Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Yikes! What?!?! A new truck?
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.