2019 Ranger 2.3T Ecoboost - MC Full Synth 5w30 - 10,414 miles

Status
Not open for further replies.
LOL sorry, I really shouldn't late night BITOG, that was a little harsh. Of course the dilution and shearing is a concern in my UOA, that's why I share the data. From my perspective there's very little real data or study on DI's that actually indicates the problem area. Internet experts thinking a sheared oil doesn't protect untraceable wear items is logical but it may as well be folklore. Internet experts ****ting on Blackstone is also counter productive conspiracy theory. If you deny the data and the science and swear by your oil religions, you aren't helping anyone.

The only thing they share in common is total displacement and bore centers, correct?
They are the same displacement and they run at ~20psi of boost and Limas had the ability to last a really long time. I don't know enough about Cleveland to say other than the same OEM ought to have done well with it.
 
LOL sorry, I really shouldn't late night BITOG, that was a little harsh. Of course the dilution and shearing is a concern in my UOA, that's why I share the data. From my perspective there's very little real data or study on DI's that actually indicates the problem area. Internet experts thinking a sheared oil doesn't protect untraceable wear items is logical but it may as well be folklore. Internet experts ****ting on Blackstone is also counter productive conspiracy theory. If you deny the data and the science and swear by your oil religions, you aren't helping anyone.
And it's critical to know which is which since the causes and any possible mitigation are different. Unfortunately you can't tell the difference with Blackstone.

It is simple physics that lower viscosity does not prevent as much wear as higher viscosity. This isn't from "Internet experts". You're attempting to derive way too much information and draw conclusions from a simple $30 spectrographic analysis.
 
And it's critical to know which is which since the causes and any possible mitigation are different. Unfortunately you can't tell the difference with Blackstone.

It is simple physics that lower viscosity does not prevent as much wear as higher viscosity. This isn't from "Internet experts".
That's just the thick vs. thin debate. Thin oil cools and flows better vs. thick oil cushions more, or whatever the debate is. Modern engines are made for thin oil. My 2.3 being specced for 5w30 is actually thicker than most new engines, isn't it?
 
That's just the thick vs. thin debate. Thin oil cools and flows better vs. thick oil cushions more, or whatever the debate is. Modern engines are made for thin oil.
No they are not. They may be constructed to tolerate the limitations of lower HT/HS oils but they are not "made for" them in the context that they are better. They are not. Flow is irrelevant here, the only benefit of a thinner oil is better fuel economy.
 
A bit subjective but the entire ecoboost engine series seems to have Fe numbers, per mile, that are a good bit higher than NA counterpart engines in the same vehicle I.E. the 3.5EB vs the 5.0 in an F150. Too many factors involved to make concrete conclusions though, but if you look at UOAs posted on here, it happens often enough to not totally be an anomaly.
 
LOL sorry, I really shouldn't late night BITOG, that was a little harsh. Of course the dilution and shearing is a concern in my UOA, that's why I share the data. From my perspective there's very little real data or study on DI's that actually indicates the problem area. Internet experts thinking a sheared oil doesn't protect untraceable wear items is logical but it may as well be folklore. Internet experts ****ting on Blackstone is also counter productive conspiracy theory. If you deny the data and the science and swear by your oil religions, you aren't helping anyone.
1. Shear and fuel dilution are different phenomenons. Shear only results in viscosity loss, dilution is also contamination and degradation of the lubricant.
2. Nobody is defecating on Blackstone, pointing out they don't actually measure fuel is highlighting a fact. An important one if you have fuel dilution problems (which you do)

You can't in one breath say you are concerned and that's the reason for sharing, and in the next crap all over everybody who comments on it, denigrating them by calling them "Internet Experts" and dismissing anything they say out of hand.

Lots of articles on the impacts of fuel dilution out there, this blurb from Savant Labs notes:

Screen Shot 2023-01-10 at 11.02.19 AM.png


This SAE paper:

This study:

And a thread with some previous replies, and links, from me on the subject:
 
Last edited:
1. Shear and fuel dilution are different phenomenons
2. Nobody is defecating on Blackstone, pointing out they don't actually measure fuel is highlighting a fact. An important one if you have fuel dilution problems (which you do)

You can't in one breath say you are concerned and that's the reason for sharing, and in the next crap all over everybody who comments on it, denigrating them by calling them "Internet Experts" and dismissing anything they say out of hand.

Lots of articles on the impacts of fuel dilution out there, this blurb from Savant Labs notes:

View attachment 134914

This SAE paper:

This study:

And a thread with some previous replies, and links, from me on the subject:
"Defecating" 😁

There are years of consensus on here that Blackstone under reports fuel dilution. I would read this report as there is "at minimum 2.0% fuel in the oil sample". The ending viscosity and flash tell us there's likely more than 2.0%.

Do oil manufacturers test their oil against dilution. Is there a specific spec that does that?
 
"Defecating" 😁

There are years of consensus on here that Blackstone under reports fuel dilution. I would read this report as there is "at minimum 2.0% fuel in the oil sample". The ending viscosity and flash tell us there's likely more than 2.0%.

Do oil manufacturers test their oil against dilution. Is there a specific spec that does that?
They test for emulsion retention (10% water, 10% E85, ASTM D7563) but that's not a wear control test and isn't run in an engine.

I'd have to look at the details of the other sequences but I don't think any of them specifically address fuel dilution.
 
They test for emulsion retention (10% water, 10% E85, ASTM D7563) but that's not a wear control test and isn't run in an engine.

I'd have to look at the details of the other sequences but I don't think any of them specifically address fuel dilution.
My whole point is looking to the patterns in the data and what it can tell us, being engine and car nerds, which is why we are all here. There is an obvious trend in my UOAs, Blackstone (or BS, how do you like that LOL), shows my summer drains are 0.5% and my winter drains are +++% fuel dilution. It's clearly very heavily influenced by the cold weather. Yes I understand that my BS reports may not be accurate for exact fuel dilution contents. Then add to that that dilution, especially for DI motors, is a very well known issue and others say that even 5% is fine. So who cares? Especially if it comes and goes through the year. 10k OCI takes me less than a year, so maybe December through March every year I get a little extra fuel dilution wear.

And yeah, I have been running a few 10k OCIs in a modern engine as recommended by the manual with the OEM's oil merely to see how it goes. And here you have it. Enjoy the BS data. You should be thanking me for science (y)

We can see if Castrol Edge does anything for this next one, and I can drain earlier than 10k. However from all the DATA that I have seen, I could drain at 2k or 10k and my fuel % will be HIGH in the ****ing winter and nothing to care about if it's in the summer. If the OEMs are accounting for dilution that's expected in DI, then who cares? I could drain this MC synthetic in the summer at 5k with less shearing and wear metals matching the averages and it would be "good job, try for longer next time"

Here in Colorado we get cold snaps that a 10 F and warm winter days that are 50 F. I don't stop and go on my 15 mile one way daily commute at 65 mph. I'll bet that I could drain a sample week to week and prove the fuel dilution comes and goes so quickly.
 
Last edited:
And it's critical to know which is which since the causes and any possible mitigation are different. Unfortunately you can't tell the difference with Blackstone.

It is simple physics that lower viscosity does not prevent as much wear as higher viscosity. This isn't from "Internet experts". You're attempting to derive way too much information and draw conclusions from a simple $30 spectrographic analysis.
Can you show us some test data on film strength for the same "blend" for different viscosities, please? And please include a few fuel dilution percentages to indicate the trend of that phenomenon. Then, if you could, include some test data on sheared down used oil with the same dilution levels. The truth is here and guess what you don't have this compendium of data do you? Maybe someone has the chemical and material theory to take a shortcut here.
 
My whole point is looking to the patterns in the data and what it can tell us, being engine and car nerds, which is why we are all here. There is an obvious trend in my UOAs, Blackstone (or BS, how do you like that LOL), shows my summer drains are 0.5% and my winter drains are +++% fuel dilution. It's clearly very heavily influenced by the cold weather. Yes I understand that my BS reports may not be accurate for exact fuel dilution contents. Then add to that that dilution, especially for DI motors, is a very well known issue and others say that even 5% is fine. So who cares?
What you should care about is the Blackstone's methodology for testing fuel dilution is too subjective and inaccurate for you to determine any trend on it.

Find a lab that uses gas chromatography for dilution testing and then you can build a trend.
 
What you should care about is the Blackstone's methodology for testing fuel dilution is too subjective and inaccurate for you to determine any trend on it.

Find a lab that uses gas chromatography for dilution testing and then you can build a trend.
If OP wanted to do the legwork, he could probably get a better guess at fuel by using the flashpoint of gasoline and the flashpoint of his virgin oil, and then use the delta between virgin & used oil to calculate fuel percentage. While still not as accurate as GC, I imagine it would paint a much more realistic picture of the concerns everyone here has posited, rather than the poor recommendations from Blackstone that imply there’s nothing concerning with the OPs fuel levels. 👍🏻
 
If OP wanted to do the legwork, he could probably get a better guess at fuel by using the flashpoint of gasoline and the flashpoint of his virgin oil, and then use the delta between virgin & used oil to calculate fuel percentage. While still not as accurate as GC, I imagine it would paint a much more realistic picture of the concerns everyone here has posited, rather than the poor recommendations from Blackstone that imply there’s nothing concerning with the OPs fuel levels. 👍🏻
Glad you're back, enjoying the BS data here :)
 
Glad you're back, enjoying the BS data here :)
I never left. I won’t call Blackstone’s results as a whole BS, just the fact that they “guesstimate” (usually quite poorly) the fuel content.

I asked Ryan Stark (owner) about getting a GC and he didn’t feel it was financially feasible at the time. I can’t comment there, simply relay the info I got. Blackstone is a small, probably 10-15 employee family owned operation on the south side of Fort Wayne. Single location, no parent company backing them financially. I can say I’ve always had really good service from them, and Ryan has quickly sent me some big data sets when needed. He’s also run a few tests of different oils and additives “on the house” so I could share the info with the board. So I’m not going to complain there either. As far as the ppm complaints, there are literally stories about every single lab at some point or another either coming up with crazy numbers or even significantly different results on a retest. Blackstone is just like every other lab- there is some variance in the process, usually within a given error %. They provide a service; if you don’t like it use another lab. That’s all I got there. If you need GC% to establish a baseline, you will need to go elsewhere.

Glad to see you’re pursuing some avenues to keep your engine safe. 👍🏻
 
Glad you're back, enjoying the BS data here :)
Given that you are spending more for the UOA from Blackstone than other labs like Horizon/Polaris who are fully ISO certified, use gas chromatography for fuel dilution testing, and give TBN or TAN results at no extra cost, yeah, the fuel dilution results are indeed BS data...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top