35k Mi of UOA - 2007 WRX GC, RT6, Redline

[gpshumway]

I posted these over on NASIOC a while ago, don't know why I didn't post them here at the same time.

Lines for the oil and filter have been added to blanks in the report.

I changed the oil frequently for the first 10k miles with conventional oil, which I now see was totally unnecessary. I also used a can of Lubro-Moly MoS2 additive in each fill until 13k miles.

Oil Key:
Hav = Havoline DS Conventional(API SM)
GC = German Castrol aka Castrol Syntec European Formula
PHM = Pennzoil High Mileage Conventional
RT6 = Shell Rotella T6 Synthetic 5w40
ST = Castrol Syntec

Filter Key:
Blue P1 = Older blue can Purolator PureOne 14612
OEM AA100 = Tokyo Roki made OEM filter with Black Can P/N 15208AA100

 

[gpshumway]

Here's the second set.

New Oil Code:
RL = Redline

I bought a Filter Mag RA250 (the strongest one that fits the filter) and started doing particle counts (ISO Code on the report) to see if it would make a difference. It doesn't. Driving activity and filter seem to have much more impact on the particle count.

The 22,657 mi change was short, and used the FilterMag, but included a couple of Autocross events, which is what I attribute the dirtier oil to.

The 26,384 mi change was longer, didn't use the FilterMag, but included a long road trip to South Dakota.

The latest change used the OEM AA100 filter instead of a PureOne and I suspect the P1 filters substantially finer which is why the latest particle count was substantially dirtier. Given the recent results related to changing the filter I'm not convinced particle count is much better at indicating wear than Iron/Aluminum in the normal reports, it may just indicate the particles your filter is capable of removing.

HERE is how to interpret the ISO cleanliness code.

 

[2oldtommy]

Now try a 5-6k oci and see how much money you can save. JMO--Oldtommy

 

[gpshumway]

This car requires 3,750 mile oil changes for warranty, that's the reason for the short OCIs to this point. Now that I'm nearing the end of warranty, I'm doing 6 month OCIs. I'm not accumulating miles as quickly as I used to, so I'm considering switching to M1 0w40 and using it all year on a 5k oci schedule.

 

[Al]

According to Magnuson Moss warranty Act. Subaru would have to prove that your negligence caused a failure. A UOA is a gold standard countering their claim. You could have done at least 6K miles ...But your choice. Thanks for the info.

 

[gpshumway]

Originally Posted By: Al
According to Magnuson Moss warranty Act. Subaru would have to prove that your negligence caused a failure. A UOA is a gold standard countering their claim. You could have done at least 6K miles ...But your choice. Thanks for the info.


And where do they have to prove that?

That's right, in court. Subaru can deny a warranty claim ex ante and force me to sue them to recover damages. The MM act does not cover legal fees. Lawsuits are more expensive than engines and auto makers have lawyers on staff. Everyone who plays a lawyer on the internet seems to forget these simple facts.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: gpshumway
Originally Posted By: Al
According to Magnuson Moss warranty Act. Subaru would have to prove that your negligence caused a failure. A UOA is a gold standard countering their claim. You could have done at least 6K miles ...But your choice. Thanks for the info.


And where do they have to prove that?

That's right, in court. Subaru can deny a warranty claim ex ante and force me to sue them to recover damages. The MM act does not cover legal fees. Lawsuits are more expensive than engines and auto makers have lawyers on staff. Everyone who plays a lawyer on the internet seems to forget these simple facts.


You are right about lawyer cost vs engine cost. That is why often the manufacture will just do a "goodwill" replacement, especially with the data you have at hand with your UOA's if there was a problem during your warranty period you could of used this data to help prove your case if there was any problems. But congrats you made it threw your warranty period without any major problems and you have a engine that is wearing very good and you proved that using a "conventional" oil for a short OCI is not certain death. Thanks for posting I enjoyed reading this.

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: gpshumway
Here's the second set.

New Oil Code:
RL = Redline

I bought a Filter Mag RA250 (the strongest one that fits the filter) and started doing particle counts (ISO Code on the report) to see if it would make a difference. It doesn't. Driving activity and filter seem to have much more impact on the particle count.

The 22,657 mi change was short, and used the FilterMag, but included a couple of Autocross events, which is what I attribute the dirtier oil to.

The 26,384 mi change was longer, didn't use the FilterMag, but included a long road trip to South Dakota.

The latest change used the OEM AA100 filter instead of a PureOne and I suspect the P1 filters substantially finer which is why the latest particle count was substantially dirtier. Given the recent results related to changing the filter I'm not convinced particle count is much better at indicating wear than Iron/Aluminum in the normal reports, it may just indicate the particles your filter is capable of removing.

HERE is how to interpret the ISO cleanliness code.

What Blackstone does is not technically a "particle count" it is more acurately termed "contamination analysis." They use a pore blockage setup vs an actual particle counter. Look here to see the difference in samples and methodology from both methods. Your engine is not shedding much iron to start with so I think you would have had to do a much longer run to show anything on the particle count (a "real" particle count, that is). If you were to cut open the filter, you'd see that the magnet kept the iron out of the filter, thus increasing filter life. With such short OCIs, that really wasn't a benefit to you, however.

In any case, to see any difference in a particle count with a magnet, you have to do ferrographic analysis, where they look ONLY for the iron. I tested a similar product and I could see that it grabbed iron but even with a 100 hour (this was on a tractor) it did not show up much on the particle count. It changed the distribution of particle sizes but that was all I could see it did. I will run another particle count at the next OC to see and maybe it will be a little more conclusive.

 

[dnewton3]

The UOAs show that you could certainly go longer on your OCIs.

However, I typically agree with following OEM conditions while under warranty. That being the case, if 3750 mile OCIs is the stated max, then I'd ditch the expensive oils and run any decent PCMO suitable for the engine as spec'd in the manual.




A bit off-topic, but too many of you don't understand the MM Act ...

When you following warranty conditions, then the burden of proof is upon the OEM to show that they are not at fault for whatever failure happened. It is the OEM responsibility to show how they should not be held liable.

However, when you venture off the reservation, the burden of proof shifts to you. The OEMs have well written limited warranties for a very good reason. Your engine needs lube, and changed at specific intervals. If you choose to not change oil as often, or use the wrong oil, then it is YOUR responsiblity to prove that your alternative choices didn't cause a failure, should it occur. No OEM engine maker is going to willingly be held liable should you choose to use GL-5 gear oil in your crankcase of your 2.5L turbo (nor should they be, logicially).

The MM act also speaks to the need to use OEM branded products, or more specifically they requirement of OEM branded products being of no cost, if they are required for warranty. That is how we can all use aftermarket oils and filters, rather than OEM branded oils and filters, and still have warranty intact. Should the warranty be predicated upon the specific use of branded products, those products must included free. This protects not only the end user, but the makers of aftermarket products. However, it does NOT release alternative products and users of the responsibility of choosing products that are properly "spec'd" for the right applications. The OEM can, and has every right, to "spec" certain performance parameters and criteria, so as to assure the proper care and maintenance of their product. You don't get to use a low-end PCMO in your brand new Dmax engine that requires CJ-4, and then blame GM when the engine siezes up. And for that matter, if you used a "wrong" oil of an improper spec, no lube maker is going to stand by your choice either ... The OEM would not be expected to cover the failure, nor would the lube maker. It would be your burden of proof, to show in court or arbitration, how your alternative choice didn't cause a failure. Good luck with that!

You can do what you choose, but when you violate the conditions of warranty, the MM act does NOT automatically condone your actions and make you infallible. The MM ACT works both ways; it protects the consumer, but it also protects the OEM. The MM act is about burden of proof, and under what conditions those burdens apply.

THAT is the reality of the MM act.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The UOAs show that you could certainly go longer on your OCIs.

However, I typically agree with following OEM conditions while under warranty. That being the case, if 3750 mile OCIs is the stated max, then I'd ditch the expensive oils and run any decent PCMO suitable for the engine as spec'd in the manual.




A bit off-topic, but too many of you don't understand the MM Act ...

When you following warranty conditions, then the burden of proof is upon the OEM to show that they are not at fault for whatever failure happened. It is the OEM responsibility to show how they should not be held liable.

However, when you venture off the reservation, the burden of proof shifts to you. The OEMs have well written limited warranties for a very good reason. Your engine needs lube, and changed at specific intervals. If you choose to not change oil as often, or use the wrong oil, then it is YOUR responsiblity to prove that your alternative choices didn't cause a failure, should it occur. No OEM engine maker is going to willingly be held liable should you choose to use GL-5 gear oil in your crankcase of your 2.5L turbo (nor should they be, logicially).

The MM act also speaks to the need to use OEM branded products, or more specifically they requirement of OEM branded products being of no cost, if they are required for warranty. That is how we can all use aftermarket oils and filters, rather than OEM branded oils and filters, and still have warranty intact. Should the warranty be predicated upon the specific use of branded products, those products must included free. This protects not only the end user, but the makers of aftermarket products. However, it does NOT release alternative products and users of the responsibility of choosing products that are properly "spec'd" for the right applications. The OEM can, and has every right, to "spec" certain performance parameters and criteria, so as to assure the proper care and maintenance of their product. You don't get to use a low-end PCMO in your brand new Dmax engine that requires CJ-4, and then blame GM when the engine siezes up. And for that matter, if you used a "wrong" oil of an improper spec, no lube maker is going to stand by your choice either ... The OEM would not be expected to cover the failure, nor would the lube maker. It would be your burden of proof, to show in court or arbitration, how your alternative choice didn't cause a failure. Good luck with that!

You can do what you choose, but when you violate the conditions of warranty, the MM act does NOT automatically condone your actions and make you infallible. The MM ACT works both ways; it protects the consumer, but it also protects the OEM. The MM act is about burden of proof, and under what conditions those burdens apply.

THAT is the reality of the MM act.


Excellent explanation!

 

[bluesubie]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The UOAs show that you could certainly go longer on your OCIs.

However, I typically agree with following OEM conditions while under warranty. That being the case, if 3750 mile OCIs is the stated max, then I'd ditch the expensive oils and run any decent PCMO suitable for the engine as spec'd in the manual.

I don't need to tell the OP this, but he'd probably consider extending the OCI with RT6 or GC, but not with any PCMO spec'd in the manual. There have just been too many turbo or engine failures, including those that have had good uoa results (like me).

-Dennis

 

[gpshumway]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
What Blackstone does is not technically a "particle count" it is more acurately termed "contamination analysis." They use a pore blockage setup vs an actual particle counter. Look here to see the difference in samples and methodology from both methods. Your engine is not shedding much iron to start with so I think you would have had to do a much longer run to show anything on the particle count (a "real" particle count, that is). If you were to cut open the filter, you'd see that the magnet kept the iron out of the filter, thus increasing filter life. With such short OCIs, that really wasn't a benefit to you, however.

In any case, to see any difference in a particle count with a magnet, you have to do ferrographic analysis, where they look ONLY for the iron. I tested a similar product and I could see that it grabbed iron but even with a 100 hour (this was on a tractor) it did not show up much on the particle count. It changed the distribution of particle sizes but that was all I could see it did. I will run another particle count at the next OC to see and maybe it will be a little more conclusive.


Interesting. The more I find out about Blackstone the less valuable their service seems. First it's their method of approximating fuel content, now particle count. These extras aren't cheap!

I have saved the filters and my cut them open, but I'm not sure how valuable that "data" will be. I'm not sure how I would tell if the magnet were capturing any particles which the filter wouldn't have. I don't think of filter capacity as being any kind of limiting factor when doing moderate OCIs either. Even if capacity were a substantial factor, I'd need some instrumentation to measure when that capacity was reached.

Thanks for the input, I'll look forward to your tractor results.

 

[gpshumway]

Originally Posted By: bluesubie

I don't need to tell the OP this, but he'd probably consider extending the OCI with RT6 or GC, but not with any PCMO spec'd in the manual. There have just been too many turbo or engine failures, including those that have had good uoa results (like me).

-Dennis


Very true. For MY 2007 Subaru recommended GF-4 5w30 conventional. The only one I did use ended up 8.47 cSt after only 1,990 miles! (See Havoline fill at 3,332 mi) Good thing it was in the dead of a Minnesota winter.

Even Pennzoil High Mileage 5w30 was nearly a 20wt after only 2,160 miles. Scary in an engine with a penchant for spinning main bearings. PHM 10w40 (7,276 mi UOA) would be fine in the summer, but I'd prefer a 5w or 0w for Minnesota winters.

Given the minimal increase in cost between PHM and RT6, RT6 seems the better choice in a turbo Subaru no matter how short the OCI.

Now that Subaru requires GF-5 synthetic in turbo cars (2011+) they have a fighting chance of staying in grade. The recent UOA on Pennzoil Ultra in a 2011 WRX looked pretty good.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: gpshumway

I don't need to tell the OP this, but he'd probably consider extending the OCI with RT6 or GC, but not with any PCMO spec'd in the manual. There have just been too many turbo or engine failures, including those that have had good uoa results (like me).

-Dennis


Very true. For MY 2007 Subaru recommended GF-4 5w30 conventional. The only one I did use ended up 8.47 cSt after only 1,990 miles! (See Havoline fill at 3,332 mi) Good thing it was in the dead of a Minnesota winter.

Even Pennzoil High Mileage 5w30 was nearly a 20wt after only 2,160 miles. Scary in an engine with a penchant for spinning main bearings. PHM 10w40 (7,276 mi UOA) would be fine in the summer, but I'd prefer a 5w or 0w for Minnesota winters.

Given the minimal increase in cost between PHM and RT6, RT6 seems the better choice in a turbo Subaru no matter how short the OCI.

Now that Subaru requires GF-5 synthetic in turbo cars (2011+) they have a fighting chance of staying in grade. The recent UOA on Pennzoil Ultra in a 2011 WRX looked pretty good. [/quote

How many UOA's have shown a 5W-30 remain in the 30 viscosity range? Out of hundreds or maybe thousands that I have read I can count on my fingers that have remained in the 30 viscosity range.

 

[bluesubie]

Originally Posted By: dave1251

How many UOA's have shown a 5W-30 remain in the 30 viscosity range? Out of hundreds or maybe thousands that I have read I can count on my fingers that have remained in the 30 viscosity range.

There have been a handful of PP and PU GF5 uoa's posted at nasioc that remained a 30 grade. You just can't find more than two or three consecutive uoa's because so many folks run GC or RT6. We need more guinea pigs, I mean, more volunteers!

-Dennis

 

[gpshumway]

Someone had an OCI using SN/GF-5 M1 AFE 0w30 in a Forester XT that stayed in grade as well.

But yea, we need more fodder, er volunteers...

 

[DemoFly]

This has changed my opinion on Castrol Syntec and solidified my decision to switch to Rotella T6, thanks.

 

[SilverGGA]

7 months and no make-up oil needed for a WRX. Nice!