Additive Boosted SL 10w40 Durablend 5000 Miles

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TallPaul

Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
13,131
Location
By Detroit
1995 F150 with 4.9L inline 6 and 137,000 miles. I boosted this oil with about 2.5 times normal amount of additives (zinc, phos, etc.). First UOA is 40 miles as a baseline. I figured to get it in the engine so any residue that initally soaks into the oil is considered. Second UOA is after total 5000 miles. Not bad considering my previous three OCIs were Iron 472, 124, and 33 after apparently ingesting a lot of construction dust (another UOA thread has the whole gory story). Anyway, if you subtract the baseline, it even looks better as the rise in lead and iron is 19 and 14 over 4960 miles and the other wear metals are negligible. I will continue to run this oil and hope to post another UOA at 9000 or 10000 miles.

I installed 6 quarts of Durablend and 10 oz of 21000 ppm zinc PCMO additive package in July. I added no makeup oil during the 5000 miles represented in the UOA, but since it was then a quart low, I topped it up after pulling the sample.

Parameter 40 miles / 5000 miles

iron 8 / 22
aluminum 8 / 9
lead 11 / 30
copper 9 / 10
silicon 14 / 22
boron 9 / 19
sodium 4 / 9
moly 55 / 51
phos 1939 / 1822
Zinc 2280 / 2089
Calcium 3649 / 2939
mag 276 / 245

All other same but for Cr=2

TBN 12.2 / 10.1

Here are some blotter images to go with the UOA:
Image001-1.jpg

Not sure why the second blot is so dark. Sitting on the shelf in front of me it is not nearly that dark.
 
Wow. Have you read MolaKule say that ZDDP levels that high can cause spalling of steel/iron? That would produce large particles that the UOA wouldn't detect...and many of them would be stopped by the oil filter.
 
You're still recovering from that sand blasting cut PCV vent hose. Way better then your peak wear markers. Healthy dose of zddp and phos there. I don't see a big corrosive factor there.

Am I reading this correctly ..that you took the sample with 5/6 of a sump and then added make up oil? If so, then I would imagine that it would alter the readings a bit ...at least in how you interpret them
dunno.gif
 
Quote:

Wow. Have you read MolaKule say that ZDDP levels that high can cause spalling of steel/iron? That would produce large particles that the UOA wouldn't detect...and many of them would be stopped by the oil filter.

Click to expand...


How does ZDDP cause Micro Cracking which causes micro pits which form a SPALL???
bruce
 
Quote:

That would produce large particles that the UOA wouldn't detect...and many of them would be stopped by the oil filter.

Click to expand...
Such spalling would also produce many smaller UOA-detectible particles. How could such spalling possibly occur without also generating many smaller particles, either from the new roughness of the spalled bearings and/or from the larger particles as they circulate through the system, before being trapped by the filter?

Look at the 476 ppm lead I got a few OCIs ago from the detached breather hose. Assuming the construction dust caused it, it would seem spalled particles would have a similar abrasive effect. No, I haven't the least of trepidations about this. Rather, it suggest to me that one certainly can run very high zddp levels without damaging the engine. Not to say MolaKule is wrong. But the particular add pack I used appears to be safe in this regard.

Gary, yes I pulled the sample from the sump before adding any makeup oil, so the sample represents the original fill run 5000 miles with one quart of consumption. I didn't want to dilute things with fresh oil before the sample. Now with the added quart (straight out of the bottle, not souped with PCMO add) my levels will be averaged down a about 200 ppm on zinc and phosphorus. Still plenty of zddp there. We'll have to see what the next UOA shows. I'd take well beyond 10,000 miles, but I suspect the dirtiness of the engine will be the limiting factor on this UOA. If the blotter starts forming nasty deposits I will change out sooner. But so far the blotters look good.
 
Last edited:
My thought is that it would also bring the wear markers down as well. So, I figured that any Pb and Fe you see (most of the Fe, anyway) can be discounted the same amount. You've got an almost perfect 3:1 difference in baseline:test levels. After filtering for the baseline, it's not bad ..especially considering the insult the engine had seen not long ago.

Naturally I too don't think Mola was FOS when he stated such stuff. If I was in his position, I imagine that there would be a few precautionary statements that would be wise to put out there. You don't need every yahoo on BITOG going out there and grabbing 14 bottles of VSOT or SLOB and filling their crankcase with it and wondering why it's not a good thing. There's probably also a case of deminishing return on investment over normal add levels. So, I'm sure that you get decent benefit from a good dosing ..but probably aren't going to realize any gain over not doing it given the added costs..for the average end user that is. Most of us here are trying to retire perfect engines to the junkyard. Many of us are succeeding ..we're not here to break even on lubrication.
dunno.gif


Beside all that ....didn't Mola say that 1oz/quart of something like VSOT would be tolerable? So I imagine that something like a 5% treat rate ...everything is kosher.

Given some of the data that 427Z96 has brought to the table here on adds ..the biggest potential victim is your catalytic converter ..but that's not a biggie in an advanced age vehicle.
 
Last edited:
TallPaul, may I suggest you do a couple of flushes, sans additives, followed by a baseline run, sans additives, to get to some kind of baseline before drawing any conclusions.

P.S. If those are Blackstone numbers, I bet those additives levels are actually significantly higher than what is shown.
shocked.gif
 
""P.S. If those are Blackstone numbers, I bet those additives levels are actually significantly higher than what is shown.""'

Why??? I had them run a well known ISO lab so you can bet on them.
bruce
 
Update:

PARAMETER 40 mile / 5000 mile / 9000 mile
iron 8 / 22 / 39
aluminum 8 / 9 / 20
lead 11 / 30 / 44
copper 9 / 10 / 12
silicon 14 / 22 /28
boron 9 / 19 /14
sodium 4 / 9 / 15
moly 55 / 51 / 42
phos 1939 / 1822 / 1532
Zinc 2280 / 2089 / 1853
Calcium 3649 / 2939 / (3616 - apparent lab error)
mag 276 / 245 /207

9000 mile
VI 145
TBN 6.23
Vis@100C 13.8

All else nil.

Okay, so I'll change it already. But it was fun while it lasted. High al maybe because of nasty cold winter starts and no pan heater. 5000 mile was early Dec. 9000 mile was last week.

Hey, what next. Here is what I am thinking: A 5000 t 6000 mile OCI of half and half 20w50 Durablend and 20W AllClimate, SLOBBED. That's right the AC is 20W, no back number. I figure it will net me a nice 20w40 for summer.

Next fall I might go for an Amsoil fill.
 
Viscosity looks good. TBN looks alright....Wear numbers are high-ish but not horrible or anything.... I wish I had the patience to run oil for 9k miles.
laugh.gif
 
TP,
are you in an area with emissions testing
if so, please keep us posted on next test
looks like your brewmeister oil is still removing the sandblaster construction site crude
can have steel grindings from rebar cutting and iron oxides from steel beam torch cutting

try parking at a gravel crusher plant for interesting reading
thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
High Lead in 1.8T stroker Motor 25k mi; Redline 5w-40 5k mi
2 3
Replies
40
Views
2K
Kevin C
wwillson
2014 Dodge Durango 3.6L Pentastar HPL CK-4 5w20 24,000 miles on oil 198,000 miles total
2
Replies
31
Views
917
FZ1
wwillson
2016 Dodge Charger 3.6L 82,200 total miles 11,000 miles and 21 months on HPL 5w-20 HDEO CK-4
Replies
6
Views
370
jadmt
wwillson
Dodge Durango 3.6L - HPL CK-4 5w-20 - 16,232 miles on oil - 190,400 miles total
Replies
14
Views
1K
wwillson
wwillson
2016 Dodge Charger 3.6L 76,316 total miles 5,116 miles and 10 months on HPL 5w-20 HDEO CK-4
Replies
4
Views
495
demarpaint
Back
Top Bottom