, but some user/engine/environment to the left of the mean. In other words, there will generally be some margin remaining for nearly all examples if the engineers did their homework AND the lawyers allowed the engineers' homework answers to be shared with the end user. If we go exploring into this engineering margin we will begin to expose the natural variation between user/engine/environment and I am willing to believe the standard deviation across make and model will vary significantly.
 
Quite likely true. As you approach the edge of any performance envelope, it can get a bit fuzzy.

But I would certainly offer that no engine ever failed just because any condemnation point were just slightly over-run once. The wear metals here are NOWHERE near condemnation. The TAN/TBN is debateable, but when wear is not being affected, I'd say it's OK. Most of the issues we are debating are chronic and not acute. If the insolubles did suddenly pop to .7, it's not like the engine would just grind to a halt. Sludge and varnish take many thousands of miles to accumlate to a level that would impede oil flow. Same goes for TBN/TAN. The development of acid doesn't just skyrocket overnight and eat the bearings to rust/dust; it takes time. And these things would probably manifest into wear issues along the way.

I'd be cautious (as he is being) in going past the 8.5k miles. I personally would be willing to run up to 10k, and he's getting there, if but a bit slower than I would. But he certainly is being methodical and consistent; excellent.

I would continue to point to my UOA database evidence, and the Ford/Conoco SAE study, that shows wear generally is still tapering off, even at 15k miles. If the Ox does go up a bit, or the insolubles do escalate, or the TBN drops low, then there is only cause for continued monitoring, and not cause for automatic condemnation. I'm familiar with the 5.4L engine, but not this specific application. Not sure how easy it would be to pop off a valve cover and do some visual inspections for sludge/varnish. If it were simple to do, that would ease my concerns as I inched up the OCI meter.

If nothing else, if he stuck to 8.5k miles for the rest of this truck's lifecycle, he's still WAY better off financially than the previous PU program he was running. Does he need to find that "nth" degree of final OCI mile? Probably not; he's already proved to himself that the former program was not paying for itself, and this one is. Same macro results for a lot less money.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Quite likely true. As you approach the edge of any performance envelope, it can get a bit fuzzy.

I agree with both sets of thoughts, but I would challenge that more often than not, past 7.5K the choice is defaulted to a synthetic which as I have demonstrated and will continue to do so, is completely unnecessary in an engine exposed to similar operating conditions.

As Dave pointed out, if I continued to run at 8.5K from this point forward, I would have needed to use the PU past 20K to see the same ROI (at the same time the cost of a better filter or more MC filters would also have to be factored in thus pushing the ROI out even further). Will PU last past 20K? Not sure, I would guess probably not, but I will not find out in my truck--someone else can take that challenge.
 
**UPDATE**

Blackstone did not have enough sample oil remaining to re-test the flashpoint, however, I think it is a mistake. They did recheck the water content and the result was negligible so I am not concerned as much about the water. We will have to see what the results are next time.
 
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: Artem
I say you shoot for 10k. Blackstone says its do-able and I agree.

I am not so sure about that; I have no desire to start sludging and it seems the MS5K is starting to oxidize (which is/was always a concern with conventional oil). Besides, I also do not want to be "stupid" in trying to wring the last little bit out of the oil unnecessarily. I need to hear what Blackstone says about the flashpoint.

On the other hand, the wear metals are less than some of the 7.5K runs with Pennzoil Ultra.



I would agree on playing it safe. The 3v modulars have had some mild issues with developing sludge (in engines that run oil to long) mostly due to the head design. getting 8k miles out of Mobil super is excellent! And the 5.4l Modular is a spectacular engine. This report is living proof of why there are so many modular ford engines driving around with 300k+ miles on dino oil changes. It's excellent to know you can go to walmart and walk out spending about $27 on 7qts mobil super and an fl820s and know you can comfortably run it 8k+ miles and still have and oil with a decent TBN, and great viscosity. Spectacular.
 
This is why I do not use any synthetic PCMO's in my vehicles it would take too long to get my ROI and "synthetics" are not a magical fluid that some make it out to be on this site with a few exceptions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top