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

#### wwillson

Staff member
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

I'm in complete agreement with your numbers.

What I'm curious about is the Si in the last two UOAs, so let's add Si to your numbers:

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
Si 5, 11, 15, 25, 33
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: 1.0, 1.3, 1.7, 4.0, 4.0
Cu: 0.6, 1.1, 1.3, 4.4, 5.4
Si: 1.0, 0.0, 0.8, 1.8, 1.6

I corrected the starting value of the added Si in the first 5,000 mile UOA, as the Si in this virgin oil is know.

We did see the increase in wear metals at the 21,000 mile UOA and discussed dumping the oil and starting fresh. However, we were curious about how long the TBN would hold out, if the increased wear was caused by the carbon loaded oil filter, and if the increase in Si from the loaded air filter. The TBN held out really well and probably could hold out for another 5,000 miles. The new oil filter run from 21,000-26,000 miles was also loaded with carbon being cleaned from the internals, since we didn't see a decrease in carbon, we can't tell if the carbon is what is causing the wear. More Si was added to the oil between 21,000-26,000 miles. The air filter was changed at the 21,000 mile sample, but Si continued to increase in the oil. It could be that Si increased because of the filter being change and the airbox being disturbed and/or more Si made its way through the intake system and into the engine. I'm going to recheck the intake system for leaks.

What did we learn?
• This oil has very good TBN retention, which is important for an extended drain oil.
• This oil has very good oxidative stability, which is important for an extended drain oil.
• This oil has a high ability to clean, which also means it has the ability to keep an engine clean.
• My engine has carbon deposits that continue to be cleaned from the internals.
• My engine has a problem with silicon ingestion.
• The extra wear metals are probably caused by the Si ingestion.
Maybe we should have dumped the oil at 21,000 miles when we saw Si and wear increase, but I've stated before that I don't mind risks when the risks make sense. The oil performed extremely well and I'm very happy with getting 26,000 miles and 22 months on an oil change. I'll do it again.

Last edited:

#### RDY4WAR

The silicon could also be dirt getting kicked up into suspension from cleaning. Who knows how much dirt was ingested and trapped in carbon deposits throughout the engine over the previous 110k miles.

#### wwillson

Staff member
The silicon could also be dirt getting kicked up into suspension from cleaning. Who knows how much dirt was ingested and trapped in carbon deposits throughout the engine over the previous 110k miles.
I wouldn't have thought there would be any deposits from the first 110k miles, because I didn't do extended drains and always ran a 10w-30 HDEO in the summer and a 0w-20 syn in the winter.

#### spasm3

Maybe we should have dumped the oil at 21,000 miles when we saw Si and wear increase, but I've stated before that I don't mind risks when the risks make sense. The oil performed extremely well and I'm very happy with getting 26,000 miles and 22 months on an oil change. I'll do it again.
Thanks for this info. It took some guts to run it this long. Even with uoa data along the way, it would be hard for me to do it!

I'm wondering with the cleaning that's occurring with the HPL oil, as shown in your filter thread, if the next 26k run would have less iron and oxidative thickening.

Still amazing that you could basically do 4 oil changes in 100k.

#### wwillson

Staff member
I'm wondering with the cleaning that's occurring with the HPL oil, as show in your filter thread, if the next 26k run would have less iron and oxidative thickening.
Let's find out...

#### Imp4

I'm in complete agreement with your numbers.

What I'm curious about is the Si in the last two UOAs, so let's add Si to your numbers:

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
Si 5, 11, 15, 25, 33
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: 1.0, 1.3, 1.7, 4.0, 4.0
Cu: 0.6, 1.1, 1.3, 4.4, 5.4
Si: 1.0, 0.0, 0.8, 1.8, 1.6
Your curiosity in the Si is remarkable because the Si results are the least remarkable of all data presented.

In other words, everything else is significant except Si. And you chose Si as your focus.

What should we make of that?

#### wwillson

Staff member
In other words, everything else is significant except Si.
Why is Si not a significant factor in the wear metals in this UOA? What is significant in this UOA? What then caused the wear?

#### Imp4

Why is Si not a significant factor in the wear metals in this UOA? What is significant in this UOA? What then caused the wear?
For clarity, when I said not significant, I meant that the change in the Si data over the sampling interval was not particularly remarkable or noteworthy.

Conversely, the change in Fe and Cu data over the interval was particularly noteworthy, especially the final two data points

So my observation was that it was interesting that you chose to focus on the Si data, which remains relatively constant, while the Fe and Cu data showed a significant change and you don't seem to want to talk about those changes.

That's all.
Cheers!!!

#### mattd

This is quite the run! I hope to have similar results with my PSD with their oil.

With that said, I would have changed the lube out when I saw that wear rate tripled at 21K, then quadrupled to 26K (when comparing previous samples, especially the copper). Still very impressive though, especially with no bypass filter l, no make up oil and still has active additive left.

How can you be sure that the silicon isn’t from sealer washout?

Last edited:

#### Al

I don't see any problem with the oil going this long. Not saying I would do it. But I appreciate the data.

As I have been saying forever..TBM checking is 100% unnecessary.

Thanks!!!

#### wwillson

Staff member
So my observation was that it was interesting that you chose to focus on the Si data, which remains relatively constant, while the Fe and Cu data showed a significant change and you don't seem to want to talk about those changes.
Maybe I should have been more clear. My focus is on why the wear metals, including Fe and Cu are at a higher rate in the last two samples. Adding the Si to your per 1k mile rate data was to see if there is a correlation between the Si and Fe/Cu numbers. There seems to be a correlation in Si to wear, which isn't a surprise. I was just adding a visual Si reference to your numbers.

I'm going to go over the entire intake system again, looking for any leaks.

#### OVERKILL

##### \$100 Site Donor 2021
Your curiosity in the Si is remarkable because the Si results are the least remarkable of all data presented.

In other words, everything else is significant except Si. And you chose Si as your focus.

What should we make of that?
I disagree, the last few samples, the Si increase was significant, that's worth noting, as it is known to cause abrasive wear. Si is not something that trends with mileage, so its increase is relevant.

I don't disagree with your premise that the dramatic increase in wear rate should have resulted in an earlier change. As you noted, the PPM/mile increased and we don't immediately know why so I would personally have changed it when that presented. If we look at the wear rate presented by Doug Hillary when he was using 150ppm as a condemnation limit (not typically reached, usually other factors dictated a change), this was over 100,000Km (60,000 miles) OCI's and I recall his average being around 2.3ppm/1,000 miles. A significant deviation from that trend I think warrants re-baselining the process and trying to determine what triggered it.

The increase in silicon either points to an air intake tract leak, increasing abrasive wear, and naturally resulting in an uptick in wear rate, OR, as @RDY4WAR noted, it has been liberated from previous deposits along with the wear metals and this is skewing the results. This should be easy to test for by not touching the air intake tract and just changing the oil with the same formula and sampling again. If the wear rate significantly changes, it's something to do with the oil being run too long, on the other hand, if it stays high, it's time to start looking at the intake tract, and if that's fine, keep trending, if it is deposits, it should start trending back down as the cleaning tapers off.

#### dnewton3

Staff member
This is great data and interesting to say the least.

I would mention that there is nothing wrong with looking at the wear data from either a cumulative, or step-sequence, point of view. Neither is a "right" or "wrong" way to look at the data; it only needs to be understood which viewpoint is desired to present usable info. It is correct to say that the metal data indicates an increased presence in the later UOAs.

What we really don't know is how to separate the contributing factors here, mainly because this experiment is the exception and not the rule. Simply put we don't have a lot of data to know what's "normal" because very, very few folks run a lube like this, for these durations. What we are seeing in the UOAs is a gathering of the following:
- true typical wear from normal use
- true wear from increased Si (likely added abrasive action)
- ghost wear from previous true wear, which is now coming into a UOA from the accumlation of miles (this vehicle only has been using the HPL for 26k of it's 137k miles; the HPL is cleaning the engine and so more metals showing up than truly being created in "real time")
But the question is this ... How much of each of these three contributing conditions makes up for the total of what we see in the UOA???
We don't have a control group. We don't have large sample sets of macro data to use as a baseline. We just have this one example. Not one of us can say for sure that any one contributor is responsible for 15% of the wear total, versus 85% of the wear total, or some value inbetween.

This engine is healthy; the wear isn't absurd; the lube was reasonably used and the change made for a unique data point which can now be used in further understanding at the next 25k mile UOA. Will the up-trend of wear contine? Will it subside? Will it go "steady state"? Dunno.

Motor on, Wayne!

Last edited:

#### Direct_Rejection

As HPL emphasizes, the esters are doing what esters do.

None of my business, but I would cap off at 20k mile OCI, and set aside TBN, TAN, whatever.

#### Accent Abuser

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.
Yeah but the levels start increasing by larger and larger amounts past 15k, which means the oil is obviously not working as well. If it were a simple +-5ppm per 5k (ie linear increase) that would be a different story.

#### Krieg

I wasn't familiar with this motor oil so I went to their website. From HPL website: They have a superior aniti-wear formula.....

"Superior aniti-wear formula reduces damaging wear and increased engine life."

#### Crusher

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???
wwilson Thanks again for another uoa.
I've done 14 uoa's and I'm still learning.
Keep Testing

Wear rates seem normal to me, the oil wasnt changed for 26,000 miles.

contaminants in the oil accumulate after such long use, with shorter oci's you wouldn't notice because you're changing it often to not let it get that high.

I want this oil to run for 35,000 miles, I want to see the condition of the motor oil after this very long oci.

#### AEHaas

Thanks for the testing, well done. Clearly the rate of wear increased as Si accumulated. It has always been my contention that wear is more related to dirt ingestion than viscosity. It also goes against the grain that you should change the air filter more often but I do so.

ali

#### wpod

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