99 Jeep 4.0 114k, MC5w-20, 2k, Auto-Rx rinse

[Gary Allan]

FWIW:

1999 Jeep Wrangler 4.0
Miles on oil: 2000 miles AutoRx rinse phase
Miles on engine: 114k
Oil filter: ST16
Air Filter: K&N conical
Make up oil: 0 quarts

Al 3
Cr 0
Fe 16
Cu 4
Pb 8
Tin 1
Moly 53
Maganese 1
Boron 128
Silicon 8
Sodium 1
Cal 2148
Magnesium 11
Phos 700
Zinc 879

Anything not mentioned is zero

should be 53-62 >355 was .......55.2 390
The metals are somewhat elevated for the relatively short duration. Nothing alarming. The jeep sees about 350 miles weekly with 25 mile one way commutes and a limited amount of around town driving that can't quite be called "stop and go". The most congested traffic this engine sees is @ 65mph+.

Your comments, as always, are welcome.

 

[Pablo]

Who won the pool?

 

[Gary Allan]

On Fe ..it appears you did, Pablo

2000 miles?

18ppm Fe
4 ppm Pb
9 ppm Cu


All I needed to see is that nothing was radical. The 5k will really show the goods.

 

[Pablo]

I guess I reversed the Pb and Cu.

Looks nominal. Time to get back to the 20W-50

 

[MarkC]

G, That's 8ppm/1K mi. Just about what your 2.5 did with RTS for 8994 mi.
the Pb is what looks elevated to me.

So, Watcha gonna run in there next?

 

[Brons2]

Did the mileage improve with the 5w20?

 

[Gary Allan]

Keep in mind that this is a rinse phase after mostly back to back 10k+ runs with either D1 and RTS.

Just so we don't get too off track, I'll draw a sample after two 25 mile commutes just so we know what we started with for the 5k run with the same stuff. We'll index any residuals.

I really think that I can just leave this in and it will turn out fine for 5k ..but I want to offer as "clean" a UOA as possible.

Thursday I'm replacing the trackbar due to a loose bushing. Perfect opportunity to change the oil.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brons2:
Did the mileage improve with the 5w20?

---

Nothing worth mentioning. Did break 19.5 a few times ..but I've done that before. I'll index that by saying that even a $1000 Warn hub kit didn't add very much in the mpg dept ..even without turning the front diff and axleshafts needlessly. It just felt less loaded.

Also keep in mind that this does very little short trip mileage.

 

[TooSlick]

Too much bearing wear, given the low number of miles. A 0w-30 synthetic works very well in this motor, but that's as thin as I'd go...

The iron level looks very high also, but it's hard to tell with this few miles on the sample and using a different add pack for the first time.

TS

 

[Gary Allan]

Well, we've seen some good UOAs with 30 weights ..dino even. This used to be restricted to short trip types that had higher visc anyway just due to not reaching temp ..but lately this has not been the case. I've also seen that RTS didn't stop my 2.5 from shedding Fe to the tune of 70ppm for 9k ..and in spite of a fuel problem, was still a solid 40 weight.

This leads me to believe that although visc has showed lower Fe readings in some applications (it did when I switched from M1 Xw-30 to D1) that there may be additive packages that can can (hmm-a typo .but let's think of the female dancers for a moment) achieve the same results.

The 5k post rinse phase UOA will show more meaningful data. I'm not ready to accept these figures on face value. I have a high volume oil pump and this is the first time that the entire pump output has made it through the engine without it being in relief at about 1400 rpm. I'm sure that I liberated many caches of incidental deposits that have never seen that much exposure to flow in the entire 100K+ that the pump has been installed. This engine may (probably) normally consume 5 gpm of oil max at some higher rpm. Now I should be at whatever 9gpm @ 3000 integrates to for any respective engine speed.

I predict much lower Pb figures for the next UOA. We'll know how many elements are contained in the residuals since I'm doing a semi-VOA after changing the oil and having it go through 2 heating cycles. That will give the static background noise some scale.

[ September 19, 2006, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]

 

[Eddie]

Time to go back to Mobil 1 5w30 Truck & SUV oil.

 

[Gary Allan]

Nope ..not yet. None of this wear is "pending doom". I'm going to get, as close as practically possible, to the true effect of using this oil in this engine under my conditions.

One swallow does not the summer make.

It may ultimately show that it is not the best choice for this engine. It may, however, show that this is an acceptable oil to use for this engine.


M1 in a 30 weight sucks in this engine. At least it did when I used it. That T&SUV label hasn't shown any distinction in UOA's for other users in their engines over regular M1. Not an option for me, imo. They may have tweaked a few things here and there ..but it doesn't stand out with anything BOLD in differences ...so I'll still consider it to suck in this engine

 

[MarkC]

So where did the idea about <3Koci's increasing wear come from? I've seen references to this before, but I don't get it. Or believe it, until I get it.

 

[Gary Allan]

There was an article that showed that UOA's of 3000 or less had higher wear metals then those of greater then 3000 miles. The article was clearly being supportive of extended ..or more accurately, recommended OCIs that the manufacturer spec's. I think the spacebears testing somewhat supported it (maybe not

). There has been much speculation about film formations and whatnot and how, perhaps, new oil has some exchange like action where it disrupts and replaces established film formations.

So the statement "3k OCI's cause more wear" isn't necessarily as accurate as saying that 3k OCI's may cause the UOA to show more wear metals.

In some engines you can see lame UOA with the first switch to a newer oil. Other engines don't seem to react that way. Sometimes, something like Redline will show really odd UOA for an OCI or two

Terry will be along for the final UOA. I'm just gathering as much supportive information on the cheap so I can get a bit more out of the experiment.

I will not be using any oil, regardless of weight, that won't make it to at least 9k/6months. Any shorter is just a waste in this engine's service. So, even if MC 5w-20 makes it to 5k w/o issues ..if it can't make it to 9-10k ..it's not for me. I'll then research synth 5w-20 oils to see if they can go the distance.

 

[Gary Allan]

Also keep in mind that we're within that "seating window" that has fueled many a debate here about "under 3k OCI's cause more wear" stuff. If I can rationalize the cash, I'll do a 3k and a 5k UOA as well as the in engine VOA ..just to cover all the bases.

 

[Eddie]

Well My 4.0 engine in a 1995 GC was sold running very well at 196,000 miles. I bought new and this engine saw nothing but Mobil 1 10w30 & PureOne oil filters every 5-6,000 miles. Maybe Garys' 4.0 engine is a loose one in terms of fit & finish.

 

[427Z06]

Gary: Scotty, I need more 5w20.

Scotty: Gary, we can't do it. If we keep with this viscosity, we'll blow up any minute now.

 

[Gary Allan]

Eddie, I ran M1 (0w-30 mostly) between 2500 and about 70,000 miles in my 4.0. That's before I came here and did my first UOA. I did a UOA and had the characteristic high Fe.

4.0/2.5 will go 200k without any apparent issues ..I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of them out there right now with over 200k. Time kills the chassis that they're installed in after that. There are plent of 200k 4.0 owners. You don't hear of too many 300k 4.0 owners. Not many can keep a vehicle that long. They probably all have higher then (what's considered) normal Fe and the owners will never know the difference. It's probably the timing chain

Higher Fe may not be something that has to be corrected. But since you're there, most would typically choose something that showed the least Fe. Which is what I did. A move to a 5w-40 controlled Fe quite well compared to Xw-30. That's what I stuck with. Since then I've seen other jeep owners, over time (my first UOA was in 4/03), have had great UOA's with dino 10w-30. That is, add packs have probably changed and you can probably avoid using heavier oils to contain this Fe dandruff (which is probably perfectly normal ..or rather "typical")

This is an experiment, Eddie. I'm attempting to see if add packs can contain this normal condition where I used viscosity to do it before. My choice of 5w-20 is due to my high volume oil pump that makes any other viscosity result in reduced flow.

None of those numbers, even if valid, are going to grenade any engine. At least not over 10k or 15k that it may take me to satisfy my curiousity about flow vs. visc here.

The only difference between my 4.0 and every other is a set of Mopar roller rockers (from 50k on) and a high volume oil pump (probably a waste).

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:

Maybe next time. I was informed that you couldn't get the bushing separately ..even aftermarket.

I didn't bother researching it. I guess I'll replace it in the one I take off. I've also discovered that, although offered in abundance, many aftermarket parts are great for hard core types that are breaking stuff all the time, but they don't last in terms of long term usage like mine. That is, they'll take lots of abuse in terms of torque and whatnot, but aren't going to last 6 years or more like an OEM unit will. Most fellow jeepers that I know only have a little more lift then I have, but they've already gone through a couple of sets of heim joints on their expensive adjustable control arms with just normal daily driving.

---

Heim joints aren't normally long life in a suspension, but a good quality polyurethane bushing can do well. It's fairly common to replace "non-replaceble" factory bushings with poly bushings. The graphite impregneted ones stay quiet longer. I have heard that a real nasty sticky tenacious grease like Schaefers 238 works good on them.

 

[Gary Allan]

I wonder if an open gear type moly lube would be suitable for this type of application. I have a few tubes (caulk type tubes) hanging around waiting for a purpose.

That stuff is like non-curing Aviation Permatex.