M1 5w30 - 3815 OCI , 29113mi, 2011 F-150 Ecoboost

[nitehawk55]

Originally Posted By: gap599

tspangle88, have a look at the UOA's I have posted from my ecoboost. My first UOA showed 3.3% fuel, the next 3 UOAs were <0.5, 0.8, and <0.5, so having high fuel dilution in one sample may not be indicative of a problem. I would continue on as normal, and do another UOA or two to establish a trend before I got too excited about it. Note that the UOA with the 3.3% was during break-in, so that could be the reason for the high reading.

Are you running 87 or 91 in yours Gap ? I think my son runs 87 in his .

 

[gap599]

Nitehawk, I'm just running 87, but the majority of my driving is on the highway, so that probably helps.

 

[tspangle88]

I run 87 in it, though I've been intending to try 93. I guess I'll get another UOA done at my next change and see if the fuel is still reading high. Since all my metals look OK, I'm not super-concerned. The fact that the viscosity is low bugs me more, especially since this was only a 3800 mile OCI and I typically do 5000 (changed early because of the impending long road trip).

 

[nitehawk55]

Originally Posted By: gap599

Nitehawk, I'm just running 87, but the majority of my driving is on the highway, so that probably helps.

Most of his is too , lives up by North Bay ON and its always highway to get anywhere up there .

 

[nitehawk55]

Originally Posted By: tspangle88

I run 87 in it, though I've been intending to try 93. I guess I'll get another UOA done at my next change and see if the fuel is still reading high. Since all my metals look OK, I'm not super-concerned. The fact that the viscosity is low bugs me more, especially since this was only a 3800 mile OCI and I typically do 5000 (changed early because of the impending long road trip).

Keep us posted , hopefully it was a fluke but I would still mention it to the dealer if it's under warranty .

 

[Clevy]

The ecu will add fuel and back off timing with lower grade fuel,so this fuel content is likely a result of low octane. Try premium,like the gas cap says for the entire next interval then test and see.

 

[ArtDart]

Use M1 0w40 & premium gas.....hammer down

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted By: nitehawk55

Keep us posted , hopefully it was a fluke but I would still mention it to the dealer if it's under warranty .

I'll bet that his dealer discounts the UOA as being inaccurate and/or irrelevant...

 

[itguy08]

The gas cap or any where else makes no mention of Premium required. In fact the owner's manual says it will run on regular with premium giving "better performance". In 76k I tend to put the cheapest swill I can find in my Ecoboosts and have no issues. I tried premium a couple times for a month each along the way and it made a slight MPG gain but it was not enough to offset the increased cost. It does make it seem "peppier" in the hottest days of the summer - to be expected. I'd still monitor it and see if it is a trend. And check the oil - if it's making oil get it to the dealer ASAP and get them to do the TSB and check the HPFP.

 

[dnewton3]

I fail to see the problem here ... OK - I get that the fuel is high; higher than we'd all like to see. And the Vis is down a bit; not in the expected range. However ... Where is the terrible result in the ENGINE? Don't look at the lube; that is only an input. Look at the wear; more specifically look at the LACK of wear. I could understand all this caterwauling if there were high levels of metals (which there are not). So why are you all fretting over Vis and Fuel as if something horrid is afoot? There is ZERO evidence that the engine was harmed here. Looking at Vis and Fuel and Soot, etc is a great way to predict the potential for lube lifecycle. Looking at metals actually tells you how well the lube performs. Someone PUH-LEEZE show me where the wear is out of control here ... I do not see the connection between your fears and the reality of decent wear. You all cry too much over silly little things. If the OP is going to keep up this style of driving, then I'd recommend a 5w-30 dino meeting the Ford spec (yes, Virginia, there are dino's that meet that Ford spec for lube). That will help keep cost down due to frequent OCIs. There is no rational cause to use a syn for such short OCIs if you're going to dump oil often. Think I'm wrong about dino oil? Ford official owner's manual, 2011 F-150, 3rd ed. page #382

Originally Posted By: Ford Manual

3.5L V6 EcoBoost™ engine To protect your engine and engine’s warranty, use Motorcraft SAE 5W-30 or an equivalent SAE 5W-30 oil meeting Ford specification WSS-M2C929-A.

http://www.fordservicecontent.com/Ford_Content/catalog/owner_guides/11f12og3e.pdf There are a slew of brand name dino lubes that meet that spec, and the newer ones as well. There is nothing in Ford's manuals that require a syn, or even a semi-syn. They designed and tested that engine around the oil spec quoted above. So ANY lube meeting that spec would likely do just as well in such a short OCI duration. tspangle88: I am willing to put my money where my mouth is, too. Try a dino meeting that spec, and see if the wear over the same duration and type use varies outside the "normal" sigma nodes. If the performance is "normal" (as defined by statistical process controls using macro data), then I have proved my point. If not, I will offer to pay for the OCI lube cost; I will put the money in escrow of a third party member here, if that makes one feel better about my challenge. BTW - curious what the IOLM said, percentage wise, when you dumped lube at 3.8K miles. How much life was left according to the IOLM?

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

I fail to see the problem here ...

BITOG is a place people come to find perfection. It is what brings almost everyone here. The search for the perfect oil for their application. There is nothing wrong with the UOA as far as engine wear but it isn't a perfect report. It can be improved. Whether or not that is worth it is debatable. If you don't want perfection, then ignore it.

 

[dnewton3]

That would depend upon how one defines "perfection", does it not? - Are we going to see zero (0) ppm of any metal after 3.8k miles? Would that exhibit "perfect"? Perhaps conceptually, but it's certainly not realistic. - Would we want zero fuel dilution? Sure. But is that realistic with DI? Nope. - Pure vis retention with absolutely no thickening from soot and oxidation, or thinning from fuel and shear? Nope - not in reality. So I define "perfect" as "Perfectly Normal". Normal = macro market data analysis resulting in standardized averages with typical variances. I have over 200 UOAs from EBs in my database; most are from Blackstone (the OPs source). I would know what constitutes "normal" at this point probably better than most of you. In my view, this UOA is perfect; it's completely normal. The wear is in line with other units from similar exposures. The Vis and Fuel are in line with other units from similar exposures. This is a good UOA. The fear mongering should stop. It's not helpful to a newbie (or anyone for that matter) to come here seeking advice and knowledge, and then have fear instilled, manifesting into some insane quest for "perfect" zeros and no change from a VOA. That's not "perfect"; that's absurd. Many BITOGers cannot seem to shift their paradigm to allow for something other than "zero" ... Most folks here have no idea how to find, as you put it, the "perfect oil for their application" because they have no idea how to analyze a UOA in a useful manner.

 

[badtlc]

No. Your definition of perfect is not correct.

 

[dnewton3]

OK - so this UOA is imperfect. And therefore the truck is imperfect. He should junk it immeidately and get a new one. Because it's not "perfect" in some bizzare viewpoint of utopian desire. This is what's wrong with 99% (or more) of the folks on this site. This has become a fan-boy club of people who have little to no understanding of how to use or interpret a UOA. They use it like a toy; it's a play-thing foisted in a game of one-upmanship to see who can get the lowest number in a column. Hey - that's easy; just manipulate the O/FCI to get the most "perfect" value you seek. What a waste of time, money and info. tspangle88: There's nothing wrong with your truck, or your UOA. They are completely normal. If you intend to OCI frequently, then use a qualified dino lube and save yourself money. My offer to escrow money based upon UOA normalcy is always open; all you have to do is ask. .

 

[badtlc]

Again. If you don't like commentary about what can be improved, ignore it. Nobody called this a terrible UOA.

 

[Greasymechtech]

Spike the oil with 1 quart of any 0w40 or 5w40, which will give you the short tripper visc cushion. There is nothing here to complain about to the dealer or Ford. It's smart to UOA the normal driving pattern and not purposely after a long trip.

 

[IndyFan]

I'm here because it is fascinating and entertaining, and I'm a curious soul. However,there is something to be said for ignorance. I doted over the UOA's off my 06 Soltice, but with my Express, I just put either M1 or PP 5w30 in it and ran with it, changing when the olm said to change it. That van idled constantly, so I'd hate to see what the UOA would have looked like. (It spent lots of time at bank, food, and pharmacy drive-ups, and I'm sure at school idling while my wife rolled the window down and talked to friends....just idling away. We traded it with 144k miles on it, and I never saw an oil related issue with the 6.0. It was running good and strong as new when we traded Saturday. It also survived the high-iron M1, as well, as that was the oil of choice about 85% of the time. I'd take the trip, enjoy the engine, and do one when you return, just to see what happens. The EcoBoost in our new Transit is surely going to see idle time approaching that of a police car, so maybe I'll get a couple of these done. I'll bet mine will make you feel a whole lot better about your engine, if idling is the culprit.