HPL No VII 5W30 Euro, 1993 Volvo 240, 5,400 mile OCI

[fantastic]

It's no hare but the tortoise is indestructible.

View attachment 155260
courtesy FCP

Agreed, we can walk further than running.

As I'm sure you're already aware this 6 ppm Al was flagged b/c it doubled Blackstone's Averages & they have some decent advice to follow. In general the oil is capable of handling this 6ppm Al so that is not a concern as long as it's not adding to any additional wear to your engine.

Your engines Al does display some extra wear, then past UOA, that needs to be trended further. You could heed BS comments & keep costs down by running any oil for the same duration to check up on the Al. Then make the decision to go back to HPL once those results come back ok.

Essentially, it doesn't appear you're having additional wear due to the extra Al in the oil. There may be a point to which it does contribute to wear but it doesn't appear here yet. The Al is probably from pistons as previously mentioned by other posters. With the mileage you have on this unit, most likely not having a rebuild yet, It may be the rings are worn & causing the Al piston wear.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Overall looks decent.
I would agree; nothing to panic about. See what the Al does on the next UOA.
I'm not familiar with that engine, but I presume it has an external timing belt. That being the case, the Al sources in that engine are likely limited to the pistons, right?

Dave, isn’t it entirely possible that over the vehicle’s long and storied career, some aluminum may have become entrained in deposits, which are now being liberated by the AN’s and esters in the HPL?

I agree on the “wait-and-see” method, but this at least seems to make sense on why OP saw an uptick.

OP, I know it’s an extra $10, but when you’re looking at extending OCIs you should pop for the TBN test as well. Good wear numbers don’t mean much at a given mileage if the oil is not able to protect the internals against combustion acids.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

What stands out to me is how the prior oils basically showed the same level of wear, despite having lower levels of AW additives.

Buster, c’mon man… we know UOAs are not a valid measurement of wear

I’d give the HPL at least 2 more runs to do more cleaning & wash the rest of the prior oil out.

 

[TiGeo]

233K without much data...the Al number is somewhat meaningless at this point to me but could be an genuine increase above normal in this engine..again, not enough data and a higher mileage engine, could just be normal variation and not based on the oil at all. 11.4 cST seems about where it should be if it didn't really shear at all, the difference they are commenting on is likely within the error bar for the test. What is this oil's VOA show?

 

[TiGeo]

Buster, c’mon man… we know UOAs are not a valid measurement of wear

I’d give the HPL at least 2 more runs to do more cleaning & wash the rest of the prior oil out.

I was about to type "In before cleaning is mentioned"

 

[53' Stude]

1993 Classic Sedan #140/1600. The last 1600 240s manufactured are the Classics.

That’s a very nice car

 

[Sam_Julier]

Beautiful color. Last question, is a stick shift?

Automatic.

 

[Sam_Julier]

Some observations that may or may not have any bearing:

1) This is the first run Of HPL. Previous oils were LM 5w40summer, 0W30 in winter. These are not represented in the UOA report.

2) The oil was darker at 5,400 miles than any in memory. Perhaps the cleaning has an effect on AL? I have no idea.

3) The engine runs incredibly well. I‘m inclined not to worry. Run it to 7,000 and check again.

Thanks for everyone’s input.

 

[chris719]

What stands out to me is how the prior oils basically showed the same level of wear, despite having lower levels of AW additives.

Yep. Which tells you all you need to know about the ability of UOAs to show you wear accurately.

 

[himemsys]

OP, I know it’s an extra $10, but when you’re looking at extending OCIs you should pop for the TBN test as well. Good wear numbers don’t mean much at a given mileage if the oil is not able to protect the internals against combustion acids.

I've found that Boron usually tracks well with TBN. A TBN that's ~1 usually also has a Boron getting close to zero. He's got plenty of Boron left, so my assumption as he'd have plenty of TBN left. If you knew the starting Boron of this oil, you could do a little math to guestimate the TBN.

 

[TiGeo]

What stands out to me is how the prior oils basically showed the same level of wear, despite having lower levels of AW additives.

The issue is likely more to do with data density here...the last UOA was 30K ago no trend to look at.

 

[KCJeep]

A change of 4 ppm Al or .2 cst@100 isn’t even worth mentioning. Both tiny and easily within Blackstone’s margin of error.

 

[RDY4WAR]

I haven't read the thread so maybe it's been touched already, but the increase in aluminum could be from cleaning. As carbon deposits form in an engine, it can trap microscopic wear metals. Then when a good cleaning oil comes along and dissolves the deposits, it kicks those metals back into suspension. That's most likely what's happening here. It's common to see with oils that contain a decent amount of ester. I wouldn't worry about it. The ICP's margin of error could account for a ppm or two of that as well.

Next time, I recommend using Polaris or WearCheck to get oxidation and TBN. They're both cheaper than BS anyway.

It's difficult to say if the fuel dilution is correct as BS uses a less accurate method than other labs. Given the flash point, I would say the fuel percentage is likely slightly higher than they report. Still, the KV100 is well within range for a 30 grade. Good report.

 

[spasm3]

I haven't read the thread so maybe it's been touched already, but the increase in aluminum could be from cleaning. As carbon deposits form in an engine, it can trap microscopic wear metals. Then when a good cleaning oil comes along and dissolves the deposits, it kicks those metals back into suspension. That's most likely what's happening here. It's common to see with oils that contain a decent amount of ester. I wouldn't worry about it. The ICP's margin of error could account for a ppm or two of that as well.

Next time, I recommend using Polaris or WearCheck to get oxidation and TBN. They're both cheaper than BS anyway.

It's difficult to say if the fuel dilution is correct as BS uses a less accurate method than other labs. Given the flash point, I would say the fuel percentage is likely slightly higher than they report. Still, the KV100 is well within range for a 30 grade. Good report.

Could also be particles of hard carbon being cleaned from the ring lands, and abrading the piston/piston skirt on the way out.

 

[FZ1]

1993 Volvo 240, 233,000 miles, 5,400 mile OCI; HPL No VII 5W30 Euro, Mann W917 filter

This is the first run with HPL. See my post and pictures in the HPL thread.

My plan is to extend the OCI to 7,500 miles and then 10,000 miles if the UOAs indicate it is safe.

Blackstone is concerned about the 3ppm increase in aluminum. To me that’s a small increase. Not sure its enough to worry about. The rest of the report looks solid.

The car is gently driven. 60% highway, 40% local.

Thoughts?

View attachment 155255

Similar results for all three runs.

 

[Impatient]

I know I am a bit surprised. The flashpoint is quite low, supposedly meaning considerable fuel dilution. Yes, there are no VII’s to shear, but to have lost only 0.45cst (if virgin kv100 really is 11.9), then it does make you wonder if thickening has occurred, or if these No VII oils just react differently from the norm (even accounting for no shear). Or perhaps the virgin flashpoint is much lower than what we assume???

 

[TiGeo]

Could also be particles of hard carbon being cleaned from the ring lands, and abrading the piston/piston skirt on the way out.

This sounds far-fetched to me.

 

[TiGeo]

I will say that the cST @100 is interesting as I've looked at a lot of BS reports and seeing flashpoint at this level and a very small fuel % usually means quite a bit more fuel is there than they show based on how they estimate it. I'm suprised the viscosity isn't lower and it could be that this thickened up a bit. I'm not familar with how the ester/PAO oils work here - isn't the oxidation the main reason they don't often get the Euro approvals and could be at play here?

 

[Impatient]

Well, there’s “virgin” oxidation, and then there is “degradation-related” oxidation.

i just checked a screen-print I have of the no-VII PDS. It shows virgin viscosity of the euro 5w30 at 11.19, not 11.9, so my bad for repeating the 11.9 previously. Flashpoint is lower than most other grades or versions of the no-VII, but still above 420. HPL has had typos from time to time (the reported HTHS of their euro 5w20 on the same page is a head-scratcher); regardless, the Blackstone-reported flashpoint is significantly lower than PDS, and the viscosity is higher than PDS. I’m still inclined to think there is something out of whack here between fuel, flashpoint, and viscosity.

when I get a chance, I may look to see if there is a VOA of this oil (or any no-VII) to see what the virgin oxidation is.

 

[buster]

I don't see what the issue is. The virgin viscosity is 11.19 and is now 11.45. Insignificant. You're also talking about B/S labs which isn't the most accurate with any number honestly.

The flashpoint is indicative of substantial fuel dilution, which normally would thin most economy grade 5w30's down to a 20 grade. So the oil held its viscosity well which is the point of this oil.

I'd like to see how the regular No VII 5w30 would compare to the Euro version.