Amsoil HDD 5W30 17.000 Miles Toyota Echo

[GordoW]

Here is my latest sample on my 2005 Echo. I am running an Amsoil dual remote bypass unit with an OEM filter on the full-flow side. I have not been able to fault air-induction system as cause of elevated SI, air filter is OEM, was getting loaded up pretty heavy at time of sample.

I would be interested in hearing if anyone thinks it might be better to run either SSO 0W30 or ASM 0W20 - please give me your thoughts.

Elements measured at zero omitted.

Fe 14
Ni 1
Si 50
Al 1
Pb 1
Cu 2
Na 10
K 1
B 1
Mo 1
Mg 10
Zn 1196
Ca 3694
Ba 1
P 963

OXI 69
NIT 17
SUL 59
V100 12.2
V40 72.8

 

[addyguy]

Considering the contamination (Si), this is amazing! Less that 1ppm/1,000 miles of FE! Also, for the mileage, viscosity is great - still a 30 weight. Any TBN? That would be interesting.

I wouldn't change a thing - HDD always seems to shine at really extended drains. I'd even say stretch it a bit more - go 20-22k miles - providing TBN is in check.

 

[buster]

Great engine and oil combo. bypass filter certainly allows for better results in extended drain intervals. We've seen it time and time again.

 

[chevrofreak]

My problem with this UOA is that the bypass filter is probably removing most of the trace metals from the oil. True iron content could be far higher than the UOA indicates. You won't know if your bearings are wearing quickly or not.

 

[harry j]

Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
My problem with this UOA is that the bypass filter is probably removing most of the trace metals from the oil. True iron content could be far higher than the UOA indicates. You won't know if your bearings are wearing quickly or not.


Removing the iron is the idea, afterall, it causes most of the wear. Removing the hard particles, denys the possibility of secondary wear particle generation and more.

 

[addyguy]

Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
My problem with this UOA is that the bypass filter is probably removing most of the trace metals from the oil. True iron content could be far higher than the UOA indicates. You won't know if your bearings are wearing quickly or not.


You're probably right. There is a well-known UOA on here of a Ecotec Cavalier, run 25k miles on HDD, with no filter change, bypass, or top-up whatsoever, and the iron count was 64. Different engine, etc...but it gives you an indicatiopn this may be true.

 

[lazaro]

Originally Posted By: addyguy
Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
My problem with this UOA is that the bypass filter is probably removing most of the trace metals from the oil. True iron content could be far higher than the UOA indicates. You won't know if your bearings are wearing quickly or not.


You're probably right. There is a well-known UOA on here of a Ecotec Cavalier, run 25k miles on HDD, with no filter change, bypass, or top-up whatsoever, and the iron count was 64. Different engine, etc...but it gives you an indicatiopn this may be true.


my truck was using HDD and after 5 years and 40,000 miles my first sample came back with a 56 ppm iron

 

[TeeDub]

The silicon(e) is simply leaching from seals and gaskets. Toyota engines will do this for tens of thousands of miles.

The primary advantage of running the other Amsoil products you mentioned is marginally better cold weather performance and fuel efficiency - particularly the much thinner 0w-20. However based on my 30 years of experience with Amsoil, I would not expect them to hold up better than the very robust Series 3000.

 

[TeeDub]

Wear rates from engines using by-pass filtration ARE lower because they reduce the average level of abrasives in the oil - thats the whole idea. The one aspect of bypass filtration that does skew UOA data is that the bypass filter increases the effective sump capacity by 15%-25% on a typical gas engine. However, it's very easy to calculate how much this affects the wear metal and contaminent data.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
My problem with this UOA is that the bypass filter is probably removing most of the trace metals from the oil. True iron content could be far higher than the UOA indicates. You won't know if your bearings are wearing quickly or not.


That is incorrect logic. Bypass filtering does not remove UOA detectable (dissolved) metals. If the bearings are wearing, it would show up as increased dissolved metals. And not even iron at that. More like Pb, Cu, Sn.

Actually this is an excellent UOA!!

 

[chevrofreak]

Removing metal particles that would normally pass through a standard filter is going to lower the wear metals present in a UOA. I don't see any way of getting around that.

The amount it's lowered, who knows? Has anyone measured the size of the typical metal wear particle in used oil?

 

[Pablo]

UOA's measure dissolved metals. Metals in solution. Not chunks and hunks and wear particles picked up in filtration.

Removing these particles does reduce wear. But you wrote:

Quote:
My problem with this UOA is that the bypass filter is probably removing most of the trace metals from the oil. True iron content could be far higher than the UOA indicates. You won't know if your bearings are wearing quickly or not


No getting around that!

Especially the part about "won't know if your bearings are wearing quickly or not"

 

[chevrofreak]

Yeah yeah, I may not really know that much, but I do have a good idea of certain things

If a UOA doesn't measure all of the metal, including flakes, I don't see how useful it can really be.

 

[Pablo]

That of course is a good statement. It's one we bandy about frequently. A UOA is an strong indicator.

 

[buster]

It's really good no matter how you cut it. Many people claim this is their best oil overall.

 

[GordoW]

Thanks for your replies. Bypass filtration reduces wear. Bypass filtration will not mask or hide a developing problem in an engine. When an oil analysis is made, we are not comparing my wear metals to your wear metals, but what is normal for my engine - if the trend for my engine swings upward, it is an indication of a problem, bypass filtration will not help here.

I was hoping to hear more opinions on running a diesel formulation in a gasoline application, maybe some thoughts on using an oil with more friction modifiers etc.

Take care.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: GordoW


I was hoping to hear more opinions on running a diesel formulation in a gasoline application, maybe some thoughts on using an oil with more friction modifiers etc.



It looks to be working quite well! How was your MPG?

 

[GordoW]

MPG is good, despite my driving it hard - it averages around 40MPG, but that is Canadian (imperial) gallons, not US.

I wonder what kind of an increase I could realize with a lighter oil, even SSO 0W30 is a full centistoke lighter than HDD 5W30 at 100C.

 

[LargeCarManX2]

I would run the SSO if you like the expensive oils. It is a better weight for your area of the world anyway. I personally would run Amsoils regular 5w30 and dump and refill every 15K leaving the filters on for two cycles. Diesel oil should be used in diesel engines as far as I am concerned.

And....the oxid was high, but the nit was low...I would entertain that this oil might be used up...or...the oxid was a misprint.

 

[GordoW]

I let this one go a little long - normally I change every 20,000 KM, (12,400 mi) bypass filter every second time around.