This one doesn't make me as happy as my daughter's Jeep 4.0 analysis did, but then I didn't really expect it too. I'm OK with it, just not thrilled. Here's why:
For one thing, forget Blackstone's raving about 'adding 3k miles and the engine didn't notice...' After the first run I put on a new oil filter (a PureOne of the larger size spec'd for turbo 2.4 engines in place of the teacup-sized Wix spec'd for the N/A 2.4 that I used on the first half of the run). That filter swap necessitated a quart of make-up oil, plus the 2.4's notorious PCV consumption (hopefully fixed now by my PCV trap) added ANOTHER quart, plus the half quart on the first run... so this is an analysis with 2.5 make-up quarts on a slightly less than 5 quart fill capacity over a ~7k mile run (note that the TBN and several additives went UP as a result).
So there are lots of caveats on this run, and all of them would make it look worse if they weren't there.
That said, the only thing that genuinely bothers me is the elevated Si... but then everything I've sent in shows some degree of elevated Si though the PT is the worst. Its really not hammering the wear metals, though. I *suspect* the PT is particularly bad because of the other half of the poor PCV system- the make-up air is only filtered by a foam pad in the air box, it does NOT come from the "clean" side of the engine air filter IIRC. I'll have to see if I can re-plumb that without causing more trouble than I fix, or maybe I'll find/concoct an in-line filter I can use on the make-up side.
So in a nutshell- I'm very happy with the little 2.4 engine (internally anyway- not so happy with ancillary systems like PCV), and I think M1 0w30 AFE is good enough for my wife's driving. But if I can get the make-up oil down with the PCV trap, its not going to be all that great as an extended-drain oil... and its really not meant for that. If the consumption doesn't drop, then I might try 8k miles and count on the make-up oil to keep things in the green.
For one thing, forget Blackstone's raving about 'adding 3k miles and the engine didn't notice...' After the first run I put on a new oil filter (a PureOne of the larger size spec'd for turbo 2.4 engines in place of the teacup-sized Wix spec'd for the N/A 2.4 that I used on the first half of the run). That filter swap necessitated a quart of make-up oil, plus the 2.4's notorious PCV consumption (hopefully fixed now by my PCV trap) added ANOTHER quart, plus the half quart on the first run... so this is an analysis with 2.5 make-up quarts on a slightly less than 5 quart fill capacity over a ~7k mile run (note that the TBN and several additives went UP as a result).
So there are lots of caveats on this run, and all of them would make it look worse if they weren't there.
That said, the only thing that genuinely bothers me is the elevated Si... but then everything I've sent in shows some degree of elevated Si though the PT is the worst. Its really not hammering the wear metals, though. I *suspect* the PT is particularly bad because of the other half of the poor PCV system- the make-up air is only filtered by a foam pad in the air box, it does NOT come from the "clean" side of the engine air filter IIRC. I'll have to see if I can re-plumb that without causing more trouble than I fix, or maybe I'll find/concoct an in-line filter I can use on the make-up side.
So in a nutshell- I'm very happy with the little 2.4 engine (internally anyway- not so happy with ancillary systems like PCV), and I think M1 0w30 AFE is good enough for my wife's driving. But if I can get the make-up oil down with the PCV trap, its not going to be all that great as an extended-drain oil... and its really not meant for that. If the consumption doesn't drop, then I might try 8k miles and count on the make-up oil to keep things in the green.
