Dodge Durango 3.6L - HPL CK-4 5w-20 - 18,700 miles on oil - 158,700 total

[wwillson]

This sample was pulled from my 2014 Dodge Durango with a total of 158,700 miles and 18,700 miles on the oil. The oil is HPL's 5w-20 CK-4 based formula and has been run since Feb 9, 2022, about 16.5 months. The lab is Wearcheck. I believe we are finally at the point that the cleaning is subsiding after running HPL's high ester and AN oil for the last 48,000 miles. The usage on this 6,700 mile run was >95% high speed driving down the interstate. There was 1/4 quart (1 cup) of makeup oil. This is the equivalent of three oil samples, so the oil consumption remains at zero. Most of the fuel used for this 6,700 mile run was E-85.

The previous UOA thread is here:

Dodge Durango 3.6L - HPL CK-4 5w-20 - 12,000 miles on oil - 152,000 total

This sample was pulled from my 2014 Dodge Durango with a total of 152,000 miles and 12,000 miles on the oil. The oil is HPL's 5w-20 CK-4 based formula and has been run since Feb 9, 2022, about 14.5 months. The lab is Wearcheck. There is still cleaning taking place. This is the filter thread I...

bobistheoilguy.com

This is the filter thread I posted with the filter that was changed when this oil sample was taken:

Dodge Durango 3.6L - second run of HPL 5w-20 - 18,700 miles on oil - filter pictures at 6,700 mile change interval run from 152,000-158,700 miles

The first filter from this second run of HPL HDEO 5w-20 is here: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/dodge-durango-3-6l-second-run-of-hpl-5w-20-5-000-miles-on-oil-filter-pictures-at-5-000-mile-change-interval.359054/ The second filter from this second run of HPL HDEO 5w-20 is here...

bobistheoilguy.com

I have normalized the oxidation by taking the absolute value and subtracting the base oxidation value of virgin oil. Esters are high in carbonyl groups, ASTM D7414 will show high oxidation even in virgin oil. The corrected oxidation is 21, which is still below Wearcheck's suggested condemnation limit of 25.

The TBN, wear, and contaminants all look good. Oxidative thickening is taking place as the viscosity has increase by about 19%. The viscosity rose from 9.4 to 11.6. You can see that the VIIs in this oil don't shear, so oxidative thickening is not masked at all by VII shear. The viscosity increase is not causing wear, which is evident by all the metal numbers, which frankly are incredibly low. Given that the TBN is still 8.11 and the Fe only increase by 2 ppm, which is an outstanding 0.3 ppm/1k miles! This oil is still serviceable and will be run for another 5,000 miles.

A thought: Is the viscosity increase cause by oxidation useful viscosity? Said another way, will the higher viscosity cause by oxidative thickening increase the oil's hydrodynamic lubrication?

Sample Information
Sample Date	Feb 2020	Dec 2020	March 2021	August 2021	October 2021	February 2022	March 15, 2022	September 5, 2022	April 19, 2023	June 13, 2023
Machine Age miles	116,000	122,200	127,420	132,679	137,615	140,000	141,500	147,000	152,000	158,700
Oil Age miles	5,000	11,200	15,820	21,079	26,015	2,500	1,500	7,000	12,000	18,700
Makeup oil quarts
Filter Age miles	5,000	11,200	15,820	21,079	4,936	2,500	1,500	2,000	5,000	6,700
Oil Changed	no	no	no	no	yes	yes	yes	no	no	no
Filter Changed	no	no	no	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
Brand	HPL	HPL	HPL	HPL	HPL	HPL	HPL	HPL	HPL	HPL
Viscosity	5w-20 HDEO	5w-20 HDEO	5w-20 HDEO	5w-20 HDEO	5w-20 HDEO	5w-20 HDEO	5w-20 HDEO	5w-20 HDEO	5w-20 HDEO	5w-20 HDEO
						new formula	new formula
Wear Metals
Iron	5	13	21	42	62	19	6	9	15	17
Chromium	<1	<1	<1	2	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1
Nickel	0	0	0	<1	0	0	<1	0	0	<1
Titanium	<1	<1	<1	<1	2	<1	<1	<1	0	<1
Silver	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	0	0
Aluminum	3	3	1	5	5	4	2	4	1	5
Lead	0	0	<1	1	<1	1	1	0	0	0
Copper	3	10	16	39	66	64	31	65	72	69
Tin	0	<1	0	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	0	0
Antimony	0	0	<1	<1	-	-	-	-	-	-
Vanandium	<1	<1	0	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	0	<1
Cadmium	0	0	0	<1	not reported	0	0	0	0	0
Additives
Boron	181	81	42	43	23	20	2	2	0	0
Barium	3	0	1	0	2	0	0	0	0	4
Molybdenum	523	521	500	518	545	535	492	548	600	590
Manganese	<1	<1	<1	2	3	1	<1	<1	<1	<1
Magnesium	462	446	430	467	461	1078	1091	981	1158	1059
Calcium	3422	3237	3203	3379	3562	2812	2431	2458	2767	2645
Phosphorus	788	777	760	754	802	1137	1094	1024	1095	1041
Zinc	948	924	884	949	988	1326	1176	1271	1411	1271
Contaminants
Silicon	11	11	15	25	33	17	12	13	18	17
Sodium	4	4	5	8	8	4	0	3	5	4
Potassium	1	<1	2	3	4	1	0	2	2	3
Fuel %	<1.0	<1.0	<1.0	<1.0	<1.0	<1.0	<1.0	<1.0	<1.0	<1.0
Glycol	NEG	NEG	NEG	NEG	NEG	NEG	NEG	NEG	NEG	NEG
Soot%	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1
Fluid Condition
TBN	12.3	7.3	5.05	3.985	2.85	12	16.8	10.8	9.28	8.11
Viscosity	8.8	9.1	9.4	9.56	10.6	9.2	9.4	10	10.4	11.6
Oxidation	5	15.3	22.5	24.1	31	45.3	0 (39.7)	12(51.7)	14.3(54.0)	21(60.7)

 

[racer12306]

The TBN retention is otherworldly.

 

[fantastic]

Overall wear rates appear to be in order here! Silicon has come down too. I like how you added the actual Oxidation value 60.7 but did the math & displayed the actual "Rise" of 21. Visc is on the very thick side that's for sure but doesn't seem to be affecting iron wear at least.

Key Notes:

I will point out that you did get an additional 7,315 miles out of the previous version (Oct 2021) of this oil without the same rise in viscosity. It also appears that the New version starts out with a thicker viscosity though so this may be a moot point. However, We'll wait to see how it works over time not just this sample.

Other than say less fuel economy from the thicker oil. Is the Engine Temperature of this Durango all within range that you've noticed with this last oil run?

Do we know what to do with the fact that Copper quadrupled in the same mileage 16 (March 21) - 69 (June 13th)? It might be getting close to the limits of what the oil can safely hold onto at 69ppm?

I would add that with the Viscosity on the rise & Oxidation almost at the condemnation point that this oil may be nearing its run life. Obviously, sample again & make your decision.

 

[DirectRejection]

Thank you for a most thorough report, wwillson !

TBN will not be broken lol.

 

[wwillson]

Is the Engine Temperature of this Durango all within range that you've noticed with this last oil run?

Yes, the coolant temperature for this run is normal, as the thermostat was replaced. The last run had to deal with low coolant and oil temperatures:

Dodge Durango 3.6L P0128 code

2014 Durango 3.6L with 130,000 miles threw a P0128, which is "coolant did not reach operating temperature quickly enough". I believe the cause is almost certainly a faulty thermostat, which I'm going to replace. I haven't researched thermostats for 20 years, so at this point I know nothing...

bobistheoilguy.com

The normal oil temperature now is 192°F-210°F, I find the oil temps are mostly dependent on ambient air temperature and engine RPMs (friction).

 

[wwillson]

I would add that with the Viscosity on the rise & Oxidation almost at the condemnation point that this oil may be nearing its run life. Obviously, sample again & make your decision.

I already have another 2200 miles on the oil and will sample again at +5000 miles. I believe the next sample will be the end of the service life of this oil. We should know in about a month.

 

[fantastic]

I already have another 2200 miles on the oil and will sample again at +5000 miles. I believe the next sample will be the end of the service life of this oil. We should know in about a month.

Good plan! We will eagerly wait for those results. Thanks for showing us your samples!

 

[buster]

HPL TBN retention is superb.

 

[wwillson]

All oxidation values in the table are corrected. If you compare miles and oxidation values from the first run and the second run, the oxidation rate is similar. The final oxidation value in the first run was 33, which is 8 points higher than Wearchecks suggested condemnation value. However, I don't think it's fair to use the first run oxidation value (I could be wrong), because there was so much cleaning taking place and the operator of the Durango was negligent in changing the filter. We probably aren't comparing apples to oranges, until the next run because of the high cleaning rate of the first run. All theory, so if you have other ideas, feel free to jump in.

 

[fantastic]

All oxidation values in the table are corrected. If you compare miles and oxidation values from the first run and the second run, the oxidation rate is similar. The final oxidation value in the first run was 33, which is 8 points higher than Wearchecks suggested condemnation value. However, I don't think it's fair to use the first run oxidation value (I could be wrong), because there was so much cleaning taking place and the operator of the Durango was negligent in changing the filter. We probably aren't comparing apples to oranges, until the next run because of the high cleaning rate of the first run. All theory, so if you have other ideas, feel free to jump in.

Before the New formula I believe your optimal ODI was the March 21' (before wear rates increased quite a bit)

When comparing March 21' Iron & Oxidation values alone You had:

• 15,820 Miles
• 1.32743362832 PPM/1k
• 22.5 Oxidation Value

New Formula:

• 18,700 Miles
• 0.909090909091 PPM/1k
• 21 Oxidation Value

Subtracting 31 starting value on Copper-69 Means your copper is actually only at 38 & did NOT quadruple like I stated in my earlier post. MY MISTAKE! Here are some new Copper numbers.

• 44.56 PPM/1k Oct 21' (Old Formula)
• 38.00 PPM/1k Jun 23' (New Formula)

Verdict:

So, after mulling over your data some more. You are getting less wear on Iron, Copper, & better oxidation stability for longer duration. This is all great news! However, the Oxidation is still something that I'm going to be looking at closely next test.

 

[dnewton3]

I wonder if the Cu is colloidal metals from a chemical reaction? Not unlike when oils such as Amsoil were run in Dmax engines; some of the lube additives reacted with the oil cooler (liquid to liquid stacked copper plate cooler). It was not harmful, but made understanding the Cu counts more difficult.

As for the rest, well ... outstanding! Run that OCI out!

 

[twX]

Yes, the coolant temperature for this run is normal, as the thermostat was replaced. The last run had to deal with low coolant and oil temperatures:

Oxidation occurs more quickly at high oil temperatures, which might be why you didn't see as much oxidative thickening on the last run.

A thought: Is the viscosity increase cause by oxidation useful viscosity? Said another way, will the higher viscosity cause by oxidative thickening increase the oil's hydrodynamic lubrication?

Good question. I'd assume that as the base oil oxidizes and its kinematic viscosity goes up, that the dynamic viscosity at high shear would go up as well, so it would have an affect fuel economy and wear.

FYI, the values for additives from the latest UOA are exactly the same as those in the UOA from September, which I assume isn't intentional.

 

[fantastic]

FYI, the values for additives from the latest UOA are exactly the same as those in the UOA from September, which I assume isn't intentional.

Good Catch!

 

[wwillson]

FYI, the values for additives from the latest UOA are exactly the same as those in the UOA from September, which I assume isn't intentional.

Thank you for catching that. Too much staring at columns on the UAO report. The numbers are corrected and triple checked now.

 

[spasm3]

I already have another 2200 miles on the oil and will sample again at +5000 miles. I believe the next sample will be the end of the service life of this oil. We should know in about a month.

What measure and number will you use to condemn it as end of life? Viscosity rise? Oxidation? Iron level? Or the copper? TBN is amazing on this oil, so it won't be that!

 

[wwillson]

What measure and number will you use to condemn it as end of life? Viscosity rise? Oxidation? Iron level? Or the copper? TBN is amazing on this oil, so it won't be that!

The established trend shows that the condemnation will likely be viscosity increase caused by oxidative thickening. Wear is almost non existent.