Mobil 1 5w20 Ext Perf, 1500mi Coyote 5.0L SC

[oesman]

Original thread on future/current oil viscosity selection can be found here: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthr...Oil#Post4520299 Essentially this is the UOA I got from the Mobil 1 5w20 which is the recommended viscosity for the stock Coyote 5L engine in the '16 Mustang GTs. The oil had about 1,500 miles on it, but as described in the above post the engine has a much higher output at this point.

Code:

Oil Analyzers Inc.

Date Sampled		10/04/2017
Date Received		10/12/2017
Miles Used		1,500
Miles Engine		5,424
Lube Changed		Yes
Filter Changed		Yes
Fuel Dilution		<1% Vol
Soot			<.1% Vol
Water			<.1% Vol
Viscosity @100C		7.8cSt
Base Number		3.20mg KOH/g
Oxidation		9abs/cm
Nitration		9abs/0.1mm


Iron		16
Chromium	0
Nickel		0
Aluminum	4
Copper		6
Lead		33
Tin		0
Cadmium		0
Silver		0
Vanadium	0
Silicon		11
Sodium		4
Potassium	7
Titanium	0
Molybdenum	78
Antimony	0
Manganese	101
Lithium		0
Boron		71
Magnesium	728
Calcium		1077
Barium		0
Phosphorus	724
Zinc		771

Notes from lab:

Quote:

Flagged data does not indicate an immediate need for maintenance action. Continue to observe the trend and monitor equipment and fluid conditions. LEAD is at a MODERATE LEVEL and may be OVERLAY METAL from MAIN/ROD BEARINGS; or; Lead possibly from solder; Base Number is SLIGHTLY LOW. As Base Number depletes, the ability to neutralize acids is diminished. MANGANESE is at a MINOR LEVEL; Manganese sources in unleaded gasoline engines include manganese/bronze valve guides and/or an additive added to the fuel; Lubricant and filter change acknowledged. Your note was taken into consideration. Report has been regenerated.

From the report I'm pretty glad I'm going to thicker 10w40 oil since this stuff is pretty low viscosity at just 1,500 miles from the abuse of the supercharged engine. Lead is a concern, but it's possible it came from the bottom of my fuel barrel since I run a blend of race/pump gas. I use unleaded race gas, but it's not the first time this barrel has been used. I thought I'd see copper with the lead if it was from bearings. Any thoughts? The manganese is almost certainly from the unleaded race fuel. I've got a second report coming from Blackstone Labs to compare. Will be interesting if it's the same or not.

 

[aquariuscsm]

I'd go with Ford's 5W50 spec.

 

[4WD]

There are not many 10w40’s … why not one of the euro 0w40’s ? Great bang for the buck …

 

[oesman]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm

I'd go with Ford's 5W50 spec.

I might do that if the 10w40 doesn't work out well. I'll get it tested after some track time.

Originally Posted By: 4WD

There are not many 10w40’s … why not one of the euro 0w40’s ? Great bang for the buck …

The 10w40 I picked is Motul 300V Chrono which is a euro oil. The other one I might try is the Redline 10w40 after I test this Motul in a few 500mi increments and after hopefully a little track time. Overall not super concerned on bang for buck since I'm not trying to squeeze miles out of it, just engine life.

 

[FlyNavyP3]

I'm about 99.9% certain that your engine uses a bi-metal aluminum bearing in the connecting rod and main position. Of the hundreds I've taken apart I've never seen an OE tri metal (containing lead) bearing used. So I think you're correct on the source of the lead. M1 10w40 HM is a stout oil if you want a 10w40, any of the euro 0w40 would also be suitable. At a lower cost and just as much protection a 15w40 CJ-4/SM or CK-4 (not a dual rated CK-4/SN) would also be suitable.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: FlyNavyP3

I'm about 99.9% certain that your engine uses a bi-metal aluminum bearing in the connecting rod and main position. Of the hundreds I've taken apart I've never seen an OE tri metal (containing lead) bearing used. So I think you're correct on the source of the lead. M1 10w40 HM is a stout oil if you want a 10w40, any of the euro 0w40 would also be suitable. At a lower cost and just as much protection a 15w40 CJ-4/SM or CK-4 (not a dual rated CK-4/SN) would also be suitable.

This is correct, bi-metal bearings.

 

[CT8]

M1 EP isn't really a very good oil especially in high output engines it potentially lasts longer that is it . It doesn't keep the parts apart as compared to other M1 offerings.

 

[oesman]

Originally Posted By: FlyNavyP3

I'm about 99.9% certain that your engine uses a bi-metal aluminum bearing in the connecting rod and main position. Of the hundreds I've taken apart I've never seen an OE tri metal (containing lead) bearing used. So I think you're correct on the source of the lead. M1 10w40 HM is a stout oil if you want a 10w40, any of the euro 0w40 would also be suitable. At a lower cost and just as much protection a 15w40 CJ-4/SM or CK-4 (not a dual rated CK-4/SN) would also be suitable.

Yea that makes sense. So I've got lead contamination from my fuel barrel most likely or some solder somewhere I guess. Unless Sunoco is lying about being TEL free (unleaded) lol, would explain why it performs amazingly in my engine vs. similar Gulf and VP unleaded offerings I tried. I might try the M1 10w40 if the Motul 10W40 doesn't pan out. Thanks for the suggestion and letting me know about the lack of lead in the bearings, super appreciated!

Originally Posted By: CT8

M1 EP isn't really a very good oil especially in high output engines it potentially lasts longer that is it . It doesn't keep the parts apart as compared to other M1 offerings.

:-( it's just what I had around last time and it's recommended for the engine. I know better now since the output has been increased so much.

 

[oesman]

Doesn't look like I can actually edit my old post. I just got data back from Blackstone Labs. Here is the new table:

Code:

Date Sampled		10/04/2017
Date Received		10/12/2017
Miles Used		1,500
Miles Engine		5,424
Lube Changed		Yes				
Filter Changed		Yes


Lab Name:		Oil Analyzers Inc.		Blackstone Laboratories


Fuel Dilution		<1% Vol				<0.5% Vol
Soot			<.1% Vol			0.1% Vol
Water			<.1% Vol			0.0% Vol
Glycol			N/A				0.0% Vol
Viscosity 100C		7.8cSt				7.6cSt
Base Number		3.20mg KOH/g			N/A
Oxidation		9abs/cm				N/A
Nitration		9abs/0.1mm			N/A


Iron			16 ppm				19ppm
Chromium		0 ppm				0 ppm
Nickel			0 ppm				0 ppm
Aluminum		4 ppm				6 ppm
Copper			6 ppm				7 ppm
Lead			33 ppm				41 ppm
Tin			0 ppm				0 ppm
Cadmium			0 ppm				N/A
Silver			0 ppm				0 ppm
Vanadium		0 ppm				N/A
Silicon			11 ppm				12 ppm
Sodium			4 ppm				5 ppm
Potassium		7 ppm				4 ppm
Titanium		0 ppm				0 ppm
Molybdenum		78 ppm				88 ppm
Antimony		0 ppm				N/A
Manganese		101 ppm				105 ppm
Lithium			0 ppm				N/A
Boron			71 ppm				80 ppm
Magnesium		728 ppm				865 ppm
Calcium			1077 ppm			1167 ppm
Barium			0 ppm				0 ppm
Phosphorus		724 ppm				799 ppm
Zinc			771 ppm				915 ppm

Quote from Oil Analyzers:

Code:

Flagged data does not indicate an immediate need for maintenance action. Continue to observe the trend and 
monitor equipment and fluid conditions. LEAD is at a MODERATE LEVEL and may be OVERLAY METAL from MAIN/ROD 
BEARINGS; or; Lead possibly from solder; Base Number is SLIGHTLY LOW. As Base Number depletes, the ability to 
neutralize acids is diminished. MANGANESE is at a MINOR LEVEL; Manganese sources in unleaded gasoline engines 
include manganese/bronze valve guides and/or an additive added to the fuel; Lubricant and filter change 
acknowledged. Your note was taken into consideration. Report has been regenerated.

Quote from Blackstone:

Code:

Thanks for the notes. This engine is still young, so a lot of the extra metal is just residual wear-in
material that's still washing out. Universal averages for a stock Coyote engine are based on about 5,900
miles of oil use and your results should be similar soon, but maybe not since your engine is supercharged.
Trends will be the best way to gauge wear. These engines don't have lead bearings, so the lead we're
seeing is probably from the fuel you used. 104 octane may be labeled "unleaded," but chances are that it
had some in it, which is harmless. Nice first report!

So as you can see the results are fairly different but seem to indicate similar performance overall. i.e. there is no major surprise, like one showing a ton of copper or aluminum, etc... However if you look at some of the things like Zinc the variance is huge. Blackstone told me their margin of error is around 3 ppm. So assuming the other company has a similar margin of error (waiting to hear) it means we're way outside for this to be margin of error at >100 ppm variances. My method for sample distribution was to take the sample mid stream and store one big container. I then shook it up before distributing a sample into each lab's jar. It's not like I took samples at different parts of the stream. I'm trying to be as scientific as possible. I spoke with my step father and mother, who are both material scientists (nanotech, semiconductor, solar, etc… stuff) and they said outside independent labs often have issues producing accurate results in their experience. They suggested doing what they do, which is to send each lab multiple identical samples and see what you get back. For example to take a virgin jug of oil and split it up into six samples labeled as different. Send three of each to two different labs and see what results are received. They said they’ve experienced vastly different results from some labs where they showed each sample to be completely different from the other, way outside of claimed margin of error. The goal being to at least find one lab that gives consistent and plausible results. I think I might have to do this as a test.

 

[THafeez]

If you do, please let us know which lab is best.

 

[oesman]

Originally Posted By: THafeez

If you do, please let us know which lab is best.

Will do. Of course keep in mind a single test of the lab like this would not guarantee future performance. For instance I could send 3 samples to lab X and the same tech does all 3 perfectly. They're all within the margin of error they advertise. As a result I assume lab X is the way to go. A month later I send 1 more sample and some other tech who comes in drunk does it and ignores standard procedures. See the problem? You'd really have to test the lab regularly to be sure of their practices. This is of course easier/cheaper if the lab is part of your own organization vs. a third party lab. Since most of us are doing this as a hobby I doubt anyone is willing to spend the dough to routinely validate the various labs we use. However for our purposes my proposed test should still be better than nothing.

 

[danielLD]

I've outlined some of these points often, I do this for money as you pointed out. Have worked for many labs and now work filtration for a military filtration OEM. Blackstone uses 0 standards and is not certified to any standard. I would trust oil analyzers over Blackstone, ANY day of the week. Yes, you have to constantly test labs, left and right. Even good labs make mistakes as you mentioned, it's why you have to be a sharp analyst to know when something isn't right. What your step father has suggested is controversial. Here's why, you can have a perfectly calibrated Thermo ICP and get 10 different results from the same sample, it's how the machine works, Atomic absorption is different of emission and all the other type of elemental analysis machines out there. I've argued many times on here, people should question the testing methods more often. The noise on these machines on average is 5ppm of variation. Some are more sensitive to chromium, etc. Now if you suspect a specific test is not being reported properly, then you might consider sending to another lab for cross verification. 1. M1EP is a fantastic oil. 2. I'd go to either RLI 5W30 or Amsoil SS 0W30 for this engine. I've personally guided at least 20 super and twin turbo coyotes, having previously owned a 750HP S550, myself as well. 3. Someone suggested a 50 weight, yet they don't know much about the ford 50 weight. By the time it has 300 miles, it's sheared to a 40 weight. I've tested too many GT350's to know this. I recently tested a 2017 Ford GT too. 4. No need for a 40 weight, unless you are road racing this car. If drag racing or DD, you will achieve better results from a 30 weight.

 

[oesman]

Originally Posted By: danielLD

What your step father has suggested is controversial. Here's why, you can have a perfectly calibrated Thermo ICP and get 10 different results from the same sample, it's how the machine works, Atomic absorption is different of emission and all the other type of elemental analysis machines out there. I've argued many times on here, people should question the testing methods more often. The noise on these machines on average is 5ppm of variation. Some are more sensitive to chromium, etc. Now if you suspect a specific test is not being reported properly, then you might consider sending to another lab for cross verification.

Thanks for your reply, I really appreciate it. I think what we were talking about is getting results that make sense consistently. I'd accept a 5ppm margin of error if all the 10 samples came back somewhat inside that margin of error. However if I'm being told the margin of error is 3ppm and I get a variance of >100ppm that seems fishy. That's really what we're trying to nail down. I don't think anyone expects the identical samples to give a perfect 1:1 result.

Quote:

4. No need for a 40 weight, unless you are road racing this car. If drag racing or DD, you will achieve better results from a 30 weight.

I am building it into a NASA road racing spec build, just sees street time now while it's somewhat street legal. . I was considering a 30 weight though!

 

[danielLD]

Originally Posted By: oesman

Originally Posted By: danielLD

What your step father has suggested is controversial. Here's why, you can have a perfectly calibrated Thermo ICP and get 10 different results from the same sample, it's how the machine works, Atomic absorption is different of emission and all the other type of elemental analysis machines out there. I've argued many times on here, people should question the testing methods more often. The noise on these machines on average is 5ppm of variation. Some are more sensitive to chromium, etc. Now if you suspect a specific test is not being reported properly, then you might consider sending to another lab for cross verification.

Thanks for your reply, I really appreciate it. I think what we were talking about is getting results that make sense consistently. I'd accept a 5ppm margin of error if all the 10 samples came back somewhat inside that margin of error. However if I'm being told the margin of error is 3ppm and I get a variance of >100ppm that seems fishy. That's really what we're trying to nail down. I don't think anyone expects the identical samples to give a perfect 1:1 result.

Quote:

4. No need for a 40 weight, unless you are road racing this car. If drag racing or DD, you will achieve better results from a 30 weight.

I am building it into a NASA road racing spec build, just sees street time now while it's somewhat street legal. . I was considering a 30 weight though!

PM for your next UOA, especially on a supercharged engine, you'll see what I'm talking about. 2. >100ppm is not all that fishy, there's so much behind the scenes that people on this forum don't understand. The ceramic pieces inside the ICP machine, if they're cleaned every 200 samples vs. 50 will make a difference. There is so much stuff that goes into these machines. Some calibrations are more sensitive to certain elements. The margin of error is closer to around 15ppm, and then there's the argument of how that margin is calculated, LOL. Evan Zabawski recently wrote an article for the STLE, outlining these issues. I think it was in the May copy.

 

[oesman]

Thanks again, super interesting. I'll have to do a lot more reading about how this all works. I figured there was a decent margin of error, but didn't think that 100ppm+ would fall within it. I figured procedure would play a role in accuracy for sure, just not as much as that.

 

[danielLD]

Originally Posted By: oesman

Thanks again, super interesting. I'll have to do a lot more reading about how this all works. I figured there was a decent margin of error, but didn't think that 100ppm+ would fall within it. I figured procedure would play a role in accuracy for sure, just not as much as that.

For metals, that would be an issue, but for elements like calcium, zinc, phos, I've seen a variation of 100ppm on different labs. Yes, it gets super technical. There's so much that lies in the setup of the machine and the maintenance. A perfectly calibrated ICP isn't worth much if it's poorly maintained. Plus Standards(in a lab, what we call the little bottles that carry known PPMs which we feed the ICP) are not cheap. So some labs don't run standards every 50 tests, they might do once every 200 or even 500. If I find the article I'll link it here, give me some time to find it for you.

 

[oesman]

@danielLD It's very interesting. I talked to Oil Analyzers and got their standards list. I'm now researching each standard to understand the methods involved. I think once I can totally quantify the standards/certifications they claim I can further quantify my results from future testing. I'll post what I find and I'd love your response once I do that testing. I'll let you know when I'm ready to do more testing. I took the Mustang for a street run today because it was beautiful out, perfect boost season in the low 70s! Pulls like a freight train with 22 degrees of timing .