2015 Ford F-250 6.7L - which filter?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 1, 2015
Messages
727
Location
huntsville tx
I've run lots of filters on the 6.7 and it's really easy on filters never have had a problem with any of the cheap brands except service champ for some reason they like to leak on mine go for whatever is cheapest and change at 5k like you said
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
3,017
Location
texas
Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
Do we *really* need separate threads for each of these? What is next? What brand of diesel should you use?
along those lines he should retire his forum account and start a new one with 2015 in the front.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
9,745
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Yikes! What?!?! A new truck? crzy G - You traded in the F150? That thing was just getting broken in ... First, on topic ... I'd like to see you run five OFCIs back-to-back using the exact same lube and filter products. Then, sticking with one lube brand/grade, use the filter as a variable. I think you'll find that during "normal" IOLM service intervals, you'll not see any statistical difference in the filtration. Just as you did with the lube trials, why not run some filter trials. Just understand that there will always be small variances that are totally predictable. I doubt you'll ever see any real range shift due to filtration because they are all going to be good enough to do the job. I like the Wix; here is the beta data: 2/20/75=3/12/17 Not bad! In fact, it's nice to see real data and not that white-washed garbage of 6/20 they have on about every other filter. That's a pretty good filter if the specs are to be believed! Baldwin/Hastings are the same filters; brand duplicates not unlike the concept of Wix/NG. B/H makes darn good filters as well. I would be curious if you'd be willing to use and cut open the Fram; I'd be willing to foot the bill for this one filter. I suspect that because it's a diesel filter, you'd find it's construction a bit more beefy than the standard OCOD. Curious minds want to know! Why not try one for 5k miles? It's not like the filter will kill the engine for such a short OCI by any stretch of the imagination. Side topic ... So after a whole lot of lube trials, and spending a lot of money on syns, what did you glean with the F150? Do you think the investments in syns really made a tangible difference in a truck you traded before it was anywhere near it's demise? I'm not poking you to make fun of you, but just asking this from a pragmatic point of view. How much could you have saved simply using a lesser cost lube? Your UOAs convinced the manager to get a good price, but that same data could have come from conventional lubes. The effort of fact finding (UOA trials) paid off, but the syns probably didn't. If I understand your statement correctly, it was not the use of syns that made the manager give you full trade value, but the UOAs that showed the truck was in good condition. Those results (excellent wear) are not unique to the syns, and I seriously doubt they would have known good data from bad data anyway. Or am I misunderstanding the transaction?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
28,049
Location
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
LOL - curiously enough, I brought all of my UOA documentation in and the used car manager had NO clue what they were and was (as typical) attempting to lowball me on the trade price.
Big surprise. Of course he wouldn't understand it in the least. wink But he'd have no problem buying up something actually sludged due to real lack of maintenance and pass that onto the next guy.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Messages
379
Location
Texas
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Yikes! What?!?! A new truck? crzy G - You traded in the F150? That thing was just getting broken in ... First, on topic ... I'd like to see you run five OFCIs back-to-back using the exact same lube and filter products. Then, sticking with one lube brand/grade, use the filter as a variable. I think you'll find that during "normal" IOLM service intervals, you'll not see any statistical difference in the filtration. Just as you did with the lube trials, why not run some filter trials. Just understand that there will always be small variances that are totally predictable. I doubt you'll ever see any real range shift due to filtration because they are all going to be good enough to do the job. I like the Wix; here is the beta data: 2/20/75=3/12/17 Not bad! In fact, it's nice to see real data and not that white-washed garbage of 6/20 they have on about every other filter. That's a pretty good filter if the specs are to be believed! Baldwin/Hastings are the same filters; brand duplicates not unlike the concept of Wix/NG. B/H makes darn good filters as well. I would be curious if you'd be willing to use and cut open the Fram; I'd be willing to foot the bill for this one filter. I suspect that because it's a diesel filter, you'd find it's construction a bit more beefy than the standard OCOD. Curious minds want to know! Why not try one for 5k miles? It's not like the filter will kill the engine for such a short OCI by any stretch of the imagination. Side topic ... So after a whole lot of lube trials, and spending a lot of money on syns, what did you glean with the F150? Do you think the investments in syns really made a tangible difference in a truck you traded before it was anywhere near it's demise? I'm not poking you to make fun of you, but just asking this from a pragmatic point of view. How much could you have saved simply using a lesser cost lube? Your UOAs convinced the manager to get a good price, but that same data could have come from conventional lubes. The effort of fact finding (UOA trials) paid off, but the syns probably didn't. If I understand your statement correctly, it was not the use of syns that made the manager give you full trade value, but the UOAs that showed the truck was in good condition. Those results (excellent wear) are not unique to the syns, and I seriously doubt they would have known good data from bad data anyway. Or am I misunderstanding the transaction?
That all makes terrific sense to me
 

CarbonSteel

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
9,481
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Yikes! What?!?! A new truck? crzy G - You traded in the F150? That thing was just getting broken in ...
Yes; the new 5th wheel trailer would exceed the limits of the F150 and the 0% finance deal made it a no brainer.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
First, on topic ... I'd like to see you run five OFCIs back-to-back using the exact same lube and filter products. Then, sticking with one lube brand/grade, use the filter as a variable. I think you'll find that during "normal" IOLM service intervals, you'll not see any statistical difference in the filtration. Just as you did with the lube trials, why not run some filter trials. Just understand that there will always be small variances that are totally predictable. I doubt you'll ever see any real range shift due to filtration because they are all going to be good enough to do the job. I like the Wix; here is the beta data: 2/20/75=3/12/17 Not bad! In fact, it's nice to see real data and not that white-washed garbage of 6/20 they have on about every other filter. That's a pretty good filter if the specs are to be believed! Baldwin/Hastings are the same filters; brand duplicates not unlike the concept of Wix/NG. B/H makes darn good filters as well. I would be curious if you'd be willing to use and cut open the Fram; I'd be willing to foot the bill for this one filter. I suspect that because it's a diesel filter, you'd find it's construction a bit more beefy than the standard OCOD. Curious minds want to know! Why not try one for 5k miles? It's not like the filter will kill the engine for such a short OCI by any stretch of the imagination.
FRAM is out because I have always had the opinion that Extra Guard filters need more media (unless some has opened one and it clearly has more media--but I would still be very skeptical) and FRAM does not make an Ultra for the PSD. I think I am going to use the MC filters to start and will probably try WIX at some point, but it all depends on how well the MCs work and what the costs may be between them. In addition, I would not want Ford to have any traction to argue about any potential warranty issues.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Side topic ... So after a whole lot of lube trials, and spending a lot of money on syns, what did you glean with the F150? Do you think the investments in syns really made a tangible difference in a truck you traded before it was anywhere near it's demise? I'm not poking you to make fun of you, but just asking this from a pragmatic point of view. How much could you have saved simply using a lesser cost lube? Your UOAs convinced the manager to get a good price, but that same data could have come from conventional lubes. The effort of fact finding (UOA trials) paid off, but the syns probably didn't. If I understand your statement correctly, it was not the use of syns that made the manager give you full trade value, but the UOAs that showed the truck was in good condition. Those results (excellent wear) are not unique to the syns, and I seriously doubt they would have known good data from bad data anyway. Or am I misunderstanding the transaction?
Speaking for me, a few things were learned: 1. Too much is made about the cost of synthetics versus that of conventionals--sorry, probably not what you want to hear. Excluding the UOA and filter costs, the price difference between MS5K and M1 (for example) is less than $9 per OC (if you DIY and buy the oil at WM). For the FX4 (F150) which takes 7 QTs per OC, five OCs of MS5K oil is $118.79 (7-5QT jugs @16.97 each) and five OCs of M1 is $160.79 (7-5 QT jugs @$22.97 each) for a difference of $42 total or $8.40 per OC (irrespective of the OCI). So for 21 OCs over a period of 158,000 miles and 5 years, I potentially spent an extra $176 or $1.11 per 1000 miles more for synthetic versus conventional (assuming that M1 and MS5K were the two oils of choice). In the grand scheme of things (such as compared to fuel or tire costs over this same timeframe/mileage) this is inconsequential AND after my warranty expired, I extended past what I consider to be a safe OC for a conventional thereby gleaning the cost of the synthetic. 2. Short OCIs with synthetic are not the be-all, end-all to reducing wear or extending the life of an engine; one can run a synthetic for its full life and have the same amount of wear; likewise for a conventional, but there **can be** a risk of varnish and sludge with a conventional that **may not** be present with a synthetic--note the emphasis on "can be" and "may not". 3. Unless your hobby is performing OCs, time is worth something and early on in the FX4's life, I was changing my oil very often due to the mileage being acquired. Had I extended to 10K or 15K at the beginning (but potentially risking my warranty), I would have reduced the number of OCs thereby saving more money--but IMHO a synthetic is needed to do that. 4. xW-20 oils are not the doom and gloom that is often preached here. At 158,000 miles, on 15-17K OC I was using 0.5 QTs of make-up oil, one would think that if xW-20 oil caused the amount of wear that is suggested on BITOG, I should have been using 1-1.5 QTs or more--especially when towing. In addition, my FX4 towed 8K pounds for about 45% of its mileage in temps that ranged from -20 to 110F; to each his or her own, but in my opinion xW-20 oil is well proven at this point. 5. The use of synthetics did play a role in the trade negotiation because the fleet manager saw M1 and PU and made a comment about synthetic use and along with the UOA data forced the price upwards. 6. Last, but not least, it is my hope that the money/time that I spent on this "experiment" has helped those who sat on the fence about length of OCI, use of xW-20, filter and oil choices, make informed decisions about the oil maintenance on their respective vehicle(s). Now, to start again with the PSD...
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,501
Location
Delaware
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Yikes! What?!?! A new truck? crzy G - You traded in the F150? That thing was just getting broken in ...
Yes; the new 5th wheel trailer would exceed the limits of the F150 and the 0% finance deal made it a no brainer.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
First, on topic ... I'd like to see you run five OFCIs back-to-back using the exact same lube and filter products. Then, sticking with one lube brand/grade, use the filter as a variable. I think you'll find that during "normal" IOLM service intervals, you'll not see any statistical difference in the filtration. Just as you did with the lube trials, why not run some filter trials. Just understand that there will always be small variances that are totally predictable. I doubt you'll ever see any real range shift due to filtration because they are all going to be good enough to do the job. I like the Wix; here is the beta data: 2/20/75=3/12/17 Not bad! In fact, it's nice to see real data and not that white-washed garbage of 6/20 they have on about every other filter. That's a pretty good filter if the specs are to be believed! Baldwin/Hastings are the same filters; brand duplicates not unlike the concept of Wix/NG. B/H makes darn good filters as well. I would be curious if you'd be willing to use and cut open the Fram; I'd be willing to foot the bill for this one filter. I suspect that because it's a diesel filter, you'd find it's construction a bit more beefy than the standard OCOD. Curious minds want to know! Why not try one for 5k miles? It's not like the filter will kill the engine for such a short OCI by any stretch of the imagination.
FRAM is out because I have always had the opinion that Extra Guard filters need more media (unless some has opened one and it clearly has more media--but I would still be very skeptical) and FRAM does not make an Ultra for the PSD. I think I am going to use the MC filters to start and will probably try WIX at some point, but it all depends on how well the MCs work and what the costs may be between them. In addition, I would not want Ford to have any traction to argue about any potential warranty issues.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Side topic ... So after a whole lot of lube trials, and spending a lot of money on syns, what did you glean with the F150? Do you think the investments in syns really made a tangible difference in a truck you traded before it was anywhere near it's demise? I'm not poking you to make fun of you, but just asking this from a pragmatic point of view. How much could you have saved simply using a lesser cost lube? Your UOAs convinced the manager to get a good price, but that same data could have come from conventional lubes. The effort of fact finding (UOA trials) paid off, but the syns probably didn't. If I understand your statement correctly, it was not the use of syns that made the manager give you full trade value, but the UOAs that showed the truck was in good condition. Those results (excellent wear) are not unique to the syns, and I seriously doubt they would have known good data from bad data anyway. Or am I misunderstanding the transaction?
Speaking for me, a few things were learned: 1. Too much is made about the cost of synthetics versus that of conventionals--sorry, probably not what you want to hear. Excluding the UOA and filter costs, the price difference between MS5K and M1 (for example) is less than $9 per OC (if you DIY and buy the oil at WM). For the FX4 (F150) which takes 7 QTs per OC, five OCs of MS5K oil is $118.79 (7-5QT jugs @16.97 each) and five OCs of M1 is $160.79 (7-5 QT jugs @$22.97 each) for a difference of $42 total or $8.40 per OC (irrespective of the OCI). So for 21 OCs over a period of 158,000 miles and 5 years, I potentially spent an extra $176 or $1.11 per 1000 miles more for synthetic versus conventional (assuming that M1 and MS5K were the two oils of choice). In the grand scheme of things (such as compared to fuel or tire costs over this same timeframe/mileage) this is inconsequential AND after my warranty expired, I extended past what I consider to be a safe OC for a conventional thereby gleaning the cost of the synthetic. 2. Short OCIs with synthetic are not the be-all, end-all to reducing wear or extending the life of an engine; one can run a synthetic for its full life and have the same amount of wear; likewise for a conventional, but there **can be** a risk of varnish and sludge with a conventional that **may not** be present with a synthetic--note the emphasis on "can be" and "may not". 3. Unless your hobby is performing OCs, time is worth something and early on in the FX4's life, I was changing my oil very often due to the mileage being acquired. Had I extended to 10K or 15K at the beginning (but potentially risking my warranty), I would have reduced the number of OCs thereby saving more money--but IMHO a synthetic is needed to do that. 4. xW-20 oils are not the doom and gloom that is often preached here. At 158,000 miles, on 15-17K OC I was using 0.5 QTs of make-up oil, one would think that if xW-20 oil caused the amount of wear that is suggested on BITOG, I should have been using 1-1.5 QTs or more--especially when towing. In addition, my FX4 towed 8K pounds for about 45% of its mileage in temps that ranged from -20 to 110F; to each his or her own, but in my opinion xW-20 oil is well proven at this point. 5. The use of synthetics did play a role in the trade negotiation because the fleet manager saw M1 and PU and made a comment about synthetic use and along with the UOA data forced the price upwards. 6. Last, but not least, it is my hope that the money/time that I spent on this "experiment" has helped those who sat on the fence about length of OCI, use of xW-20, filter and oil choices, make informed decisions about the oil maintenance on their respective vehicle(s). Now, to start again with the PSD...
I agree that running extended OCI's on conventional oil is penny wise and pound foolish. After 150k miles the chance of a dirtier engine (like gummed up rings as an example) could cause headaches at best. Oil consumption in an older engine would either reduce its value, cause emission component life problems, or if bad enough require serious maintenance or new engine. Of course all of these things are not going to happen every time but as you point out for an extra $176 you were able to reduce your risk of having these serious issues. I would also run OEM filter at least in the warranty phase.
 
Last edited:

dnewton3

Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
9,745
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Ahhhhh .... This is where theory and reality separate. The theory is that syns will do a better job of cleaning, wear reduction, etc. But that's not really the case, at least here. And while his UOAs showed the wear rate trends were fine with syns and extended OCIs, he never really got deep into trying the same with conventional oils. The Mobil Super is a top-tier dino oil; it can go way past 8k miles. I recently was in an email conversation with Jim Fitch (of Noria), and he admitted there are times he actually prefers a good quality conventional oil to a syn, because the PAO syns cannot hold as much additive as the dinos. Hence, while a PAO may not "sludge" up, it cannot retard the soot amalgamation as well as a good dino oil with a healthy dose of anti-agglomerates. His belief is that the add pack is as important, if not more so, than the base stock; that was his direct statement to me. The reality is that it's probably a bit of a tradeoff. While PAOs may not be as prone to generate insolubles, they also cannot carry as much of it because the PAO does not hold stuff as well in suspension as dino oil. And so, the theory that an engine is "cleaner" because you use a PAO isn't really true, probably. Especially at 15k miles or less in an OCI, the add-pack of a quality dino oil like MS5K isn't overwhelmed. The thing to understand is that we need to distinguish between harmless staining like varnish, and true sludge. Discoloration and light film induction is nothing to fear. Small pockets of dark tinge in the corners of head bolt pockets mean absolutely nothing to the health of an engine; etc, etc. The 5.4L engine in his F150 is known for good longevity; many examples of them going well past 350k miles and some over a million mile … all on "normal" products. This has been discussed previously. So when the wear rates are good and the cleanliness is assured, then the concept of penny-wise/pound-foolish does not apply. No matter if it was "only" $100”ish” he "overspent", the reality is that he rid the vehicle from his stable due to a life choice WAY before the engine was worn out. That over-expenditure got him nothing. VERY FEW people operate a vehicle past 250k miles, and of those that do, there seems to be no correlation between base stock and longevity. I can tell you that no such relationship exists in my 10,000+ UOAs; that's for sure. The math applied to his examples is a "fake" sense of reality. That is because he interceded with his self-imposed OCI limits. I applaud his dedicated routine, but he never really developed true statistical data that would indicate where a reasonable condemnation limit was in terms of real wear; not for the dino; not for the syn. He chose an arbitrary limit, self-imposed, and deemed that unacceptable. It was his truck; it's his right to do that! But that does not mean it was a solid decision. I watched his UOAs as much as anyone else, and I saw no evidence that enough data existed to formulate true means or std dev's. Therefore, the monetary examples were based upon a false sense of limitation. He (and we) has no idea what the TRUE baseline of cost is, because the conventional UOAs were never run to any means of finding a statistical elevation outside of normalcy. Simply put, he got skittish after seeing some numbers he didn't like. I get that; I'm not saying he was "wrong". But he's not "right" to put up numbers of cost contrast as if they have any real meaning OTHER than his self-imposed limits. It is true to say a few things here: - There is no proof that syn did or did not clean "better" - There was no development of statistical wear data for comparison/contrast of the products - There is no "baseline" to establish a cost ratio for ROI that correlates with true maximum lube potential Doesn't matter; he's happy and I'm happy for him. He's got a new ride to pull the new RV. Life's good!
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,501
Location
Delaware
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Ahhhhh .... This is where theory and reality separate. The theory is that syns will do a better job of cleaning, wear reduction, etc. But that's not really the case, at least here. And while his UOAs showed the wear rate trends were fine with syns and extended OCIs, he never really got deep into trying the same with conventional oils. The Mobil Super is a top-tier dino oil; it can go way past 8k miles. I recently was in an email conversation with Jim Fitch (of Noria), and he admitted there are times he actually prefers a good quality conventional oil to a syn, because the PAO syns cannot hold as much additive as the dinos. Hence, while a PAO may not "sludge" up, it cannot retard the soot amalgamation as well as a good dino oil with a healthy dose of anti-agglomerates. His belief is that the add pack is as important, if not more so, than the base stock; that was his direct statement to me. The reality is that it's probably a bit of a tradeoff. While PAOs may not be as prone to generate insolubles, they also cannot carry as much of it because the PAO does not hold stuff as well in suspension as dino oil. And so, the theory that an engine is "cleaner" because you use a PAO isn't really true, probably. Especially at 15k miles or less in an OCI, the add-pack of a quality dino oil like MS5K isn't overwhelmed. The thing to understand is that we need to distinguish between harmless staining like varnish, and true sludge. Discoloration and light film induction is nothing to fear. Small pockets of dark tinge in the corners of head bolt pockets mean absolutely nothing to the health of an engine; etc, etc. The 5.4L engine in his F150 is known for good longevity; many examples of them going well past 350k miles and some over a million mile … all on "normal" products. This has been discussed previously. So when the wear rates are good and the cleanliness is assured, then the concept of penny-wise/pound-foolish does not apply. No matter if it was "only" $100”ish” he "overspent", the reality is that he rid the vehicle from his stable due to a life choice WAY before the engine was worn out. That over-expenditure got him nothing. VERY FEW people operate a vehicle past 250k miles, and of those that do, there seems to be no correlation between base stock and longevity. I can tell you that no such relationship exists in my 10,000+ UOAs; that's for sure. The math applied to his examples is a "fake" sense of reality. That is because he interceded with his self-imposed OCI limits. I applaud his dedicated routine, but he never really developed true statistical data that would indicate where a reasonable condemnation limit was in terms of real wear; not for the dino; not for the syn. He chose an arbitrary limit, self-imposed, and deemed that unacceptable. It was his truck; it's his right to do that! But that does not mean it was a solid decision. I watched his UOAs as much as anyone else, and I saw no evidence that enough data existed to formulate true means or std dev's. Therefore, the monetary examples were based upon a false sense of limitation. He (and we) has no idea what the TRUE baseline of cost is, because the conventional UOAs were never run to any means of finding a statistical elevation outside of normalcy. Simply put, he got skittish after seeing some numbers he didn't like. I get that; I'm not saying he was "wrong". But he's not "right" to put up numbers of cost contrast as if they have any real meaning OTHER than his self-imposed limits. It is true to say a few things here: - There is no proof that syn did or did not clean "better" - There was no development of statistical wear data for comparison/contrast of the products - There is no "baseline" to establish a cost ratio for ROI that correlates with true maximum lube potential Doesn't matter; he's happy and I'm happy for him. He's got a new ride to pull the new RV. Life's good!
Can you correlate your data conventional vs synthetic with oil usage during OCI? It would be interesting to know if the database could show yes or no that conventionals require more top up oil than synthetics.
 

CarbonSteel

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
9,481
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Especially at 15k miles or less in an OCI, the add-pack of a quality dino oil like MS5K isn't overwhelmed.
Respectfully, I disagree with this. At 10K, the TBN was down to 1.4 and although TBN depletion is not linear, I am HIGHLY skeptical it could have gone to 15K and certainly not beyond. Yes, you can run the oil down to zero TBN, but why? What could you possibly be gaining by that? This indeed would be penny wise and pound foolish. No matter--all water under the bridge or oil in the drain pan at this point.
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
28,049
Location
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Now, to start again with the PSD...
With respect to oil costs, at least HDEOs are one place Canada is competitive with respect to oil prices, even when it comes to synthetics, or, perhaps, especially when it comes to synthetics. It's bizarre how I can get Delvac 1 cheaper up here than most of our American friends (and cheaper than most conventionals up here), yet getting a jug of M1 under $50 requires an actual advertised sale. I remember when I went with my dad to pick up his first 7.3 PSD. He's had a lot of diesel experience before, but this was his first big diesel in a personal vehicle. I was glancing through the manual on the way home and told him the sump capacity. "Holy [censored], that's a $100 oil change!" was his exact response, which was worth a laugh.
 

CarbonSteel

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
9,481
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The math applied to his examples is a "fake" sense of reality. That is because he interceded with his self-imposed OCI limits. I applaud his dedicated routine, but he never really developed true statistical data that would indicate where a reasonable condemnation limit was in terms of real wear; not for the dino; not for the syn.
After re-reading your post, I also disagree with this. There is no "fake" sense of reality here--the cost is what it is. You yourself have made statements that to gain the type of statistics that you are talking about here requires many, many UOAs--for both synthetic and conventional. If memory serves it was on the order of 60+ and no one except perhaps a fleet is going to do that and to suggest otherwise for a regular consumer is nothing more than "background noise". I would challenge you to tell me how much more I would have saved by using conventionals versus synthetics. Of course, if you are talking about 15-17K OCIs with a conventional oil--I have not seen anyone (other than the 1 that you posted) do that. I am certain that MS5K would have been "done" in my F150 by 12K since it had a TBN of 1.4 at 10K, so how would it be possible for it to be used for 15K or beyond? Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to suggest that I should have ran the TBN down to zero time after time. Is that prudent or wise? I am simply trying to understand your logic on this.
 

CarbonSteel

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
9,481
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Now, to start again with the PSD...
I remember when I went with my dad to pick up his first 7.3 PSD. He's had a lot of diesel experience before, but this was his first big diesel in a personal vehicle. I was glancing through the manual on the way home and told him the sump capacity. "Holy [censored], that's a $100 oil change!" was his exact response, which was worth a laugh.
LOL - yes, I had that exact thought (at least in the $75 range) when I read the sump capacity was 13 QTs... grin
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
28,049
Location
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Ironically, he was usually taking it to the dealer for that, having been getting up in years and a little more reluctant to do the stuff himself, and me not around so much. And he hated five gallon pails with a passion, which is odd for someone who farmed and drove truck. wink
 

CarbonSteel

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
9,481
Originally Posted By: Garak
Ironically, he was usually taking it to the dealer for that, having been getting up in years and a little more reluctant to do the stuff himself, and me not around so much. And he hated five gallon pails with a passion, which is odd for someone who farmed and drove truck. wink
Enjoy him, easy to let time slip by, I lost my Dad in 2013 and he was similar to the way you describe your Dad. He grew up on a farm and I am sure he would have loved my new PSD. smile
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
28,049
Location
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Oh yes, and my dad definitely would have loved yours, too. He was buying a new Ford diesel every couple years from 1999 until a couple years before his passing in 2012. I just wish he hung onto that first one, the 1999. He didn't put any miles on the things anyhow to even worry about on oil change, much less any mechanical gremlins we hear about on the 6.0 and the like. wink
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
19,528
Location
Lake Forest, CA
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
I would challenge you to tell me how much more I would have saved by using conventionals versus synthetics. Of course, if you are talking about 15-17K OCIs with a conventional oil--I have not seen anyone (other than the 1 that you posted) do that. I am certain that MS5K would have been "done" in my F150 by 12K since it had a TBN of 1.4 at 10K, so how would it be possible for it to be used for 15K or beyond? Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to suggest that I should have ran the TBN down to zero time after time. Is that prudent or wise? I am simply trying to understand your logic on this.
I wouldn't go below TBN of 2.0. I like to have a small margin of error. I like to save money, but squeeze every penny out of oil changes doesn't make sense.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
14,350
Location
USA
Hastings and Baldwin are the same, both are great filters. If you have a choice, I'd go with Baldwin for the cool paint job, but since Hastings is the same, nothing wrong with that if it's cheaper or easier to obtain. Wix makes great stuff as well. They would be my first choice, as would the identical Napa Gold 7151.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
9,745
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Regarding TBN and TAN, that is SOOOOOOO misunderstood it's silly. You all see the numbers as finite points, ready to condemn when something hits value "X" ... TBN/TAN is a predictor for a possible shift in wear data, and nothing more. It is wrong to assign a value and state with assurance that if "X" happens, then "Y" will be the result. That is NOT how this works. After crossover, there is a potential for increased acidity to act upon certain metals. Please note that "potential" is NOT the same as "Will most certainly happen as the sky falls". When crossover happens, it is an idicator that continued, and perhaps more frequent, analysis should be done to watch for a shift in wear metals. That is the proper response. I realize that Blackstone, Polaris, Wix and others all have condemnation limits for TBN, but those are stop-gap responses in lieu of real data-driven decisions. It's no different than saying "I'm going to change oil when Fe hits 20ppm". That's an arbitrary limit; it's simply made up. WEAR RATES are FAR more important that a simple magnitude of a value. 20ppm in 3k miles is a lot different from 20ppm in 20k miles. Until TBN/TAN would start to affect the wear metal data, it's just a cautionary note and nothing more. And the sooner you understand that, the sooner you'll be on your way to really making use of a UOA, rather than just playing with it. As for the "cost" data, we will disagree, then. Again - this is based upon arbitrary limits, rather than looking at wear rates. Although there is simply not near enough data to support true statistical analysis, the F150 data stream shows a paltry shift in Fe wear; it's a few tenths of ppm per thousand. And that is the only metal that was even in play here. Al, Cu, Pb and Cr and such were all non-issues, regardless of the base stock or miles driven. So to imply that the dino oils were at their limit is disingenuous; there is nothing to show they were done at protecting the engine. And because the data was never clearly developed to show the practical, actual finite limit of a dino oil, then you have ZERO ability to establish a baseline for cost ratios relative to true lubricant performance. You have every ability to show that your chosen OCI plans have a cost ratio; I'm not debating that. What I am stating is that you've not proven anything other than arbitrary limits can affect ROI. That's not disputed here. The PROPER way to discern the limits of a lube's performance is to carefully, methodically extend the OCIs until you see a true upward shift in wear data OUTSIDE of normal deviation. You never did that with either the dino or synthetic lubes. You never established a true, proven limit of where wear data actually indicated a shift in lube performance. Go back and read my normalcy article, and purchase and read the SAE study 2007-01-4133. Wear rates typically are still dropping even out to 15k miles; that is certainly true of the mod-motor Fords. The longest you ever ran a dino UOA that I can see is around 10k miles, and that was once, right? Most of them were 8k miles or less. So you never even approached a point where Fe wear was on the rise. Don't confuse wear magnitude (a ppm value) with wear rates (wear per unit of measurement). I never saw any indication in any of your data that showed you had established a point of measurement so reliable as to make any conclusion, let alone condemn a fluid based upon actual data. Your limits were arbitrary, and therefore your ROI cost basis is arbitrary. The claim is that syns did "better" here. But where's the proof? And how are you defining "better" anyway? There is no proof that syn did better in terms of cleanliness. Some would look at your UOAs and note the insolubles being lower. But again, that is a totally misunderstood concept. It is true to say that the M1 did have lower insol values, and that is probably because there were less generated. And the dino oils did have higher insol values. But did it ever occur to anyone that the REASON the dino values were higher is because that add-pack in a dino oil is doing a better job of holding the insols in suspension? Just because you see the insols in the oil, does NOT mean they are being deposited on the engine surfaces! Higher insol values in dino oils is due to the fact that they do "age" a big more, and that oxidation is higher. But the presence of insols (oxidation and soot) in the UOA does not mean it's being left behind; it only means the stuff is being carried out by the add-pack and is showing up in the data. There is no proof that the syn cleaned the engine better; there is only proof that the two choices both kept the engine clean. Syn oxidized less, but dino pulled out what was created. Either way, a clean engine was the result. Did he ever pull valve covers and do any visual testing and comparisons? Not that I'm aware of. Cleanliness of an engine is as much a factor of design as it is of the lube used. Sludger engines (some Toy engines, the SL2, etc) are known to need every bit of help they can get, and syns make sense there. But good engine designs don't sludge up in the first place, and therefore don't need a lot of help. Just because insols are in the oil, does not mean they are being left behind in the engine. It just means the add-pack is doing it's job. So, regarding wear, the only metal in play was Fe, and it was never run to a point to establish a true rate shift. All other metals were non-issues. Regarding base and acid, there was never any indication that the relationship affected metals and that is the ONLY time it actually matters. Regarding cleanliness, there is no proof that either lube base did a "better" job; they did jobs differently. Different does not indicate "better". I applaud him for doing a series of testing that goes further than most BITOGers are willing to tread, but the distances he went were arbitrary and never proved anything past what emotion seeks.
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
28,049
Location
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
To condense Dave's excellent post, I think that's why some of the heavy hitters don't concentrate solely on one condemnation point when it comes to UOAs. Oh, and I have to correct a typo above, I meant 2012 instead of 2007 way up there!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top