2010 FX4 | PU 5W-20 | 5.4L | 7,250mi

[CarbonSteel]

Gang,

This was the final OC of PU prior to the switch to MS5K. There seems to be a few variations in the PU formula; namely Boron and Calcium seem to be down somewhat. Otherwise, the engine is still producing excellent wear numbers despite the continued use of 5W-20 .

Blackstone comments:

The Triton V-8 under the hood of your F-150 FX4 continues to look very good at 69,305 miles. Wear accumulation is nice and low, showing no signs of mechanical problems developing inside the engine. Universal averages for this type of Ford V-8 are based on about 5,300 miles on the oil, so your engine continues to put up better-than-average wear numbers after another longer-than-average oil change interval. No contamination of any sort was present, and the viscosity was spot on for 5w20 grade oil. Keep doing what you are doing. No problems found.


Thoughts and comments always welcome...

Code:




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

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



Oil Brand/Type: 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

API Service: SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM

Lab: BLKST BLKST BLKST BLKST BLKST BLKST BLKST BLKST BLKST BLKST BLKST BLKST





Truck Mileage: 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: 7,250 7,480 7,500 7,305 7,490 5,180 5,500 5,000 6,000 6,100 3,509 991



Aluminum: 3 3 5 3 2 2 3 3 6 3 3 3

Chromium 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

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

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

Lead: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Tin: 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Molybdenum: 48 56 46 47 58 55 54 45 47 52 48 42

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

Manganese: 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

Titanium: 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

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

Boron: 91 249 156 144 156 233 244 230 249 278 258 272

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

Sodium: 4 7 5 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 9

Calcium: 2647 3168 3003 3053 2941 2900 2814 2613 2740 2911 2706 2203

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

Phosphorus: 688 728 671 668 710 713 676 608 629 691 643 773

Zinc: 762 820 724 743 861 834 813 675 718 774 752 835

Barium: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16



cSt Viscosity @ 100°C 8.34 8.25 7.93 7.80 8.45 8.04 8.14 8.21 8.12 7.72 7.94 7.09

Pennzoil cSt Viscosity @ 100°C 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 N/A



SUS Viscosity @ 210°F 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 415 405 420 415 410 425 405 390 410 390 400 390

Pennzoil Flashpoint in °F 435 435 435 435 435 435 435 435 435 435 435 N/A



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

Water % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Insolubles % 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 N/A N/A N/A 5.4 N/A N/A 5.6 4.8 5.3 9.4 7.5 N/A

TAN N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

 

[Colt45ws]

Looks good!

 

[Artem]

Test for TBN with the MS5K @ 5k to see how much life is left in it to go further. Who knows, maybe with your driving conditions, the oil could also go 7,500 miles and still produce excellent UOA results.

Good luck.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: Artem
Test for TBN with the MS5K @ 5k to see how much life is left in it to go further. Who knows, maybe with your driving conditions, the oil could also go 7,500 miles and still produce excellent UOA results.

Good luck.

I plan to so that I can see how well it holds up to towing compared to the PU. Oxidation is the primary concern with the MS5K, but we will have to wait and see. I have another lab that I am using for the UOAs with MS5K (I have a sample of this last OC of PU to use as a reference from the new lab).

 

[ltslimjim]

Definitely interesting to see Ultra consistently producing lower Calcium/Boron totals now. Still pretty stout oil, though, either way just curious. Didn't affect your UOA trend at all from appearance.

 

[chubbs1]

Originally Posted By: ltslimjim
Definitely interesting to see Ultra consistently producing lower Calcium/Boron totals now. Still pretty stout oil, though, either way just curious. Didn't affect your UOA trend at all from appearance.



No doubt about that, I have been noticing that trend lately. I try to pick up the "oldest" dated bottles. It is really hard to distinguish it from PP now. If they stick with the very low NOACK volatility then that might be the only reason to purchase this oil for engines such as direct inject. Otherwise just use PP.


Very good UOA and as noted did not affect wear.

Thanks for posting

 

[ltslimjim]

^Very true that it probably is the base oil difference now. Interested to see Mobil Super(or special?) 5K for a few OCIs.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: ltslimjim
^Very true that it probably is the base oil difference now. Interested to see Mobil Super(or special?) 5K for a few OCIs.

I wonder about that though since I was still using SM and if memory serves the date on the SM bottle was 9 or 10/2011. I have not seen a bottle of PU SN in my area as yet (it was my understanding the new low NOACK oil was SN?).

 

[ltslimjim]

It's been mused over that perhaps they are using various bottles that state SM but 'meet or exceed' ILSAC GF-5/API SN during this transition to SN for their Ultra line.

Other analysis posted recently with confirmed SN bottles, show similar add pack as this UOA. IMO, signifying the transition seen in the oil, regardless of what the bottle 'happened' to say during the transition.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: ltslimjim
It's been mused over that perhaps they are using various bottles that state SM but 'meet or exceed' ILSAC GF-5/API SN during this transition to SN for their Ultra line.

Other analysis posted recently with confirmed SN bottles, show similar add pack as this UOA. IMO, signifying the transition seen in the oil, regardless of what the bottle 'happened' to say during the transition.

This makes sense as there is a somewhat drastic difference between this UOA and the one just prior. They probably do not relabel the bottles and since SN is theoretically 'better' than SM, they likely did not call any attention to it...

 

[dnewton3]

All I can say is "WOW"!

Very nice data streams. I really look forward to your results after the switch. Your historical data is a fantastic basis for comparitive views once you change over lubes. I, for one, suspect that you'll find that while PU does a great job, your OCI plan will be just as well served by a high-end dino oil with similar results for far less money (that is my prediciton anyway). But the GREAT thing is that you have a stellar record to base upcoming comparisons/contrast to. Kudos to you!

Now - for the bad news ...

You, sir, are a heretic. What manner of man are you to produce such consistent and noteworthy data? Your thoughtful and deliberate actions are not statistically "normal" for a BITOGer. Your steady, rational plan of UOAs clearly shows no respect for the typical Anal-Retentive BITOG approach of hop-skotching from brand to brand and grade to grade.

Your official BITOG "Frequent Flyer OCD/OCI" card is hereby revoked, and you are now on double-secret probation.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
All I can say is "WOW"!

Very nice data streams. I really look forward to your results after the switch. Your historical data is a fantastic basis for comparitive views once you change over lubes. I, for one, suspect that you'll find that while PU does a great job, your OCI plan will be just as well served by a high-end dino oil with similar results for far less money (that is my prediciton anyway). But the GREAT thing is that you have a stellar record to base upcoming comparisons/contrast to. Kudos to you!

Now - for the bad news ...

You, sir, are a heretic. What manner of man are you to produce such consistent and noteworthy data? Your thoughtful and deliberate actions are not statistically "normal" for a BITOGer. Your steady, rational plan of UOAs clearly shows no respect for the typical Anal-Retentive BITOG approach of hop-skotching from brand to brand and grade to grade.

Your official BITOG "Frequent Flyer OCD/OCI" card is hereby revoked, and you are now on double-secret probation.

Dave I have to agree with you. This is the best representation of data I have seen on BITOG in a long time, but the bad news is that FX4 switched labs for his Mobil run and I am not sure on how their sampling and testing methods differ from Blackstone. But the minor difference's should be easy to translate and this comparison for PCMO's for this application will be the most comprehensive data on here in quite sometime.

 

[ottotheclown]

I agree with this thread 100%. Nice data from a sharp source!!

 

[Gene K]

Ultra SM = GIII+ XHVI?

Ultra SN = GIV PAO?

Ive been hearing a rumor that SN is PAO instead of XHVI. If so that could explain why they reduced the Boron. I think the latest standards have been putting some pressure on the supply of GIII base stocks.


Calcium in the 2500+ range can be somewhat difficult for a lab to quantify accurately so I dont know how much faith I would put in 2647 vs 3168. +/-10% could mean they are both 2875.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Dave I have to agree with you. This is the best representation of data I have seen on BITOG in a long time, but the bad news is that FX4 switched labs for his Mobil run and I am not sure on how their sampling and testing methods differ from Blackstone. But the minor difference's should be easy to translate and this comparison for PCMO's for this application will be the most comprehensive data on here in quite sometime.

Dave and err...Dave, not to worry. I plan to perform dual UOAs at least twice to "set the standard" then (depending on the new lab's test methodology) switch fully to the new one. I like Blackstone, but I think they suffer in the oxidation and particle count test area. Jim Allen and I did a bit of testing in the particle count area and (speaking for me) I do not like the blockage test, I would rather have a true particle count and so Blackstone comes up a little short in this area. Regarding oxidation, Blackstone has informed me the insolubles reading indicates the oxidation, but there does not seem to be a baseline or a definition of how much/how little the oil has oxidized so again (from my point of view) they come up a little short of the mark.

Oxidation was not much of a concern to me while using PU (or any synthetic), but it is when using a conventional. The new lab is ISO certified and I would post the name, but I do not want to break any board rules regarding sponsors and advertising. I am sure that we will be able to correlate the data between Blackstone and the other lab with little difficulty.

 

[Gene K]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Dave I have to agree with you. This is the best representation of data I have seen on BITOG in a long time, but the bad news is that FX4 switched labs for his Mobil run and I am not sure on how their sampling and testing methods differ from Blackstone. But the minor difference's should be easy to translate and this comparison for PCMO's for this application will be the most comprehensive data on here in quite sometime.

Dave and err...Dave, not to worry. I plan to perform dual UOAs at least twice to "set the standard" then (depending on the new lab's test methodology) switch fully to the new one. I like Blackstone, but I think they suffer in the oxidation and particle count test area. Jim Allen and I did a bit of testing in the particle count area and (speaking for me) I do not like the blockage test, I would rather have a true particle count and so Blackstone comes up a little short in this area. Regarding oxidation, Blackstone has informed me the insolubles reading indicates the oxidation, but there does not seem to be a baseline or a definition of how much/how little the oil has oxidized so again (from my point of view) they come up a little short of the mark.

Oxidation was not much of a concern to me while using PU (or any synthetic), but it is when using a conventional. The new lab is ISO certified and I would post the name, but I do not want to break any board rules regarding sponsors and advertising. I am sure that we will be able to correlate the data between Blackstone and the other lab with little difficulty.


Are you talking about PL? To keep from spelling out the name although Ive been mentioning them by name for a decade without anyone telling my otherwise.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: Gene K
Ultra SM = GIII+ XHVI?

Ultra SN = GIV PAO?

Ive been hearing a rumor that SN is PAO instead of XHVI. If so that could explain why they reduced the Boron. Calcium in the 2500+ range can be somewhat difficult for a lab to quantify accurately so I dont know how much faith I would put in 2647 vs 3168. +/-10% could mean they are both 2875.

It could be, but the prior 6 UOAs all had calcium at >2800 (which is why I have UOAs for every OC; trending is king). Also, none of the PU I have used is marked as SN, I have only used SM. As noted in another post, Pennzoil could be attempting to deplete the old stock of SM bottles and is filling them with SN, but that is only speculation. In any event, the 5.4L did not flinch between the UOAs.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: Gene K
Are you talking about PL? To keep from spelling out the name although Ive been mentioning them by name for a decade without anyone telling my otherwise.

No; AI.

 

[hooligan24]

instead of changing to a different 5w20, how about you try PU 5w30 for a couple runs and see how it compares? that sounds more fun to me

 

[Gene K]

You know Ive been looking at this some more.

When I switched oils in my truck (from a boron containing oil to non-boron) I had a lot more boron in the first sample than I expected from just residual based on quantity.

If we assume that all that boron is residual from the last fill:
The add packages in the latest QSUD, Platinum and Ultra all look identical to me now. 2400-2600 Calcium, 45-55 Moly. If the base stock is QSUD GIII, PP GIII+ (XHVI) and PU GIV (PAO) that would make a lot of sense.

Just thinking out loud...