Cat 938H loader, 6.6l engine, 2098 hours

[sdan27]

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 H2O 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.

 

[tomcat27]

how many quarts does the sump hold?

 

[901Memphis]

5 isn't low for TBN

 

[Donald]

The iron PPM should be linear so either different companies did the UOA or you are adding makeup oil.

 

[dnewton3]

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.