Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy 0w-30 2,500 miles Ford Bronco 2.7L ecoboost (out of grade?)

[2.7ecoboostFordBronco]

Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy 0W-30 (owners manual/Ford WSS-M2C963-A1 spec compliant):

(yes, flame suit on for using blackstone....I'm new here)

Obviously it's blackstone analysis of M1 AFE 0W-30 at 2578 miles on a 2.7L ecoboost in a Ford Bronco, 3000 miles total on the engine (did a 500 mile first change to get rid of the factory fill).

It appears that it sheared or diluted out of viscosity grade after only 2500 miles! I think xxW-30 oil is suppposed to stay between 9.3-12.5 centistokes at 100C according to chart SAE J300 even though Blackstone says 8.8-11..9?

Pending blackstone getting around to it (took about 5 weeks to get this one), I also have a virgin/unused M1 AFE 0w-30 analysis and a 6000 mile analysis from my other bronco, with the same model of engine. I'm bracing myself for that result to be below 8 centistokes.

Furthermore I've researched (apologies for being new to UOA) that Blackstone's fuel dilution numbers may not be accurate. As a result, I also sent the 6000 mile sample to Speed Diagnostix who do the gas chormatogrpahy analysis for more accurate fuel dilution results. It will be interesting to compare the two fuel dilution numbers from the same sample. No offense to Blackstone intended, I'm sure they're fine folks and I had some of their sample kits on-hand, which is why I used them here. If the results of the Speed Diagnostix GC fuel dilution numbers match Blackstone's estimates, I will state such.

I am in a cold climate, which is why I'm using the 0W-30. This and the Amalie 0W-30 are the only two 0w-30 oils I've found that comply with Ford WSS-M2C963-A1 spec. Even so, this result has me contemplating a different oil and maybe a switch to a 5W-30 (the manual's recommended "normal" climate grade) in summer since I usually do an oil change at summer/winter tire changeover anyway. I rarely see the oil temp on the gauge cluster over 200F and ambient temps never get much over 70F so I'm not sure what I should do. Maybe I will try a botique oil like the HPL 0W-30 or Amsoil SIgnature 0W-30 to combat the possible fuel dilution issue.

Is it also possible that Ford accounted for the fuel dilution when making the specs for the ecoboost, and bumped up the recommended viscosicty grade to account for it?

I might try Mobil 1 ESP 0w-30 even though M1 doesn't advertise it as meeting spec WSS-M2C963-A1. After BITOG research, I believe these specifications have become a pay-to-play scheme by the Automakers which have also incorporated some "cost of ownership" and/or enviro-efficiency requirements which may not 100% align with the owner's desire for engine longevity and performance.

 

[buster]

It's been a characteristic of this particular grade, and some others, for quite some time.

ESP is more shear stable and has a Noack of 9.1%.

 

[2.7ecoboostFordBronco]

It's been a characteristic of this grade, and some others, for quite some time.

ESP is more shear stable and has a Noack of 9.1%.

View attachment 233297

Do you know the date of this VOA? I have been reading that the formulation of the M1 AFE 0w30 has changed several times over the last ~ 5 years.

 

[Slick3914]

The wear looks great for a new engine, there is nothing to worry about here.

 

[kschachn]

Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy 0W-30 (owners manual/Ford WSS-M2C963-A1 spec compliant):

Attached below is a blackstone analysis at 2578 miles on a 2.7L ecoboost in a Ford Bronco, 3000 miles total on the engine (did a 500 mile first change to get rid of the factory fill).

It appears that it sheared out of viscosity grade after only 2500 miles! I think xxW-30 oil is suppposed to stay between 9.3-12.5 centistokes at 100C according to chart SAE J300 even though Blackstone says 8.8-11..9?

Pending blackstone getting around to it (took about 5 weeks to get this one), I also have a virgin/unused M1 AFE 0w-30 analysis and a 6000 mile analysis from my other bronco, with the same model of engine. I'm bracing myself for that result to be below 8 centistokes.

Furthermore I've researched (apologies for being new to UOA) that Blackstone's fuel dilution numbers may not be accurate. As a result, I also sent the 6000 mile sample to Speed Diagnostix who do the gas chormatogrpahy analysis for more accurate fuel dilution results. It will be interesting to compare the two fuel dilution numbers from the same sample. No offense to Blackstone intended, I'm sure they're fine folks and I have used them for aviation oil analysis in the past, which is why I used them here. If the results of the Speed Diagnostix GC fuel dilution numbers match Blackstone's estimates, I will state such.

I am in a cold climate, which is why I'm using the 0W-30. This and the Amalie 0W-30 are the only two 0w-30 oils I've found that comply with Ford WSS-M2C963-A1 spec. Even so, this result has me contemplating a different oil and maybe a switch to a 5W-30 in summer since I usually do an oil change at summer/winter tire changeover anyway. I rarely see the oil temp on the gauge cluster over 200F and ambient temps never get much over 70F so I'm not sure what I should do. Maybe I will try a botique oil like the HPL 0W-30 or Amsoil SIgnature 0W-30 to combat the possible fuel dilution issue.

Is it also possible that Ford accounted for the fuel dilution when making the specs for the ecoboost, and bumped up the recommended viscosicty grade to account for it?

View attachment 233285
View attachment 233287

I might try Mobil 1 ESP 0w-30 even though M1 doesn't advertise it as meeting spec WSS-M2C963-A1. After BITOG research, I believe these specifications have become a pay-to-play scheme by the Automakers which have also incorporated some "cost of ownership" and/or enviro-efficiency requirements which may not 100% align with the owner's desire for engine longevity and performance.

Quite a bit of imagination going on in your post.

But in regards to that Blackstone analysis in particular no one can tell from their analysis whether a viscosity deviation is due to fuel dilution or mechanical shear of the VM. We have seen repeated instances of them making wildly incorrect estimations. You can draw no conclusions from that analysis.

 

[2.7ecoboostFordBronco]

Quite a bit of imagination going on in your post.

But in regards to that Blackstone analysis in particular no one can tell from their analysis whether a viscosity deviation is due to fuel dilution or mechanical shear of the VM. We have seen repeated instances of them making wildly incorrect estimations. You can draw no conclusions from that analysis.

Yes and I’ve switched to speed diagnostix for subsequent analyses of this oil and will post the results here when I receive them.

I’m simply looking for advice based on the results here if I should switch to a different oil or not, and if so which one? Maybe I can’t know until I get the GC fuel dilution numbers from the other lab from the 6000 OCI sample.

 

[buster]

Do you know the date of this VOA? I have been reading that the formulation of the M1 AFE 0w30 has changed several times over the last ~ 5 years.

Sorry that is a shear stability test. Only 1.3% viscosity loss. It's from 2022 so it's possible it has changed but the ESP oils do use a more shear stable polymer.

As others have said though it's only one UOA.

 

[PWMDMD]

Yes and I’ve switched to speed diagnostix for subsequent analyses of this oil and will post the results here when I receive them.

I’m simply looking for advice based on the results here if I should switch to a different oil or not, and if so which one? Maybe I can’t know until I get the GC fuel dilution numbers from the other lab from the 6000 OCI sample.

Based on what you've posted no one can give you that answer because no one can tell if the lower viscosity was due to fuel dilution or sheer or both.

 

[bullwinkle]

M1 0W30 AFE sheared into solid 20 weight territory in the xB in my sig at 7000 miles, while M1 5W30 EP was still in grade at 10,000 (which I’ve used in it ever since). The UOA is on here somewhere, but it was years ago.

 

[bullwinkle]

Actually found it-search under my username, use search words scion xB UOA, I’m having trouble pasting the URL in here. No sign of fuel in mine, but the timing chains, high gearing, & VVT-I did a number on it.

 

[fantastic]

The result itself looks good w/o fuel results but it is a bit low.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Yes and I’ve switched to speed diagnostix for subsequent analyses of this oil and will post the results here when I receive them.

I’m simply looking for advice based on the results here if I should switch to a different oil or not, and if so which one? Maybe I can’t know until I get the GC fuel dilution numbers from the other lab from the 6000 OCI sample.

WearCheck in NC will give you every bit as good of results as SpeedDiagnostix at half the price. My last sample delivered Friday afternoon and the report posted Monday early afternoon. They use gas chromatography. My 3.5 EB showed less than 1% fuel, and my Subaru Ascent showed 6.3%. They do good work.

 

[Hirev]

For a nearly new engine I think the 0w 30 looks fine. I've used a lot of this over the years. What I like about it seems to work very well for those of us up north with cold winter season.

 

[ka9mnx]

It's in the noise...

 

[2.7ecoboostFordBronco]

It's in the noise...

Cryptic, care to expound? I guess I should've just not posted this analysis and waited for the results from the other lab.

 

[daves87rs]

The result itself looks good w/o fuel results but it is a bit low.

Agreed

 

[4WD]

Based on what you've posted no one can give you that answer because no one can tell if the lower viscosity was due to fuel dilution or sheer or both.

It’s shear dirty old man
(But point taken)

 

[himemsys]

There have been lots of UOAs on here over the years of M1 AFE 0W30 ending as a 20 grade. I think it's a normal characteristic of this oil.

 

[ka9mnx]

Cryptic, care to expound? I guess I should've just not posted this analysis and waited for the results from the other lab.

It isn't anything to worry about.

 

[dnewton3]

Herein lays the problem with focusing too much on inputs (FP, additives, vis, etc) and not looking more at the outputs (wear metals). Further, singular (or small sample sets) UOAs are NOT a good basis to make any determination one way or another about a lubricant in terms of something being better or worse than another product. This is a rookie mistake; a misunderstanding of why to use a UOA and how to interpret them. OP - you can take solace that you're not alone here; way too many BITOGers don't understand the proper use of UOAs.

The UOA shows that this very young engine is fine. The wear metals are actually very low for only the second oil load. The break-in wear seems quite reasonable.

As for the question about vis in your report, this is how I understand the issue ... BS does not use industry standard vis parameters in their reports. Instead they use a "should be" range factor; they show the tested value and then report it against their historically expected value. Some folks accept this while others eschew the practice. That's up to you to decide how to move forward with their info. Just realize that the "should be" values won't always align with accepted API, ILSAC and other more commonly accepted standards.