Dodge Durango 3.6L - HPL CJ-4 5w-20 - 26,015 miles on oil

[wwillson]

This is a sample pulled from my Durango 3.6L with 137,615 miles total and 26,015 miles on the oil. Consumption was zero during this entire 26,000 mile run, which is a change from previous runs that had consumption of about 1/2 quart per 5,000 miles. E85 was used for about 5,000 miles of the 26,000 miles on this oil. The oil was in service from 12/26/2019 - 11/5/2021, almost exactly 22 months. The oil was changed because it has thickened 17%. The lab is Wearcheck.

edit: added oil filter (Fram Ultra) pictures:

I'm surprised how much cleaning is still taking place. This filter was run from 21,000-26,000 miles and has this much carbonaceous material! We saw more debris in the filter that was run from 0-21,000 miles (see my last UOA post). The magnetic drain plug has a small amount of debris stuck to it.

Sample Information
Sample Date	Feb 2020	Dec 2020	March 2021	August 2021	October 2021
Machine Age miles	116,000	122,200	127,420	132,679	137,615
Oil Age miles	5,000	11,200	15,820	21,079	26,015
Filter Age miles	5,000	11,200	15,820	21,079	4,936
Oil Changed	no	no	no	no	yes
Filter Changed	no	no	no	yes	yes
Brand	HPL	HPL	HPL	HPL	HPL
Viscosity	5w-20 HDEO	5w-20 HDEO	5w-20 HDEO	5w-20 HDEO	5w-20 HDEO
Wear Metals
Iron	5	13	21	42	62
Chromium	<1	<1	<1	2	2
Nickel	0	0	0	<1	0
Titanium	<1	<1	<1	<1	2
Silver	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1
Aluminum	3	3	1	5	5
Lead	0	0	<1	1	<1
Copper	3	10	16	39	66
Tin	0	<1	0	<1	<1
Antimony	0	0	<1	<1	not reported
Vanandium	<1	<1	0	<1	<1
Cadmium	0	0	0	<1	not reported
Additives
Boron	181	81	42	43	23
Barium	3	0	1	0	2
Molybdenum	523	521	500	518	545
Manganese	<1	<1	<1	2	3
Magnesium	462	446	430	467	461
Calcium	3422	3237	3203	3379	3562
Phosphorus	788	777	760	754	802
Zinc	948	924	884	949	988
Contaminants
Silicon	11	11	15	25	33
Sodium	4	4	5	8	8
Potassium	1	<1	2	3	4
Fuel %	<1.0	<1.0	<1.0	<1.0	<1.0
Glycol	Neg	Neg	Neg	Neg	NEG
Soot%	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1
Fluid Condition
TBN	12.3	7.3	5.05	3.985	2.85
Viscosity	8.8	9.1	9.4	9.56	10.6

 

[Imp4]

Iron 62
Copper 66

It's easy to keep these factors that directly correlate to engine longevity well under 10.
Help me to understand a reasonable justification for letting wear metals get that high.

In other words, you can do this but why would you???

 

[ltslimjim]

I like the idea of changing the filter every 5000 until it looks clean upon inspection. Then, go up to 10,000 and see if the oil can be extended beyond 20,000. Sample at every 5000 mark.

 

[wwillson]

It's easy to keep these factors that directly correlate to engine longevity well under 10.

Yes it is if you change your oil often. However, the metal that shows up on a ICP UOA doesn't cause wear, as it's not like there are chucks of metal circulating around in the oil.

In other words, you can do this but why would you???

Because when I decided to do extended oil change intervals, I change based on UOAs not feelings.

 

[Imp4]

Because when I decided to do extended oil change intervals, I change based on UOAs not feelings.

Your last two UOA's aren't great.
I don't understand why your data didn't drive you to change earlier.

 

[spasm3]

With the oil starting out around 8.8cst and now it's 10.6, I'd wonder what the TAN is. Oxidative thickening me thinks.

 

[Jimmy_Russells]

Your last two UOA's aren't great.
I don't understand why your data didn't drive you to change earlier.

You understand the copper and iron (and everything else) are cumulative? He could have changed the oil five times and stayed around 10-12 for each, but didn't, so of course those will be higher. They are too small to do any damage so it really makes no difference but saves a lot of oil.

 

[High Performance Lubricants]

You understand the copper and iron (and everything else) are cumulative? He could have changed the oil five times and stayed around 10-12 for each, but didn't, so of course those will be higher. They are too small to do any damage so it really makes no difference but saves a lot of oil.

Logic well applied.

 

[RDY4WAR]

2.38 Fe per 1,000 miles
2.54 Cu per 1,000 miles

I'd say it's wearing pretty typical. There is some oxidative thickening which is to be expected at that mileage. Notice the viscosity never decreases indicating great shear stability. A TBN of 2.85 at 26,000 miles is great.

 

[Danno]

Great info, what's your data point where you drain this fill, and what's your next fill?

 

[wwillson]

Great info, what's your data point where you drain this fill, and what's your next fill?

I changed the oil due to the thickening.

My next fill is HPL's new formula HDEO 5w-20 based on the CK-4 add pack, then top treated for better performance.

 

[wwillson]

Added cut oil filter pictures to the OP.

 

[wwillson]

With the oil starting out around 8.8cst and now it's 10.6, I'd wonder what the TAN is. Oxidative thickening me thinks.

They didn't report TAN this time, but the last time it was 5.2 and 3.2 the UOA before, so we could extrapolate that the TAN value this time was around 7, but that's a SWAG.

 

[ltslimjim]

I changed the oil due to the thickening.

My next fill is HPL's new formula HDEO 5w-20 based on the CK-4 add pack, then top treated for better performance.

I’m confused. I don’t see a HDEO in 5w-20 flavor on their website. I see what’s listed as HDMO. No 20 grade offerings.

Edit: at least, not on the Advanced Lubrication reseller site

 

[wwillson]

I’m confused. I don’t see a HDEO in 5w-20 flavor on their website. I see what’s listed as HDMO. No 20 grade offerings.

@High Performance Lubricants can answer this question.

 

[ltslimjim]

@High Performance Lubricants can answer this question.

Thanks, though apparently I was basing my conclusion on the distributor website.

Which flavor of 5w20 was this run?

 

[Imp4]

You understand the copper and iron (and everything else) are cumulative? He could have changed the oil five times and stayed around 10-12 for each, but didn't, so of course those will be higher. They are too small to do any damage so it really makes no difference but saves a lot of oil.

Patronizing comments don't help the discussion, but I digress.

Logic well applied.

Hardly.

2.38 Fe per 1,000 miles
2.54 Cu per 1,000 miles

I'd say it's wearing pretty typical. There is some oxidative thickening which is to be expected at that mileage. Notice the viscosity never decreases indicating great shear stability. A TBN of 2.85 at 26,000 miles is great.

OK, so let's apply a little more logic here.

Per OP's original post...
Mileage intervals: 5k, 11.2k, 15.8k, 21k, 26k
Fe 5, 13, 21, 42, 62
Cu 3, 10, 16, 39, 66
Mileage between reported samples: 5k, 6.2k, 4.6k, 5.2k, 5k.

The important thing to look at here is the change in wear metals between intervals, not as an accumulated average.
Using the following formula [(Accumulated miles - Previous sample miles)/(Accumulated wear - Previous sample wear)],
wear rate per thousand miles between reported intervals (either as XXFe/1k mi or XX Cu/1k mi):
Fe: 1, 1.3, 1.7, 4.0, 4.0
Cu: 0.6, 1.1, 1.3, 4.4, 5.4

What is crystal clear here is that the first three sampling intervals look great but for the final two sampling intervals wear rates per thousand miles increased dramatically versus the first three.
Simply dividing the final wear metal PPM by the entire oil change interval misses the subtlety that after 15.8k miles, wear rates for Iron more than doubled and Copper was 3-4 times more.

If these late stage wear rates were applied to a run of the mill 10k OCI you'd have 40 Fe and 54 Cu, which absolutely no one would brag about.
Basically the oil took a heavy turn for the worse after the 15.8k sample.
When you graph this data, we call this the hockey stick effect.
Your data looks great for a while then makes a dramatic shift either for the better or worse and the graph looks like a hockey stick.

I look forward to continuing to talk about the data.

 

[High Performance Lubricants]

Which flavor of 5w20 was this run?

The 5W20 here was our preferred choice some 22 months ago. It uses a robust CI4+/SL ad pack. Of course at that time I would not have expected that we would find chemistry we would like better. We are currently producing this oil starting with CK-4 chemistry and making our customary improvements.

What we are seeing here is truly a worst case scenario. 26,000 miles, zero makeup oil so he has a slightly lower oil level for the last 5,000 miles by the volume lost in the filter change, evidence in 2 filters of the esters in the oil cleaning deposits, and an air filter with more life than we would prefer. In light of all of this the wear rates are low and the oil did its job.

Yes it is slightly thicker. I could have taken a cheaper and more standard path of formulating with a less shear stable VI Improver so shear compensates for the normal increase in viscosity but I knowingly chose a more stable VI Improver so our products stand up in the more harsh environments.

TBN and TAN are not necessarily equal I am comfortable running the TBN to 2. I'm less concerned about the TAN.

For willson's next run he will be on the oil that was not even thought about 22 months ago. I more believe filter changes until the last of the debris subsides is the plan. This next oil will actually clean more than the previous version.

 

[RDY4WAR]

A good bit of carbonaceous material was broken free during this long OCI. As those carbon deposits form, they can trap wear particles in them. Then this oil, with strong cleaning ability, comes along and dissolves those deposits, kicking the trapped wear metals into suspension.

Looking at the filter, silicon, and wear metal content tells me this engine still has a good bit of cleaning to go through.

 

[ltslimjim]

This engine seems to be a good candidate for the Cleaner product, no?