2011 F150 3.5L 32,089mi & Kendall FS 5w30 3,975mi
- Thread starter volk06
- Start date
- Status
Thanks for testing and posting!
Interesting how the TBN's compare between old method and new.
I see you're changing oil brand but it looks like the Kendall did well for you under the circumstances. You have a nice trend going.
Interesting how the TBN's compare between old method and new.
I see you're changing oil brand but it looks like the Kendall did well for you under the circumstances. You have a nice trend going.
Looks as if the EB shears oil a bit.
I would not want an Eco-Boost engine past its factory warranty period!
Originally Posted By: GBL
Code:
Halvoline Kendall
Syn. Blnd
5w/30 5w/30
Sample DT 2/19/13 9/05/14
Miles/Oil 9443 9570
Miles/Unit 45303 97350
Make Up Oil 0 0
ALUMINUM 8 5
CHROMIUM 1 0
IRON 49 11
COPPER 23 4
LEAD 2 1
TIN 0 0
MOLYBDENUM 40 16
NICKEL 1 1
MANGANESE 11 2
SILVER 0 0
TITANIUM 1 75
POTASSIUM 9 3
BORON 21 19
SILICON 22 12
SODIUM 103 9
CALCIUM 2092 2094
MAGNESIUM 14 15
PHOSPHORUS 704 695
ZINC 845 788
BARIUM 1 0
SUS @ 210°F 50.6 51.5
cSt @ 100°C 7.45 7.74
Flashpoint 345 325
Fuel % 1.0 1.5
Antifreeze % 0.0 0.0
Water % 0.0 0.0
Insolubles % 0.3 0.3
TBN 0.7 1.7
[/quote]
I posted this over on another thread but repeat it here.
The oil on the left was a dino vs. the synthetic blend on the right. I ran the first 43k on the Halvoline and used Express Lube do it at ~6k intervals. For that particular run I waited until the computer told me to change it. After the results I returned to the ~6k OCI.
I then changed to the Kendall blend to see how it would do and had Firestone do it because they've had a great deal of ~$30, tax and all for such. I did one OCI with Kendall at about 7k, then got brave and ran it until the computer said to do it. Keep in mind about 8000 miles on this last OCI were long runs (getting 20 mpg doing an average of >75 mph).
Three observations:
1. The manual says to use a synthetic blend...it helps to read and believe such. (They said the same on my 2002 Screw. I ignored it, used the 5w20 dino at 5k OCI and it was fine when I traded it in at 240k.)
2. Lowered viscosity, flashpoint and relatively high fuel don't seem to bother the blend at all.
3. In my mind the numbers for the change to a blend almost read to good to be true. If true, it's a pretty impressive improvement and there would be no reason not to run it out to 10k each time.
I'll repeat the 10k and do an OCA again.
Thoughts....? [/quote]
Code:
Halvoline Kendall
Syn. Blnd
5w/30 5w/30
Sample DT 2/19/13 9/05/14
Miles/Oil 9443 9570
Miles/Unit 45303 97350
Make Up Oil 0 0
ALUMINUM 8 5
CHROMIUM 1 0
IRON 49 11
COPPER 23 4
LEAD 2 1
TIN 0 0
MOLYBDENUM 40 16
NICKEL 1 1
MANGANESE 11 2
SILVER 0 0
TITANIUM 1 75
POTASSIUM 9 3
BORON 21 19
SILICON 22 12
SODIUM 103 9
CALCIUM 2092 2094
MAGNESIUM 14 15
PHOSPHORUS 704 695
ZINC 845 788
BARIUM 1 0
SUS @ 210°F 50.6 51.5
cSt @ 100°C 7.45 7.74
Flashpoint 345 325
Fuel % 1.0 1.5
Antifreeze % 0.0 0.0
Water % 0.0 0.0
Insolubles % 0.3 0.3
TBN 0.7 1.7
[/quote]
I posted this over on another thread but repeat it here.
The oil on the left was a dino vs. the synthetic blend on the right. I ran the first 43k on the Halvoline and used Express Lube do it at ~6k intervals. For that particular run I waited until the computer told me to change it. After the results I returned to the ~6k OCI.
I then changed to the Kendall blend to see how it would do and had Firestone do it because they've had a great deal of ~$30, tax and all for such. I did one OCI with Kendall at about 7k, then got brave and ran it until the computer said to do it. Keep in mind about 8000 miles on this last OCI were long runs (getting 20 mpg doing an average of >75 mph).
Three observations:
1. The manual says to use a synthetic blend...it helps to read and believe such. (They said the same on my 2002 Screw. I ignored it, used the 5w20 dino at 5k OCI and it was fine when I traded it in at 240k.)
2. Lowered viscosity, flashpoint and relatively high fuel don't seem to bother the blend at all.
3. In my mind the numbers for the change to a blend almost read to good to be true. If true, it's a pretty impressive improvement and there would be no reason not to run it out to 10k each time.
I'll repeat the 10k and do an OCA again.
Thoughts....? [/quote]
Originally Posted By: RISUPERCREWMAN
I would not want an Eco-Boost engine past its factory warranty period!
I understand the trepidation since it only came out 3 years ago and the results are still coming in. That said, to date it's doing very well. My experience is excellent. The MPG are very good and the towing is leaps and bounds ahead of any other gasser I've used.
The only drawback I've experienced so far is the engine braking when you downshift on a grade, especially with a 7000# trailer. The little motor just doesn't slow it up.
Going up the hills is terrific and it pulls just as good or better than the early 2000+ 5.9L Cummins, even at low RPM's. Also, pulling I get around 10.5 mpg verses 7 mpg with my old 2002 Screw.
So far....very good. Time will tell. I pull the trailer ~15% of the time and I'll cross 100k in a week or so.
I would not want an Eco-Boost engine past its factory warranty period!
I understand the trepidation since it only came out 3 years ago and the results are still coming in. That said, to date it's doing very well. My experience is excellent. The MPG are very good and the towing is leaps and bounds ahead of any other gasser I've used.
The only drawback I've experienced so far is the engine braking when you downshift on a grade, especially with a 7000# trailer. The little motor just doesn't slow it up.
Going up the hills is terrific and it pulls just as good or better than the early 2000+ 5.9L Cummins, even at low RPM's. Also, pulling I get around 10.5 mpg verses 7 mpg with my old 2002 Screw.
So far....very good. Time will tell. I pull the trailer ~15% of the time and I'll cross 100k in a week or so.
Originally Posted By: GBL
Originally Posted By: RISUPERCREWMAN
I would not want an Eco-Boost engine past its factory warranty period!
I understand the trepidation since it only came out 3 years ago and the results are still coming in. That said, to date it's doing very well. My experience is excellent. The MPG are very good and the towing is leaps and bounds ahead of any other gasser I've used.
The only drawback I've experienced so far is the engine braking when you downshift on a grade, especially with a 7000# trailer. The little motor just doesn't slow it up.
Going up the hills is terrific and it pulls just as good or better than the early 2000+ 5.9L Cummins, even at low RPM's. Also, pulling I get around 10.5 mpg verses 7 mpg with my old 2002 Screw.
So far....very good. Time will tell. I pull the trailer ~15% of the time and I'll cross 100k in a week or so.
Based on your results I'd say your engine is just getting broke in. I've often wondered if I'd dare buy a used ecoboost or not, but based on both of your samples I feel ok about it now.
Your first sample with havoline looks great for that many miles in that engine and the fuel dilution that comes with it. Now with almost 100k on it, it looks great.
Glad you posted your results GBL, but you should put up your own thread for all to see. You have good info to share.
Originally Posted By: RISUPERCREWMAN
I would not want an Eco-Boost engine past its factory warranty period!
I understand the trepidation since it only came out 3 years ago and the results are still coming in. That said, to date it's doing very well. My experience is excellent. The MPG are very good and the towing is leaps and bounds ahead of any other gasser I've used.
The only drawback I've experienced so far is the engine braking when you downshift on a grade, especially with a 7000# trailer. The little motor just doesn't slow it up.
Going up the hills is terrific and it pulls just as good or better than the early 2000+ 5.9L Cummins, even at low RPM's. Also, pulling I get around 10.5 mpg verses 7 mpg with my old 2002 Screw.
So far....very good. Time will tell. I pull the trailer ~15% of the time and I'll cross 100k in a week or so.
Based on your results I'd say your engine is just getting broke in. I've often wondered if I'd dare buy a used ecoboost or not, but based on both of your samples I feel ok about it now.
Your first sample with havoline looks great for that many miles in that engine and the fuel dilution that comes with it. Now with almost 100k on it, it looks great.
Glad you posted your results GBL, but you should put up your own thread for all to see. You have good info to share.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: GBL
Originally Posted By: GBL
Code:
Halvoline Kendall
Syn. Blnd
5w/30 5w/30
Sample DT 2/19/13 9/05/14
Miles/Oil 9443 9570
Miles/Unit 45303 97350
Make Up Oil 0 0
ALUMINUM 8 5
CHROMIUM 1 0
IRON 49 11
COPPER 23 4
LEAD 2 1
TIN 0 0
MOLYBDENUM 40 16
NICKEL 1 1
MANGANESE 11 2
SILVER 0 0
TITANIUM 1 75
POTASSIUM 9 3
BORON 21 19
SILICON 22 12
SODIUM 103 9
CALCIUM 2092 2094
MAGNESIUM 14 15
PHOSPHORUS 704 695
ZINC 845 788
BARIUM 1 0
SUS @ 210°F 50.6 51.5
cSt @ 100°C 7.45 7.74
Flashpoint 345 325
Fuel % 1.0 1.5
Antifreeze % 0.0 0.0
Water % 0.0 0.0
Insolubles % 0.3 0.3
TBN 0.7 1.7
I posted this over on another thread but repeat it here.
The oil on the left was a dino vs. the synthetic blend on the right. I ran the first 43k on the Halvoline and used Express Lube do it at ~6k intervals. For that particular run I waited until the computer told me to change it. After the results I returned to the ~6k OCI.
I then changed to the Kendall blend to see how it would do and had Firestone do it because they've had a great deal of ~$30, tax and all for such. I did one OCI with Kendall at about 7k, then got brave and ran it until the computer said to do it. Keep in mind about 8000 miles on this last OCI were long runs (getting 20 mpg doing an average of >75 mph).
Three observations:
1. The manual says to use a synthetic blend...it helps to read and believe such. (They said the same on my 2002 Screw. I ignored it, used the 5w20 dino at 5k OCI and it was fine when I traded it in at 240k.)
2. Lowered viscosity, flashpoint and relatively high fuel don't seem to bother the blend at all.
3. In my mind the numbers for the change to a blend almost read to good to be true. If true, it's a pretty impressive improvement and there would be no reason not to run it out to 10k each time.
I'll repeat the 10k and do an OCA again.
Thoughts....? [/quote] [/quote]
The manual does not say to use a synthetic blend. It recommends Motorcraft synthetic blend or an equivalent oil meeting the spec, which many Dino's do
Originally Posted By: GBL
Code:
Halvoline Kendall
Syn. Blnd
5w/30 5w/30
Sample DT 2/19/13 9/05/14
Miles/Oil 9443 9570
Miles/Unit 45303 97350
Make Up Oil 0 0
ALUMINUM 8 5
CHROMIUM 1 0
IRON 49 11
COPPER 23 4
LEAD 2 1
TIN 0 0
MOLYBDENUM 40 16
NICKEL 1 1
MANGANESE 11 2
SILVER 0 0
TITANIUM 1 75
POTASSIUM 9 3
BORON 21 19
SILICON 22 12
SODIUM 103 9
CALCIUM 2092 2094
MAGNESIUM 14 15
PHOSPHORUS 704 695
ZINC 845 788
BARIUM 1 0
SUS @ 210°F 50.6 51.5
cSt @ 100°C 7.45 7.74
Flashpoint 345 325
Fuel % 1.0 1.5
Antifreeze % 0.0 0.0
Water % 0.0 0.0
Insolubles % 0.3 0.3
TBN 0.7 1.7
I posted this over on another thread but repeat it here.
The oil on the left was a dino vs. the synthetic blend on the right. I ran the first 43k on the Halvoline and used Express Lube do it at ~6k intervals. For that particular run I waited until the computer told me to change it. After the results I returned to the ~6k OCI.
I then changed to the Kendall blend to see how it would do and had Firestone do it because they've had a great deal of ~$30, tax and all for such. I did one OCI with Kendall at about 7k, then got brave and ran it until the computer said to do it. Keep in mind about 8000 miles on this last OCI were long runs (getting 20 mpg doing an average of >75 mph).
Three observations:
1. The manual says to use a synthetic blend...it helps to read and believe such. (They said the same on my 2002 Screw. I ignored it, used the 5w20 dino at 5k OCI and it was fine when I traded it in at 240k.)
2. Lowered viscosity, flashpoint and relatively high fuel don't seem to bother the blend at all.
3. In my mind the numbers for the change to a blend almost read to good to be true. If true, it's a pretty impressive improvement and there would be no reason not to run it out to 10k each time.
I'll repeat the 10k and do an OCA again.
Thoughts....? [/quote] [/quote]
The manual does not say to use a synthetic blend. It recommends Motorcraft synthetic blend or an equivalent oil meeting the spec, which many Dino's do
Originally Posted By: GBL
Originally Posted By: RISUPERCREWMAN
I would not want an Eco-Boost engine past its factory warranty period!
I understand the trepidation since it only came out 3 years ago and the results are still coming in. That said, to date it's doing very well. My experience is excellent. The MPG are very good and the towing is leaps and bounds ahead of any other gasser I've used.
The only drawback I've experienced so far is the engine braking when you downshift on a grade, especially with a 7000# trailer. The little motor just doesn't slow it up.
Going up the hills is terrific and it pulls just as good or better than the early 2000+ 5.9L Cummins, even at low RPM's. Also, pulling I get around 10.5 mpg verses 7 mpg with my old 2002 Screw.
So far....very good. Time will tell. I pull the trailer ~15% of the time and I'll cross 100k in a week or so.
The ecoboost is actually older than 3 years. People are just scared of "new" technology. Turbos are not new technology and the ecoboost is built more stout than most V8s.
Originally Posted By: RISUPERCREWMAN
I would not want an Eco-Boost engine past its factory warranty period!
I understand the trepidation since it only came out 3 years ago and the results are still coming in. That said, to date it's doing very well. My experience is excellent. The MPG are very good and the towing is leaps and bounds ahead of any other gasser I've used.
The only drawback I've experienced so far is the engine braking when you downshift on a grade, especially with a 7000# trailer. The little motor just doesn't slow it up.
Going up the hills is terrific and it pulls just as good or better than the early 2000+ 5.9L Cummins, even at low RPM's. Also, pulling I get around 10.5 mpg verses 7 mpg with my old 2002 Screw.
So far....very good. Time will tell. I pull the trailer ~15% of the time and I'll cross 100k in a week or so.
The ecoboost is actually older than 3 years. People are just scared of "new" technology. Turbos are not new technology and the ecoboost is built more stout than most V8s.
Here's the latest results. The two recent tests were with Kendall semi-synthetic. Mileage on the last test were mostly on the highway. I think the results were excellent. The concern about water accumulation and shear seems unfounded. It burns no oil.
Based on the results, I'll stay with this oil since it only cost me $30 at Firestone to have it done. In addition I'll refrain from doing an OCA for another 50,000 miles which is another 5 oil changes and a couple of years away. The lab analysis cost about as much as the oil change does. I'll report back then. Why waste the money?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: volk06
The ecoboost is actually older than 3 years. People are just scared of "new" technology. Turbos are not new technology and the ecoboost is built more stout than most V8s.
Bingo. It showed up around this time in 2009 in the MKS, SHO, and Flex (all 2010 model years).
My oldest has 93k and no engine issues other than a bum knock sensor under warranty.
My youngest just turned 61k and has no engine issues. This one does towing duty and handles our 9k lb TT just fine.
The ecoboost is actually older than 3 years. People are just scared of "new" technology. Turbos are not new technology and the ecoboost is built more stout than most V8s.
Bingo. It showed up around this time in 2009 in the MKS, SHO, and Flex (all 2010 model years).
My oldest has 93k and no engine issues other than a bum knock sensor under warranty.
My youngest just turned 61k and has no engine issues. This one does towing duty and handles our 9k lb TT just fine.
- Status
Similar threads
