Fuel dilution is countered by fixing the problem causing the dilution, or in the case of some DI engines changing the oil sooner. I have no doubt the HPL products will do better than store bought oil. However IMO the bottom line with cars that have a fuel dilution issue, change the oil sooner rater than later would be the safest bet. A UOA can be used to monitor the dilution and establish a suitable OCI rather than guess, or use the results or opinions of others.
The base HPL PCMO 5/30 in my wife's 2013 Fusion 2.0 EB sheared down to the bottom of 30 grade in a 5k mi run with near zero fuel dilution. This was mostly her short commute city driving with a few long hwy runs of several hundred miles for the 5k run. I've seen a few other 2.0 EB's that are really hard on oil as well. Can't imagine running these with high fuel dilution. Ordered some of the base PCMO 5/40 during the sale the other day. Going to test a UOA on my Canyon's PCMO 5/30 run in another 3-4k mi, I'll likely finish my stash of the 5/30 in the Canyon & run the 5/40 in the Fusion going forward. When the 5/30 is out I'll probably just swap the Canyon to the 5/40 for simplicities sake.
VERY interesting.
$4 Castrol GTX fights viscosity breakdown and $3 SAE 30 doesn’t shart down at all.
It's very possible. The car is on it's 2nd OCI with the base PCMO 5/30 right now. I'm going to run another UOA at the 5k mark when it swaps over to the PCMO 5/40. I have a slight feeling there might have been a bit of PUP 5/30/EC30 left over from the previous run in that initial OCI(both of those are on the thinner side of 30wt). The added viscosity might allow a 10k city run OCI at a lower cost than the Premium or Premium Plus. Will see. It's a high milage commuter car that's been too reliable to consider getting rid of(more reliable at 185k than my Canyon that only has 71.5k on it
)If you don't have cold winter temps, the No-VII line would probably work well, no VII to shear.It's very possible. The car is on it's 2nd OCI with the base PCMO 5/30 right now. I'm going to run another UOA at the 5k mark when it swaps over to the PCMO 5/40. I have a slight feeling there might have been a bit of PUP 5/30/EC30 left over from the previous run in that initial OCI(both of those are on the thinner side of 30wt). The added viscosity might allow a 10k city run OCI at a lower cost than the Premium or Premium Plus. Will see. It's a high milage commuter car that's been too reliable to consider getting rid of(more reliable at 185k than my Canyon that only has 71.5k on it
I thought about the No-VII line. Figured the Canyon didn't require anything like that(trying to run one oil for both commuters) so just settled on the base PCMO 5/40. With the latest order(and leftover previous order) I'll have about 7 gallons of the base PCMO to go through before looking at something else.
That seems to be an awful lot of effort and $ to establish a trend on just one vehicle..
The reward of knowledge and extrapolation of data is valuable. Plus, some consider it a hobby and really interesting regardless. If you have the means, why not?
Go read the thread on my ‘19 F150 UOA, and also several posts by Mr. Ward about their philosophy on how they deal with this. They use known data on how their base oils “work-thicken” over time in use to offset some fuel dilution. If you look at my No VII UOA, it thickened from 11.19 cSt to 12.7 cSt over 14.4k. @wwillson’s samples on his Charger exhibited the same results, but due to a more than double-length run (well over 30k miles!) compared to my OCI, his oil thickened from a 20 grade to a 40 grade.
Yes that would be good!Well, hopefully he reads this and we get to see round 2 with some of the suggestions made in this thread
I fully agree, but if we are talking about wear protection after shear, then isn't it the absolute values that count, not the relative values. Here the 5W40 is higher.But if the wear and deposit performance at the end of the day (look at the change in HTHS for the M1 0W-40) isn't any better, what is there to gain?Don't get me wrong, I think less shear is better, but that's only to a point, as the closer you get to none, it's diminishing returns,
Price point! (Grumble.....mumble....) Over here a 5L jug of M1 or Edge costs about $120.
I suspect the answer is price point. They could make me a cheaper Group-III 10W40 synthetic with the same viscosity retention characteristics as a more expensive Group-IV 0W40 synthetic. And they should allow it to be suitable for A40 & MB229.5 certificate as a "summer" oil. I can run 15W40 here year round. Have I grumbled about cold climate elites yet? <joke>
Just a question, since I’m trying not to doubt LSJr’s oil analysis results for you. Are you certain they use GC for fuel % on all samples? Reason why I ask is the report says “WC method” and the only test I’m aware of with WC initials is water crackle which obviously wouldn’t apply to a fuel test. Just asking.It's very possible. The car is on it's 2nd OCI with the base PCMO 5/30 right now. I'm going to run another UOA at the 5k mark when it swaps over to the PCMO 5/40. I have a slight feeling there might have been a bit of PUP 5/30/EC30 left over from the previous run in that initial OCI(both of those are on the thinner side of 30wt). The added viscosity might allow a 10k city run OCI at a lower cost than the Premium or Premium Plus. Will see. It's a high milage commuter car that's been too reliable to consider getting rid of(more reliable at 185k than my Canyon that only has 71.5k on it
Not sure. I can email them to inquire. I know the "smell" test isn't very accurate but a small amount of fuel generally reeks (like in my in-laws 1.5T Honda). This 2.0 EB has never had a fuel smell during a change so I took the results as accurate.
I’m on the same page with the smell test being completely unreliable… that 14.4k sample from my Eco smelled literally like straight gasoline to my nose, and WearCheck used GC and reported <1%. I’m just curious because I don’t think anybody else’s UOAs have noted anywhere close to a 20% viscosity loss on HPL PCEO.
Yes, wrong report was on pg1 of the link.
Because maybe that data is eventually redundant is all I'm saying. The trends would have been long established.
Wear Check did the testing, not Speed Diagnostix (LSJr). The Wear Check testing kits were sourced through HPL.
You can find all my data and most up-to-date trend graph if you look. I did this based on the modifications I was doing and just because it's fun/interesting to have data. You'll see some interesting trends related to engine mods and mechanical issues it's shown. My goal was 100k and after this year I will drop the UOAs most likely.
