German Castrol 5,502 Miles 2009 Ford Expedition

[xnighter]

Quote:


You appear to have missed my posts, including the one with pictures, indicating that this engine has aluminum/silicon bimetal bearings in it that have NO LEAD OR TIN IN THEM.


no no i have read your post and i have seen the pictures, but lead and tin does not have to come from bearings. Lead and tin could come from bushings or thrust washers, which do have lead and tin as a pair. Don't forget this Lucas additive has cleaning properties, so it is only normal that it will be mildly corrosive to any parts that have lead in them. And then Lucas company HAVE to declare lead in MSDS. Obviously never you nor me know for sure, but if i had to bet, lead and tin do not come from Lucas additive, lead and tin come from some parts in engine.

 

[friendly_jacek]

Count me in on this theory.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
So there are no other bushings in the engine at all?


That's a good question Pablo. The tensioners for the timing chains are nylon or aluminum IIRC. I THINK the revised ones are aluminum, which this engine would have.

The main bearings are bimetal. The rod bearings are bimetal. The cams sit in machined seats in the heads, with no bearings or bushings between them and the aluminum surface.

I cannot really think of any other places in this engine where there are bushings or bearings.

 

[tinmanSC]

Well, after much searching I'm forced to conclude there is insufficient evidence to prove Lucas Fuel Treatment contains lead. While it may contain lead (or something that reacts with lead), I cannot prove it. I found 3 UOAs that suddenly spiked high in lead after using the Lucas Fuel Treatment, but then we would expect that everyone who used this product would have a UOA higher in lead. This was not the case. My guess would be the rate of high lead UOAs among those posters who used Lucas Fuel Treatment and didn't use it would be around the same. Bummer.

 

[friendly_jacek]

I thought about it more. If the engine in question has no lead/tin in it whatsoever for sure, I would consider lab error of some crossreactivity.

This remands me some other posts when UOA showed unexpected lead results that made no sense whatsoever and sent the OPs for extended goose chases.

I'm personally done with UOAs after one reading that came with totally garbage results (0 Fe, tons of some other wear metals and totally off viscosity). The lab retested and claimed same results. I complained some more to the lab owner and he later admitted the equipment was defective. No quality assurance whatsoever. That particular lab was not BKS, but we all know how different lab results can be all over the map.

 

[redrocker55]

Thank you everyone for your ideas and input.

I will do another follow up UOA on my next OCI later this summer. I'm running AMSoil 0w30 Signature Series (arguably the best oil AMSoil produces and IMO one of the best oils on the market).

I'm NOT going to add anything to the gas tank....ie...NO fuel injector cleaner.

I'm also not doing any major towing this time around so we will see what happens.

Thanks again for all the insight!!!! Much appreciated!

 

[joker79]

I put Lucas in my vehicles every 5k, I recently posted two UOAs where each vehicle had 2-3 treatments over almost 15k mile OCI. One UOA had normal lead and tin, the other had no lead and tin whatsoever. The vehicle with none had had three Lucas treatments, this would seem to discredit the idea that it is the source to me. The one with normal tin/lead is a limo, which is full time towing in essence. These vehicles have the same engine and are almost same year so I think they are a decent comparison against one another. I think you pushed your SUV too hard for too long, towing at 75mph is taxing, especially for 700 miles.

 

[OVERKILL]

joker:

Which Lucas fuel system product do you use? There are several.

http://www.lucasoil.com/products/display_products_overviews.sd?iid=5&catid=6

And I will reiterate for your sake, since you appear to have missed my earlier posts: this engine has bimetal bearings. There are no sources of lead or tin the modular engines that I know of.

 

[joker79]

Upper Cylinder Lubricant, which is the same thing by a different name.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: joker79
Upper Cylinder Lubricant, which is the same thing by a different name.


Same thing as which?

They have:

1. LUCAS OIL DEEP CLEAN FUEL SYSTEM CLEANER
2. LUCAS FUEL TREATMENT

Are you saying those two products are the same or that the one you used was the same as one of those products? And if so, which one? And was it the same one the OP used?

 

[Gene K]

Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
I thought about it more. If the engine in question has no lead/tin in it whatsoever for sure, I would consider lab error of some crossreactivity.

This remands me some other posts when UOA showed unexpected lead results that made no sense whatsoever and sent the OPs for extended goose chases.

I'm personally done with UOAs after one reading that came with totally garbage results (0 Fe, tons of some other wear metals and totally off viscosity). The lab retested and claimed same results. I complained some more to the lab owner and he later admitted the equipment was defective. No quality assurance whatsoever. That particular lab was not BKS, but we all know how different lab results can be all over the map.


I dont know. The particular Polaris Labs I use has been very consistent. That said I dont usually test passenger cars. If I didnt trust a particular lab I would certainly use another.

 

[Steve S]

The harder the engine is loaded the more wear.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Steve S
The harder the engine is loaded the more wear.


Prey tell how you wear metals that don't exist inside the engine in question sir?

 

[joker79]

The one that says UPPER CYLINDER LUBRICANT all over it, which would be the one that the OP used also. Unless the Ford 4.6 magically filters away metals that you say this additive contains, I would think it might show up in my vehicles after running it through 3x in one oil change.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: joker79
The one that says UPPER CYLINDER LUBRICANT all over it, which would be the one that the OP used also.


No no no, I'm not asking which one YOU USED, you already told me! What you have NOT told me is which one of THESE PRODUCTS:

1. LUCAS OIL DEEP CLEAN FUEL SYSTEM CLEANER

2. LUCAS FUEL TREATMENT

Is the SAME ONE as the one you used. And how do you automatically know which one the OP used without him chiming in and saying so?

And in regard to your snooty comment:

Originally Posted By: joker79

Unless the Ford 4.6 magically filters away metals that you say this additive contains, I would think it might show up in my vehicles after running it through 3x in one oil change.


Well unless the 4.6L magically generates metals that aren't used anywhere inside it, I would hope they wouldn't show up in your UOA's!

Btw, I'm not the one who stated that Lucas has the metals in question in it. What I did state was that the engine uses bi-metal bearings, which do not contain copper or lead. So that a fuel treatment he used MAY have been the source of it.

The other possibility is that the lab made an error and this isn't his sample.

I'm not trying to be a douche. Ford simply doesn't use tri-metal bearings in the Modular engines. I've pointed this out SEVERAL times in this thread. My buddy spun a rod bearing in a 2000 Mustang GT, and you should have seen the looks on our faces when we pulled the cap off and didn't see any copper. That's when I started to research why... Only to discover that Ford had made a switch to the Clevite bimetal bearings (which is what we ended up with when we ordered an OE replacement) with the modular engines.

 

[redrocker55]

Hey Guys...I'm the OP...

I used #2 above...Lucas Fuel Treatment.

Thanks...

 

[redrocker55]

I can't find anything on the contents of Lucas Fuel Treatment...but I did find this...

"Lucas Fuel Treatment safely replaces the need for lead in older engines."

This comment is listed on this page...

http://lucasoil.hodgsoncorp.com/lucas_fuel_treatment.htm

Since Lucas oil is claiming this treatment safely replaces the need for lead in older engines (that used leaded gasoline), then why not assume it contains lead in it??

Seems to make sense to me but maybe I'm missing something.

Thanks again guys!!!

 

[joker79]

If there is no lead or copper than than why does blackstone find an average amount greater than zero in the average oil change sample? From my own experience, and this is anecdotal obviously, I have two Town Cars same vintage roughly, both get the same fuel, maintenance, oil, air filters, and Lucas, one is a limo one is not, the limo had more wear metals with a slightly shorter OCI than the sedan did. Something in that engine has to be made of lead and copper and towing puts extra wear on those components!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: joker79
If there is no lead or copper than than why does blackstone find an average amount greater than zero in the average oil change sample? From my own experience, and this is anecdotal obviously, I have two Town Cars same vintage roughly, both get the same fuel, maintenance, oil, air filters, and Lucas, one is a limo one is not, the limo had more wear metals with a slightly shorter OCI than the sedan did. Something in that engine has to be made of lead and copper and towing puts extra wear on those components!


You have to remember this stuff is PARTS PER MILLION. There can be (and often is) trace amounts of a host of lovely things in the oil itself, on the threads of the oil filter....etc.

Check out some of the VOA's you'll see "wear metals" in virgin samples sir.

That is why UOA's are far from an exact science and not a tool for measuring wear! They are an oil life monitoring tool and an indicator of potentially serious problems. They will tell you about contamination and how long you can run your oil. They are not accurate enough (nor are the results repeatable enough) to be used to contrast single-digit PPM values!

Check it out, I have copper showing up in mine too:

The difference here is that I've actually been inside one of these engines and seen the bearings (and replaced one) first-hand. They are bimetal. They have no lead or copper in them. Not the rod or main bearings anyway. And the cams don't have any bearings. They ride on the surface of the head.

The scary metal would be aluminum in this engine. The heads are aluminum... SO the cam wear surfaces are aluminum. And the bearings are silicon/aluminum. Those are the ones I'd watch.

BTW, copper can also leach from sealants, hoses, fittings....etc.

Also, here is a good VOA thread:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/voas-a-whole-bunch.35869/

You will take note that many samples have levels "greater than zero" for copper, lead, iron...etc.