Mobil 1 5W20, 25000 miles, 2000 Ford V10 Triton

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by JLTD
At that distance you could save money and time by using either an Amsoil filter(25k miles/1 year) or a Fram Ultra (20k miles).

Interesting results, wasn't this a neglected engine?


Thanks, I'm considering upgrading to the Fram Ulta next filter change. Yes it was neglected as far as no oil changes,and no maintenance period which is not a good thing. A long list of items had to be fixed to get this truck back roadworthy.:)
 
Originally Posted by 53' Stude
Originally Posted by A310
Originally Posted by Patman
I have also heard that bypass filtration is good down to about 1 or 2 microns. Think about it, why would anyone bother to install such a system if it was only going to filter out particles of the same size as a regular oil filter? So if in fact it's filtering out particles this small, I'm afraid it probably makes any UOA results pretty much worthless, other than looking at the condition of the oil itself after all that time (but even then, with that much top up and with different oils used, what did we learn here?)


From this UOA I learned that:

1. I don't have to change the oil and can continue using it. (Next UOA in 10,000 miles)
2. Oil is still dirty.
3. The TBN has improved.
4. Wear metals have decreased,
5. Insolubles have decreased.
6. Fuel % has decreased.
7. Viscosity has increased. (Added 1 qrt 15W40)
8. If you take your car to Jiffy Lube, make sure your getting what you paid for.:)

Contrary to popular belief, you can't filter out the wear metals with a bypass filter, they will continue to increase over time. The only reason that the wear metals have started to decrease on this engine is due to the 2000-2500 miles bypass filter changes. Sump is 6-7 qrts and the replaced oil is 7 qrts in the 10,000 miles that I have owned it. Lastly I can confirm the reason my bypass filters are plugging up in 2000-2500 miles is because the engine oil is still dirty. I'll take another sample in 10,000 miles with a particle count to confirm whether or not the oil cleanliness has improved, I'll know from the frequency of the bypass filter changes.



Thank You sir for this UOA and all your hard work. I am learning a lot from you
smile.gif



Thanks
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted by A310
Originally Posted by dave1251
With the top offs, filtration, different viscosities, brands, and additive packages. The oil itself seems in good condition. If the bypass is clogging with so much frequency and I suspect this V-10 was slugged in good order. Frequent changes are likely helping but it will take a while to clean.


True, I never pulled the valve covers, but there was a layer of milky brown sludge on the oil fill cap, so I knew it wasn't good. I'm not sure how long it's going to take to clean this one up, but it's slowly improving.

Thats because the oil cap is raised off the engine far enough it doesnt get hot to vaporise condensation that accumulates there. water+oil vapor = milky sludge. Nothing to worry about. Just wipe it off.
Usually on a mod motor I can stick a flashlight down the oil fill hole and get a small view of the cyl head. Enough to see if its sludged or what not.
 
Originally Posted by A310
From this UOA I learned that:

... Contrary to popular belief, you can't filter out the wear metals with a bypass filter, they will continue to increase over time. The only reason that the wear metals have started to decrease on this engine is due to the 2000-2500 miles bypass filter changes.


I am going to disagree here.
A typical cellulose or syn media filter has no ability (none whatsoever) to discern what it captures or passes in terms of wear metals. I catches stuff based on size, not composition. If we assume that your assertion is fair ( let's say the media is absolute at 2um; anything that size and larger is caught by this filter set-up), then ANY PARTICLE presented to the media will be caught if large enough (2um+). Because wear particles come in all sizes, there is not only a presumption, but nearly an assurance, that while the filter does reduce damaging abrasive particle load, it also removes the evidence of wear wear as well. Since a UOA using typical spectral analysis can see stuff from sub-micron up to around 5um in size, then the BP element you're using most certainly is removing evidence of wear that would exist between 2-5um in size. In short, PCs can see size but not composition, whereas UOAs can see composition but not size. It is completely unfair to attribute the ability of one to another, and therefore we cannot reasonably make assertions such as what you did; that the BP element somehow is not reducing the PC of wear metals in the range of 2-5um.

As a quick, off the cuff, example, the data would be affected thusly:
- anything smaller than 2um will be seen by the UOA (wear metals, silica, etc), but not stopped by the BP element
- between 2um and 5um, stuff still can be seen by the UOA, but the percentage present is altered by the capture ratio of the BP element
- anything larger than 5um cannot be seen by the UOA, but still will be stopped by the media

You cannot accurately state that "Contrary to popular belief, you can't filter out the wear metals with a bypass filter ..." That is absurd. Your statement that "they will continue to increase over time" is correct, but that is because the particles below 2um are still accumulating in the sump and therefore the count goes up in the UOA. Some of the wear evidence is lost to the BP filter. In fact, even a typical FF filter will remove metal particles, but because that typical FF filter is absolute around 20um or so, there's no way a UOA would know any difference.

Your logic is flawed.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by dnewton3
Originally Posted by A310
From this UOA I learned that:

... Contrary to popular belief, you can't filter out the wear metals with a bypass filter, they will continue to increase over time. The only reason that the wear metals have started to decrease on this engine is due to the 2000-2500 miles bypass filter changes.


I am going to disagree here.
A typical cellulose or syn media filter has no ability (none whatsoever) to discern what it captures or passes in terms of wear metals. I catches stuff based on size, not composition. If we assume that your assertion is fair ( let's say the media is absolute at 2um; anything that size and larger is caught by this filter set-up), then ANY PARTICLE presented to the media will be caught if large enough (2um+). Because wear particles come in all sizes, there is not only a presumption, but nearly an assurance, that while the filter does reduce damaging abrasive particle load, it also removes the evidence of wear wear as well. Since a UOA using typical spectral analysis can see stuff from sub-micron up to around 5um in size, then the BP element you're using most certainly is removing evidence of wear that would exist between 2-5um in size. In short, PCs can see size but not composition, whereas UOAs can see composition but not size. It is completely unfair to attribute the ability of one to another, and therefore we cannot reasonably make assertions such as what you did; that the BP element somehow is not reducing the PC of wear metals in the range of 2-5um.

As a quick, off the cuff, example, the data would be affected thusly:
- anything smaller than 2um will be seen by the UOA (wear metals, silica, etc), but not stopped by the BP element
- between 2um and 5um, stuff still can be seen by the UOA, but the percentage present is altered by the capture ratio of the BP element
- anything larger than 5um cannot be seen by the UOA, but still will be stopped by the media

You cannot accurately state that "Contrary to popular belief, you can't filter out the wear metals with a bypass filter ..." That is absurd. Your statement that "they will continue to increase over time" is correct, but that is because the particles below 2um are still accumulating in the sump and therefore the count goes up in the UOA. Some of the wear evidence is lost to the BP filter. In fact, even a typical FF filter will remove metal particles, but because that typical FF filter is absolute around 20um or so, there's no way a UOA would know any difference.

Your logic is flawed.



Thanks for the reply,

I agree with you 100%. I'm referring to the wear metals that are in the UOA, not the particle count. It never even occurred to me that one would think I was talking about the particle count. I shall make myself clearer in the future.:) I'm running bypass filters on three vehicles and am well aware of what they will and will not filter.
 
Originally Posted by Brigadier
If you are trying to clean up this engine, why the long OCI?


I wanted to know how well my MotorGuard would work on an engine like this one. Yes normally I would do short drains and filter changes until the oil reports improved. In this case I only added this bypass filter, changed the full flow filter and topped up the oil. I only change the bypass filter when it no longer flows oil, which in this case is 2000-2500 miles and the full flow 10,000 miles. When the oil finally cleans up I should be able to increase this to 5000 miles before I have to change out the bypass. This is an assumption on my part, but we'll see how it turns out. I'll post another UOA in a year or so with a particle count and see how it's improved if any.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top