Got a reply from the lab. They’re going to rerun the sample tomorrow.
2013 Fusion 2.0 Ecoboost HPL PCMO 5/30
- Thread starter MVAR
- Start date
Good deal
And the new(actual) report just posted:
Last edited:
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
It means his ride has bad gas. Drop a couple Gax-X chewables down where the oil fill cap is.
It’s all that Chevron 91 fermentingIt means his ride has bad gas. Drop a couple Gax-X chewables down where the oil fill cap is.
I asked this in your virgin report thread. I wonder why Wearcheck does not report starting oxidation on virgin oil? They show it on the used oil, but not the virgin oil. The point of the oxidation result is to see how much the value grew from baseline after use.
They also are the only lab I am aware of that sticks with the D2896 method of TBN for both virgin and used oil. ASTM recommends D2896 for virgin oil when comparing to other virgin oil. They recommend D4739 for used oil and for new oil that will be retested after use to determine base number loss.
They also are the only lab I am aware of that sticks with the D2896 method of TBN for both virgin and used oil. ASTM recommends D2896 for virgin oil when comparing to other virgin oil. They recommend D4739 for used oil and for new oil that will be retested after use to determine base number loss.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2022
- Messages
- 861
I'm not all that familiar with the EB, but doesn't 0 ppm copper strike anyone as odd? The 4 ppm aluminum looks interesting too, I've seen higher than that in VOA's of HPL's oils.
And only 6 ppm iron, which again might be average for this engine but still, the wear numbers look really low (ie good, definitely far better than you find on v8's).
And only 6 ppm iron, which again might be average for this engine but still, the wear numbers look really low (ie good, definitely far better than you find on v8's).
My ecoboost uoa I posted earlier in this thread show similar copper results. 0,0,1 ppm on 3 uoa.
@MolaKule replied in the VOA thread with this:
Sulfur containing compounds in lubricant Additives:
ZDDP (an ester of Zn[(S2P(OR)2]2); Zinc, Sulfur, and phosphorus.
Spikes, H. "The History and Mechanisms of ZDDP". Tribology Letters. 17 (3): 469–489, (2004-10-01).
Calcium and Magnesium Sulfonates
Molybdenum Dithiocarbamate or MoDTC (recall that a MoDTC compound formula is C4H8MoN4S8), or 4 carbon atoms, 8 hydrogen atoms, one or more moly atoms, 4 nitrogen atoms, and 8 sulfur atoms.
So any DTC compound is on the order of C4H8XxN4S8, where Xx is the metallic element containing one or more of the metallic atoms to create this organo-metallic compound.
Response from Wear Check on D2896 vs D4739:
“We find D2896 a lot more repeatable than D4739, and therefore more accurate.
More importantly, I feel it is better comparing apples to apples. New oils are reported by D2896, and D4739 is statistically 10% lower. So, if you put a 10 BN oil (by D2896) in a unit and take an immediate sample before even running the unit, when you test by D4739, you’ll automatically see a decrease in BN for the oil by approximately 10%. Pretty significant drop for an oil that has never been used. The D2896 value is also what is shown on reports for the typical baseline value. I’d rather see a side-by-side comparison of the D2896, starting and used, instead of a used value tested by a different method.
Hope this helps. We haven’t run D4739 in 20+ years and I’ve had few complaints once I explain why.”
I’ve edited his statements prior to this as we were discussing other things as well. This is the portion of the email pertaining to the subject at hand.
Fair enough. My issues are 1) none of the other major labs do this and 2) he's going against ASTM recommendations.
Understand as well.
Personally, I can deal with it as long as there's a constant trend I can pattern. I'm not one to push extended service intervals to the point that this oil would be depleted as far as TBN goes so (in my wife's car, this one, it looks as though the viscosity would give out/sheer down first anyway) it's not as big of a deal. It's also good to know the difference is roughly a 10% lower reading using the D4739 test.