Factory Fill, 5w20, Ford Ranger 3.0 V6

[needtoknow]

This UOA done on factory fill by "Oil Analyzers" on a new 2003 Ford Ranger P/U 3.0L V6.
Purchase Date: June 16/03
Oil Sample Date: August 27/03
Oil: 5W-20 Ford Factory
Filter: Ford Factory
Mileage on Oil: 3705
Location: North Carolina
Driving Habits: 80/20 Country/City, Mild Operation
Iron:42
Chromium:1
Lead:98
Copper:13
Tin:0
Alum:5
Nickel:0
Silver:0
Silicon:109
Boron:31
Sodium:28
Magn:14
Calcium:1757
Barium:0
Phos:1105
Zinc:1325
Moly:150
Titanium:0
Vandium:0
Potassium:0
Fuel%: Vis@100C:7.25
Water:0
Soot/Solids:N/A
Glycol:Neg
TBN:4.82
Oxid:29.0
Nitr:24.0
Results: No Corrective Action, Ok Continued Use.
This oil was drained and replaced with Amsoil Ser2000 0W-30 at 3705 miles. I have also installed their Dual Filter By-Pass System. From all I,ve read here I think I did it right. Elements lower than Spin-on location, mild bends etc. The Oil Pressure gauge, which is only an on/off set-up, takes about 1-2 sec to snap to on position. I also installed Amsoil SDF-15 Filter and BE-90 By-pass. I am going to do a UOA at the 6 month mark before Amsoil recommended Filter Change. Will Post Results.

[ February 01, 2004, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Patman ]

 

[Al]

Well other than the lead not out of control. The silicon is not dirt or the aluminum would be higher. And your tin and nickel and copper are great. The only thing is- since you put on the dual filter system that may disguise the high lead numbers. I would have waited until the numbers came down after a few oil changes-but that's just me.

 

[Whimsey]

I think this UOA shows a couple of things. First that a new engine does have a lot of "junk" from assembly and initial engine wear in the factory oil. This is evidenced by the high initial "wear" numbers of iron, lead and copper, yet the other metal wear numbers are low. As AL said, showing it's not dirt wear. The question is do you leave this debris in for the factory recommendation oil change of 5,000 miles or change it sooner, alot sooner? And second in particular to the Ford 5W-20 oil. Where did that high Zinc and Phos. come from as well as the Moly? They are not that high in the replacement Motorcraft 5W-20 oil. In fact the Motorcraft 5W-20 oil doesn't even have Moly in it. Could these be factory additives to boost the factory fill to "last" to 5,000 miles. Or is the Ford factory fill a different oil

.

Whimsey

 

[needtoknow]

I appreciate the input it sure helps my understanding. When I put the Dual Filter By-Pass on I did wonder that it would mask any unusual wear and hide problems with the oil or engine. If wear numbers are bad but the filter is capturing them how do you find out? Seems like I need to analyze the filter media as well?

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

quote:

---

Results: No Corrective Action, Ok Continued Use.

---

I don't understand that this can be the recommendation seeing as too many elements are out of line. Yes, this is the factory fill, but these elements look too high to "continue use" with...

 

[Al]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToyotaNSaturn:

quote:

---

Results: No Corrective Action, Ok Continued Use.

---

I don't understand that this can be the recommendation seeing as too many elements are out of line. Yes, this is the factory fill, but these elements look too high to "continue use" with...

---

Mostly they look at the condition of the oil-TBN, viscosity, additives, Oxid, Nitr. If the Fuel, H2O, Silicon, Solids (Maybe/maybe not) these will cause harm to the engine. Generally other contaminants like iron may not cause a real problem. There have been instances of 400 to 600 ppm iron without any problems. I guess if particles were big enough that could be a problem. But the filter catches (hopefully) bigger particles. That's as good as I can do until someone gives better info

 

[MNgopher]

Looks like a new engine UOA. Nothing to get worked up about.

Agree in the oil comment - either factory fill 5w20 is not Motocraft/Conoco 5w20 (note the moly and boron - these have not been present in previous Motorcraft UOA's), or Motorcraft/Conoco has changed formulations, or there is a boatload of assembly lube in there.

 

[needtoknow]

Originally posted by needtoknow:
[QB] This UOA done on factory fill by "Oil Analyzers" on a new 2003 Ford Ranger P/U 3.0L V6.
Purchase Date: June 16/03
Oil Sample Date: August 27/03
Oil: 5W-20 Ford Factory
Filter: Ford Factory
Location: North Carolina
Driving Habits: 80/20 Country/City, Mild Operation

UPDATE:
Dealer did OCI just after this UOA with 5W-20 and Motorcraft Filter. I ran it a short time did another OCI with Amsoil 0W-30 Ser2000. This new UOA is from "Blackstone".

1st Sample Date: 8/27/03
2nd Sample Date: 4/23/04
Oil:1st-Factory Fill
Oil:2nd-Amsoil 0W-30 Ser2000
Filter 1st-Motorcraft
Filter 2nd-Amsoil Bypass SDF-15/BE-90
1st:Oil Miles/Unit Miles-3705/3705
2nd:Oil Miles/Unit Miles-3443/7937
1stTime on Oil-2Months
2ndTime on Oil-6 Months
Iron:42 --------------------9
Chromium:1 -----------------1
Lead:98 --------------------14
Copper:13 ------------------3
Tin:0 ----------------------1
Alum:5 ---------------------1
Nickel:0 -------------------0
Silver:0 -------------------0
Silicon:109 ----------------34
Boron:31 -------------------37
Sodium:28 ------------------1
Magn:14 --------------------726
Calcium:1757 ---------------1966
Barium:0 -------------------0
Phos:1105 ------------------888
Zinc:1325 ------------------950
Moly:150 -------------------0
Titanium:0 -----------------0
Vandium:0 ------------------N/A
Potassium:0 ----------------0
Fuel%: Vis@100C:7.25 --------------N/A
Vis@210F: ------------------62.7
Water:0 --------------------Trace
Soot/Solids:N/A ------------0.3
Glycol:Neg -----------------Neg
TBN:4.82 -------------------8.4
Oxid:29.0 ------------------N/A
Nitr:24.0 ------------------N/A
Flashpoint:N/A ----------------385

[ May 08, 2004, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: needtoknow ]

 

[Terry]

"Results: No Corrective Action, Ok Continued Use."

This means we don't have the time (or a computer graded your results) to fine tune the application.

I interpreted 2 analysis results this week from this lab and they both needed attention to fix problems and both had that at the bottom. Making the customer believe wrongly the analysis was perfectly normal.

Newer alloys and composites show less wear while being damaged and many labs have not reset the warning levels.
I guess I incorrectly figure when you pay for an analysis you want to really know how it can be used properly.

Out of curosity needtoknow, did you change the air filter out after test 1 with a new one for test 2 ?.

[ May 08, 2004, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Terry ]

 

[needtoknow]

Thanks for the comment Terry. The first report comment (normal) does seem a little suspect given the high wear levels, especially lead. The second UOA shows my lead levels way down from first report but not where I'd like to see them. I don't think the lead reading is from residual factory fill oil as the dealer did the scheduled 3000 mile change with filter which should have done a flush before I switched to Amsoil. I did not think to change the factory air filter as the miles are so low. I guess it won't hurt to do so. This vehicle is still under warranty. I sent the first analysis report to Ford for comment, no response, but I'm not surprised. I will take another sample in 6 months, Amsoil change out, and see if the lead comes down after a longer run in. I have noticed my gas mileage getting about 9% better since the Amsoil change but don't know if that could also be due to break in reaching end. I am going to try Mobile1 on the next OCI, probably a 5W-40 (live in North Carolina) and see if I can do an extended OCI with an oil that's 1/2 the cost of Amsoil. Nothing against Amsoil, good oil, I just want to see if Mobile1 will perform as it has in MP3's long term oil test.

 

[needtoknow]

Here's the UOA Motorbike.

 

[needtoknow]

I did consider disconnecting the By-pass filter after the comment on the original post for this OCI, but it is so much work, fixing leaks, bruised knuckles, lying on my back, that I decided to skip. I did ask Blackstone about BE-90 (Amsoil Filter) hiding some extraordinary wear, they said no??? If it does then how down the road would anybody know about wear levels when using fine filtration? I hope the down trend on the lead continues. I have re-thought the Mobil1 5W-40, again. Back and forth deja vu. I thought BITOG was going to make my life easier. Thanks for the Feed back, anything secret I have now allowed private messaging.

[ May 29, 2004, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: needtoknow ]

 

[Motorbike]

quote:

---

Originally posted by needtoknow:
Here's the UOA Motorbike.

---

I wish you would change your profile to accept personnal messages .......I'll stick my neck out here and post

I don't know how to type it all

here's a stab ....it's looks like Ford knows of a problem whatever it might be and they dump a can of additive in this particular motor series at the factory .....Motorcraft does not have any other 5w-20's hidden deep within the Conoco MSDS's .
The lead probably came from the cam bearings and whatever was occuring at the time no motor oil could have stopped be it swarf from machining or coreshift through production ect but probably core shift and the cam was tight .


One part of picking a synlube is the fact you can use a lighter grade w/o loss of protection all else equal . 40wt dino -30wt synlube for example . With that in mind I would ditch the 5w-40 Mobil Diesel oil idea and one of the reasons for it the Amsoil really does great with the bypass filters and long drains and fuel mileage will be better with a 30wt and that's really something to think about these days .

If you will search the VOA's of the Amsoil 10w-30 you'll see that it's been reformulated and looks much like a Euro oil in comparison to the same oil of three years ago .

Yes the Mobil SS car oil would do well no doubt but with a bypass filtering system I think the Amsoil will do better over time ..

Mistakes are made and this bypass filter was put on too early and before the engine was ran in so it might mask the wear metals the motor is actually throwing out but it has trended down and will continue to .

Do what you want because we only go round once in life but you put the bypass on to save cost and time in the longrun . I would not offset what your doing by running a diesel 40wt in it and consuming more fuel and for running 2 years or longer the Amsoil makes sense here vs the Mobil SS .It's like a couple cents per month .

[ May 29, 2004, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: Motorbike ]

 

[427Z06]

This is the Ford Vulcan 3.0L V6 I believe. Probably have to adjust any analysis accordingly.

 

[427Z06]

You guys are probably communicating privately, but just so that all the rest can fire up their synapses on this one, this is an OHV V6 with lead babbitt cam bearings. So even though it has aluminum main/rod bearings, there is a explainable source for all the wear metals on this new engine.