Cat 938H loader, 6.6l engine, 2098 hours

Messages
486
Location
Michigan
This is from the Cat 938H loader we use on our farm. Using a Cat 269-8325 filter with an LF777 bypass filter. Using Service Pro 15w-40 engine oil. The loader has 4605 total hours with about 2098 on the oil. Unit hours 3484, 4046, 4431, 4605 Oil hours 977, 1539, 1924, 2098 Sili 4.6, 5.3, 5.2, 2.8 Pot 0, 0, 0, .7 Sodi 10, 9.7, 8, 7.3 Fuel <2%, <2%, <2%, <2% H2O <.1%, <.1%, <.1%, <.1% Soot% 1.6, 1.5, 1.3, 1.6 Sulf% 66, 69, 61, 58 Nitr% 75, 75, 67, 75 Boro 2.5, 2.7, 2.9, 5.2 Calc 1225, 1392, 1566, 1537 Magn 783, 649, 585, 548 Moly 43, 38, 32, 30 Phos 940, 952, 954, 893 Sulf 2269, 1198, 2792, 2904 Zinc 1244, 1238, 1175, 1072 Visc 14.31, 14.72, 14.12, 13.75 Oxid% 56, 56, 48, 52 TBN 6.49, 6.72, 8.11, 5.07 Iron 39, 56, 63, 60 Nckl 0, .3, .9, .5 Chrm 1.7, 2, 1.5, 1.4 Copp 6.9, 6.3, 6.6, 5.2 Alum 3.2, 3.9, 2.3, 2.6 Lead .5, 1.3, 0, .4 TBN is getting a little on the low side so I think I'll drain it soon.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Messages
8,598
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Before you condemn for TBN I'd consider seeing where TAN is at. TBN of 5 is not low by any means. The metals are in good shape, although the Fe is intriguing as noted above. Using a bypass is a great way to control contamination, but it also skews UOA results and they cannot be directly viewed against "normal" macro data. They have to be viewed within a sub-set that is very narrow, and so the info is limited. Bypass filters remove a some portion of the evidence of wear, so it's hard to get a read on things from our typical perspective. Overall I see no reason to dump the lube yet. Typical of your results the SP is doing well.
 
Last edited:
Top