6.7 PSD HPL 5w40 9800 miles

[RDY4WAR]

HPL takes pride in their corrosion test results. I would expect that high amounts of fuel dilution is taken into consideration with their formulations as they have >2 billion miles of fleet data with their oils. Some of those fleets idle for 8-12 hours a day as well. Seeing 8-10% fuel dilution in a UOA is likely not new to them. This UOA is the proof in the pudding since despite having 8% fuel dilution, the KV100 is still in 40 grade range, the wear metals are normal, there's little oxidation increase, and the TBN is on par with what some lesser oils start with. All of this is also at 10,000 miles, where many common off the shelf CK-4 HDMOs would be tapped out even without fuel dilution.

 

[Pedro I]

I think it is correct that HPL has positive observations, the only thing is that as an amateur I try to reach clear conclusions to protect my investment and I have been very shocked by the 10% condemnation.

I have detected cases of TDI engines with broken oil pump belts and totally trashed engines. The engine manufacturer does not provide for the change of the belt and has no maintenance but have been seen to begin to disintegrate gradually clogging the suction mesh of the pump. In these cases with a belt bathed in engine oil, the TAN, the TBN and the fuel must be very well monitored because it is clear that there is some damage.

If I read that in a forum of great reputation that they take for granted that the condemnation of fuel must be passed 10% I could misinterpret this information and lead me to have a very serious damage in my engines leaving the fuel with high amount of fuel.

Precisely officially there is a clear condemnation of 4-5% because not all engines are the same and in this one at most in the long run some seal can be affected but in mine if the belt breaks the engine goes to the trash.

Moreover in Europe biodiesel is measured by some German laboratories and it is known that diesel can evaporate but not biodiesel, so at some point the diesel could have been much higher than what the analysis shows at the moment.

Hopefully more manufacturers begin to manufacture oils capable of tolerating more % of fuel and we Europeans can have these oils available to protect our engines and in general our investment.

On the other hand, it is still not clear to me how a condemnation can be made with an IPC analysis only by itself when in this analysis no particle higher than 5-7um is detected, which guarantees me that the wear particles are of higher size but still not detected in the ICP analysis.

I have read some studies very focused on measuring the fuel fractions that can evaporate and it is even more complex because the heavier fractions are impossible or very difficult to evaporate.

 

[mattd]

Talking with Dave he thinks I should push it further for another 5K miles and resample

 

[OVERKILL]

That fuel level would personally drive me nuts to the point I'd change it. That said, trying to think objectively, if Dave says it is safe to keep running it, he knows his lubes better than I do.

 

[mattd]

That fuel level would personally drive me nuts to the point I'd change it. That said, trying to think objectively, if Dave says it is safe to keep running it, he knows his lubes better than I do.

That’s currently my inner battle..

 

[fantastic]

That’s currently my inner battle..

Perhaps the fuel will stabilize & not accumulate any further.

 

[mattd]

Anything is possible, but I would be very surprised.

 

[Pedro I]

2015 Ford F250 6.7 PSD - 134K miles on Delo 400 LE 5W40

My last 3 OCI were roughly 20K miles with one being 24K miles. Yet this OCI at 20K had fuel dilution around double of the prior two OCI. What would cause this? Not sure. You did mention that some programming updates were done by Ford dealer, right? Maybe that changed something? Your...

bobistheoilguy.com

Here in this thread the answer 27 is very interesting.
I would like to read again this user what he thinks in the case of 8% and the non condemnation of the oil change.
A simple calculation tells us that according to the capacity of this engine and 8% fuel we have 1 quart of fuel inside in the engine.

 

[mattd]

@dnewton3 do you have any insight? Welcoming input from as many angles as I can.

Not sure if it was noticed on the UOA but this truck has a bypass system on it.

I did buy another batch of oil from HPL just in case…

 

[Pedro I]

@mattd
I just read your post of 15 July 2022 with the 185 hour analysis and I am realizing that there is 20 micron full flow filtration and 2 micron by pass filtration.
This changes everything, personally I think with this filtration capability the wear shown in UOA is not representative to get an idea if fuel wear is increasing. I love the by pass filtration but I am aware that some of the wear will be inside the filters on top of that being Amsoil with 2 micro and 98-99% absolute efficiency.

 

[mattd]

@mattd
I just read your post of 15 July 2022 with the 185 hour analysis and I am realizing that there is 20 micron full flow filtration and 2 micron by pass filtration.
This changes everything, personally I think with this filtration capability the wear shown in UOA is not representative to get an idea if fuel wear is increasing. I love the by pass filtration but I am aware that some of the wear will be inside the filters on top of that being Amsoil with 2 micro and 98-99% absolute efficiency.

It’s tough to distinguish but I would be more apt to believe that if the viscosity showed a significant drop from baseline. It’s really not that far off. If it was in the 10s…sure. But it’s still 12.9

 

[Pedro I]

With use the oils can thicken, here we have about 400 hours of operation, we have soot in play and can not rule out thickening.
If we doubt the % of fuel we can also doubt the viscosity, at the end we can doubt everything and send double or triple samples in several laboratories and thus have no doubt about the data offered.
For the geeks it could be very interesting to see this test of leaving for 5k miles more this oil and see what happens, for me personally it will not be representative the result having by pass filtration of 2 microns absolute.

Personally I am in the same situation, vehicles with dilution problems, by pass filtration, low wear, TBN and TAN controlled dilution in one of the vehicles 4.5% and in the other 2.5% and I have opted for the safe way to change the oil even without knowing the analysis with more kms traveled that I will certainly perform.

 

[mattd]

With use the oils can thicken, here we have about 400 hours of operation, we have soot in play and can not rule out thickening.
If we doubt the % of fuel we can also doubt the viscosity, at the end we can doubt everything and send double or triple samples in several laboratories and thus have no doubt about the data offered.
For the geeks it could be very interesting to see this test of leaving for 5k miles more this oil and see what happens, for me personally it will not be representative the result having by pass filtration of 2 microns absolute.

Personally I am in the same situation, vehicles with dilution problems, by pass filtration, low wear, TBN and TAN controlled dilution in one of the vehicles 4.5% and in the other 2.5% and I have opted for the safe way to change the oil even without knowing the analysis with more kms traveled that I will certainly perform.

It shows soot at .4% which is also low. I am confident that the fuel measurement is accurate as GC was used to determine it. Why would you doubt the viscosity?

I still am on the fence about when I’ll change it out. I have more oil coming just in case

 

[Pedro I]

Oxidative thickening, this oil with 270 miles showed 23 oxidation and with 10k miles is 32, basically we can see that the value increases and we can deduce that the oil has thickened and at the same time diluted by this 1l of combat that is inside the engine.
The viscosity shown for me is not real precisely because it could be thickening, not because the lab has measured it wrong. If this oil had 200-250 hours I would not have this doubt, but since it has already been running for twice as many hours and the oxidation value has increased by almost 10 points I have my suspicions of thickening.

 

[mattd]

Oxidative thickening, this oil with 270 miles showed 23 oxidation and with 10k miles is 32, basically we can see that the value increases and we can deduce that the oil has thickened and at the same time diluted by this 1l of combat that is inside the engine.
The viscosity shown for me is not real precisely because it could be thickening, not because the lab has measured it wrong. If this oil had 200-250 hours I would not have this doubt, but since it has already been running for twice as many hours and the oxidation value has increased by almost 10 points I have my suspicions of thickening.

I’ll let @High Performance Lubricants or @dnewton3 comment about whether the oxidation is excessive for this oil or not.

 

[fantastic]

Oxidative thickening, this oil with 270 miles showed 23 oxidation and with 10k miles is 32, basically we can see that the value increases and we can deduce that the oil has thickened and at the same time diluted by this 1l of combat that is inside the engine.
The viscosity shown for me is not real precisely because it could be thickening, not because the lab has measured it wrong. If this oil had 200-250 hours I would not have this doubt, but since it has already been running for twice as many hours and the oxidation value has increased by almost 10 points I have my suspicions of thickening.

Oxidation rising only 10 is no reason for condemnation.

 

[Pedro I]

Oxidation rising only 10 is no reason for condemnation.

I did not say that, what I mean is that if we have an increase in oxidation there can be oxidative thickening and the oil thickens, to condemn an oil for oxidation it has to be out of grade, i.e. go over 16cst.
All this is to make things clear, we cannot pretend that after 400 hours the oil remains the same.
I do not pretend to be the most knowledgeable, I am just putting the delicate points of this analysis.
I am really interested in a technical clarification and with solid reasoning of the 10% or higher condemnation because I have not seen any laboratory or oil manufacturer affirm this.

If I have to summarize briefly
- we have a dilution that is above 4-5% and at the moment all available information points to a Condemnation.
The low wear criterion does not help us because this unit is equipped with a 2 micron by pass filter with an absolute efficiency of 98-99%, it may have filtered out wear that does not appear in the analysis.

 

[fantastic]

I did not say that, what I mean is that if we have an increase in oxidation there can be oxidative thickening and the oil thickens, to condemn an oil for oxidation it has to be out of grade, i.e. go over 16cst.
All this is to make things clear, we cannot pretend that after 400 hours the oil remains the same.
I do not pretend to be the most knowledgeable, I am just putting the delicate points of this analysis.
I am really interested in a technical clarification and with solid reasoning of the 10% or higher condemnation because I have not seen any laboratory or oil manufacturer affirm this.

If I have to summarize briefly
- we have a dilution that is above 4-5% and at the moment all available information points to a Condemnation.
The low wear criterion does not help us because this unit is equipped with a 2 micron by pass filter with an absolute efficiency of 98-99%, it may have filtered out wear that does not appear in the analysis.

Thanks for further clarification. No one here is pretending the oil isn't "Thickening" when it relates to oxidation thickening. Also, it appears your looking for a "simple rule" of say 10% & this is not going to necessarily be the case simply b/c there is all sorts of different engines that may wear different when subjected to fuel dilusion. All the oil companies & manufacturer's are going to err on the side of caution when recommending fuel contaminates amounts.

You're saying this should be condemned at 4-5% but the facts are that this oil sample and the oil mixer is showing this oil is still doing it's job & not out of whack yet so why do you want it to be condemned? Is it b/c you got it stuck in your mind that 4-5% is the end period? If so that's not following the facts here in front of us.

The low wear criteria does help us. The bypass filter is filtering out the bad stuff b/c that's it's job. To say it can't be right b/c it's filtering out at a lower micron doesn't make clear sense. It is doing it's job & keeping the oil cleaner which is what a bypass filter is suppose to do.

 

[Pedro I]

Thanks for further clarification. No one here is pretending the oil isn't "Thickening" when it relates to oxidation thickening. Also, it appears your looking for a "simple rule" of say 10% & this is not going to necessarily be the case simply b/c there is all sorts of different engines that may wear different when subjected to fuel dilusion. All the oil companies & manufacturer's are going to err on the side of caution when recommending fuel contaminates amounts.

You're saying this should be condemned at 4-5% but the facts are that this oil sample and the oil mixer is showing this oil is still doing it's job & not out of whack yet so why do you want it to be condemned? Is it b/c you got it stuck in your mind that 4-5% is the end period? If so that's not following the facts here in front of us.

The low wear criteria does help us. The bypass filter is filtering out the bad stuff b/c that's it's job. To say it can't be right b/c it's filtering out at a lower micron doesn't make clear sense. It is doing it's job & keeping the oil cleaner which is what a bypass filter is suppose to do.

Don't get me wrong, I also use by pass filtration but I am aware that here is an Amsoil with 2 micron and 98-99% efficiency and this partially filters out wear that is not going to show up in the UOA so the low wear rule is not valid to establish non-condemnation of the change.

If the unit is not equipped with such a by pass filtration filter I can partly understand the low wear reasoning as we do not have an excessive increase in wear.

Aside from this amount of 1 quart of fuel being diluted and how it ultimately affects the seals and gaskets we can't see with a UOA.

There has to be some clear explanation why HPL can tolerate 10% or more fuel and no other brand has stated this nor have I seen any lab tolerate this. There are clear rules that are more or less being respected, to go slightly over these rules I can understand but to double the already established limits does not seem reasonable to me and there has to be a very solid argument that at the moment I have not seen.

 

[fantastic]

Don't get me wrong, I also use by pass filtration but I am aware that here is an Amsoil with 2 micron and 98-99% efficiency and this partially filters out wear that is not going to show up in the UOA so the low wear rule is not valid to establish non-condemnation of the change.

If the unit is not equipped with such a by pass filtration filter I can partly understand the low wear reasoning as we do not have an excessive increase in wear.

Aside from this amount of 1 quart of fuel being diluted and how it ultimately affects the seals and gaskets we can't see with a UOA.

There has to be some clear explanation why HPL can tolerate 10% or more fuel and no other brand has stated this nor have I seen any lab tolerate this. There are clear rules that are more or less being respected, to go slightly over these rules I can understand but to double the already established limits does not seem reasonable to me and there has to be a very solid argument that at the moment I have not seen.

You won't get anything representative of these companies from me. I'm just sharing some of what I picked up along the way here. Where you draw the line on fuel amounts in oil is your call. They are saying it's good & the testing is backing that up so if you're not going to take any of that evidence what will?

HPL is a niche oil mixer & they have done well working with board members here. I'm sure they have technical data to back up their claim. You may have to buy & run some oil their oil for them to work with your specific engine along with testing. HPL has high starting viscosity on some of their oils & that could be just one of the reasons it's holding a good viscosity with the fuel.

Bypass filters that are lower micron rated will filter out more wear particles than a standard oil filter. Your saying b/c they filter out more wear particles that the UOA isn't accurate? A UOA with or without a bypass filter will show PPM wear on a UOA accurately b/c it's testing the Oil. They both are using a sample of the oil & measuring wear particles.

However, I think I have an idea of what you're trying to say. A non bypass set up would measure 5ppm & a bypass would measure 2.5ppm. In a sense "hiding wear on the engine". This may be true if your looking at engine wear. What we are looking at in this situation is the OIL condition. The oil condition is what is being examined in this situation. No one here is asking what the state of this 6.7L power stroke engine is in per se. They are asking what does the OIL's condition look like & could it remain in the sump for a bit longer. The UOA is showing us that the oil has fairly low contaminates & is stable even considering the fuel.

If there was no bypass on this truck it could've potentially had double the wear & consequently needed to be dumped but that is not the case. They have a bypass that is keeping this oil cleaner & is capable of running longer in the engine.