Mobil 5000 5w30 5,585 miles UOA

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: bigt61
I don't think the copper is that high, and you have no lead. Keep doing what you're doing but I'm also not a fan of MMO.


Thanks for the input. It didn't seem that high, I just wanted feedback from those more versed in reading UOAs.

Originally Posted By: rbarrios
I thought I read that soon after an oil change- is when more wear takes place-- because the cleaning agents in the oil- clean the walls and other moving parts of the additives that help lower wear....
once the oil has cleansed- the additives do their thing and stick to parts....
(thus too frequent oil changes can be detrimental).

In this case-- could the MMO 'gentle' cleansing- be contributing to the shedding of the copper.

This being an 06--- its not DI.
I would think the Iron should be lower for 5,585 miles of use?


Thus-- back to the MMO doing a little too much cleaning?



Any input to my idea above?


I really have no idea what your talking about,I have never heard that changing oil too frequently can be detrimental. That sounds a tad far fetched.


Originally Posted By: Brons2
If you're going to keep using MMO, maybe try a thicker Xw30 or an Xw40.


I would have to go to a 40 weight, as I am already using a 30 weight currently. A 40 weight oil with MMO would put me at 35 weight.

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
My question would be why use a lubricant that one deems deficient so that they must further additize it (with unknown results) in order to feel that they've made the product perform as it should

Why not just use a product that you feel doesn't need the additive?


I would add MMO to almost any oil in this vehicle. I have used it in every vehicle I have owned with good result. Its not that the oil Im using is "deficient" (I assume you meant that facetiously,) it is that I like to have the extra additive on top of the included package.

Originally Posted By: webfors
You/we/mmo have no idea how adding it to your oil consistently is compromising the oil. The oil companies don't formulate their oils keeping in mind someone will pour in additives after the fact.

I don't put additives in my oil. Tried it once or twice way back... it just doesn't make sense.

That being said 11ppm is nothing to be alarmed about.


I appreciate the feedback. Oil additives are always up for debate, but I will definetely be running some more UOAs to see if that copper level comes down with the different oils I plan on trying (PYB, Pennzoil High Mileage, Mobil 1 / HM)

 

[OVERKILL]

What do you feel adding MMO to a fully formulated lubricant accomplishes though? And my comment wasn't facetious, as obviously you feel that the oil by itself is in some way deficient and in need of this additional product or you wouldn't be adding it.

You say "with good result". But what does that mean? I've had good results (as verified by tear-down) with nothing but plain-Jane Mobil 1. What additional results am I missing by omitting the MMO from my crankcase?

I am just not sure what you feel is being "helped" by the addition of something that has zero manufacturer approvals to a product that has a myriad of them

I would think that if there were tangible benefits to such a product that we would see it sold under the various OEM monikers similar to how Ford re-brands Stanadyne as a Motorcraft product or how various injector cleaners are sold the same way.

I guess I just have a hard time wrapping my head around how an oil that has had millions put into its development and approval process can be "improved" by the addition of something that hasn't.

 

[jaynissan12]

Oil did thin out a bit, I would try a high mileage oil and see how it fares. They tend to start a little thicker (other than max life, they are the same as any fuel efficient oil). Thinning could have caused the higher metals, but only way to know it to do trials and testing, even if this engine was back spec'd to a 20 weight, doesn't mean that is the best weight for the engine, which is basically what the oil thinned to.

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: jaynissan12
Oil did thin out a bit, I would try a high mileage oil and see how it fares. They tend to start a little thicker (other than max life, they are the same as any fuel efficient oil). Thinning could have caused the higher metals, but only way to know it to do trials and testing, even if this engine was back spec'd to a 20 weight, doesn't mean that is the best weight for the engine, which is basically what the oil thinned to.


Im going to do one more short (3k) run of PYB then move to the HM oils and see how they fare. The hard decision is going to be which HM to use. I have been looking into the semi synthetic pennzoil, Mobil 1, Royal Purple, heck all of them. I have a lot more research ahead of me. I think that 20 weight would probably be fine if it was all highway miles, but mine is now 80%+ city driving. Others have suggested moving to a heavier weight (Xw40) also. I am seriously considering that as well.

 

[OVERKILL]

I'd probably just run AFE 0w-30 in it and call it a day personally. These engines are similar to a Modular and that's my Modular's favourite brew. I also have about 100,000 more miles on it than you have on your truck and I'm not using anything with the words "high mileage" in its name. Food for thought there

 

[jk_636]

Why AFE over regular M1 or M1HM?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Why AFE over regular M1 or M1HM?


Well, I don't believe in high mileage oils. My engines don't leak oil, so if they don't think they are high mileage, why should I? They've had good lives and been run on quality lubricants, they shouldn't need to have their lubricants changed to something else later in life if they are still healthy. Which they are.

And Mobil doesn't make a regular 0w-30, only the AFE version, so that's the one I'm running. I'm running it because it is a 0w-30, not because it is marketed as having Advanced Fuel Economy. In its previous life it carried no such designation and the Expedition weighs 6,000lbs, it isn't going to see any sort of gain in fuel economy from lubricant selection. If they made an EP 0w-30, I'd run that.

I will add that I have ZERO discernible consumption over a 10-12,000km OCI with the AFE product, which has only been matched by M1 0w-40 and D1 5w-40 in this engine. Everything else has consumed to various degrees, the lowest probably being the current fill of PU 5w-30 which has so far had 1/2L added to it as of yesterday with 8,000Km on the oil in the sump. Pretty decent. The worst was AMSOIL AZO 0w-30 which the engine drank like it was Bourbon. 3-4L over an OCI, absolutely ridiculous.

 

[jaynissan12]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Originally Posted By: jaynissan12
Oil did thin out a bit, I would try a high mileage oil and see how it fares. They tend to start a little thicker (other than max life, they are the same as any fuel efficient oil). Thinning could have caused the higher metals, but only way to know it to do trials and testing, even if this engine was back spec'd to a 20 weight, doesn't mean that is the best weight for the engine, which is basically what the oil thinned to.


Im going to do one more short (3k) run of PYB then move to the HM oils and see how they fare. The hard decision is going to be which HM to use. I have been looking into the semi synthetic pennzoil, Mobil 1, Royal Purple, heck all of them. I have a lot more research ahead of me. I think that 20 weight would probably be fine if it was all highway miles, but mine is now 80%+ city driving. Others have suggested moving to a heavier weight (Xw40) also. I am seriously considering that as well.


Defy, Pennzoil HM, Castrol HM, Valvoline Max Life, Havoline HM would be my personal choices. I think Castrol is the thickest of the bunch. I haven't found a whole lot of user experience UOA's with Mobil 1 HM to have anything to compare to but I may get lashed for this on here but there are many complaints with Mobil 1 and higher iron like you are experiencing so I am not sure Mobil 1 HM would provide the results you want, but then again it could be very different than normal Mobil 1. RP is good as any but expensive and probably comparable to Max Life full synthetic which might be cheaper. I think, again just my opinion, before I would hit the w40's, I would maybe try a HDEO, they are a little thicker in their grade and resist shear, one that comes to mind right away is T5 10w30, Chevron Delo 5w30 and I am sure a few more are out there in the 30 range. I have used 0w40 Castrol not long ago, probably too thick, I noticed a little sluggishness in the engine and lost mpg's (mine is spec'd for 5w30).

 

[CrawfishTails]

I'd only use MMO as a final-500-mile before an oil change "flush" to clean it up a bit.
On the entire question of putting in additives at all, I think we all have to recognize that engine oils could be better if the oil companies wouldn't just quit adding good stuff in there as soon as they pass their specs. They save money often times by using LESS moly, nano-boron, etc. Additives, if carefully chosen by looking at the data available on it, can be excellent. Ceratec, Liquimoly MoS2, Hyperlube, Lubegard Biotech, all can be a good idea to boost oil.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
I'd only use MMO as a final-500-mile before an oil change "flush" to clean it up a bit.
On the entire question of putting in additives at all, I think we all have to recognize that engine oils could be better if the oil companies wouldn't just quit adding good stuff in there as soon as they pass their specs. They save money often times by using LESS moly, nano-boron, etc. Additives, if carefully chosen by looking at the data available on it, can be excellent. Ceratec, Liquimoly MoS2, Hyperlube, Lubegard Biotech, all can be a good idea to boost oil.


What makes you think they need boosting? I've seen a myriad of SBC's and 5L Fords apart run on quality oils at reasonable intervals. These engines were usually apart for performance upgrades. Some of them with hundreds of thousands of Km on them with nitrous, boost....etc on them. What they all had in common was an owner that cared about lubricant selection and proper warm up before they were ragged on. None of them were run with additives and from what I've witnessed, would not have benefited one iota from one being used. Perfect bearings, bores with visible cross hatching, scuff-free pistons, perfect looking cams....etc. What there could be improved by the addition of some other product, not tested in that lubricant, and in that application, being present?

Doug Hillary posted pictures of liners and bearings from one of his Detroit Diesel tear-downs when he was testing Delvac 1 for ExxonMobil. At 1.2 MILLION Kilometres the bore was perfect (visible cross hatching still present) and the bearings measured "as new". The parts were returned to service and that rig has something like 2.3 million Km on it now. How could that scenario have been improved by him adding some magical elixir to this already excellent fully-formulated lubricant?

Ultimately without extensive tear-down testing we really have no idea what these products are doing (or not doing) when added. We do not have the resources of the OEM's and the oil companies to perform the necessary testing and most of this centres around the idea that "more is better". More moly, more boron more this, more that. With nothing to prove that our application will benefit in any appreciable way from that approach.

That's the entire point of these rigorous OEM testing regiments that are employed during lubricant development and approval. To validate the actual performance of the formulated product. What then is the point of screwing with this other than perhaps an underlying predisposition to tamper? That we have to do something above and beyond simply changing the oil; that by including Liquid Wizard, we are somehow one-upping the millions spent on R&D formulation, testing and approval because somehow there are corners being cut and by dumping a collection of additives that may or may not already be present in the product into it, and increasing their quantity or supplementing the overall formula in some way, we must be making it better

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: jaynissan12
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Originally Posted By: jaynissan12
Oil did thin out a bit, I would try a high mileage oil and see how it fares. They tend to start a little thicker (other than max life, they are the same as any fuel efficient oil). Thinning could have caused the higher metals, but only way to know it to do trials and testing, even if this engine was back spec'd to a 20 weight, doesn't mean that is the best weight for the engine, which is basically what the oil thinned to.


Im going to do one more short (3k) run of PYB then move to the HM oils and see how they fare. The hard decision is going to be which HM to use. I have been looking into the semi synthetic pennzoil, Mobil 1, Royal Purple, heck all of them. I have a lot more research ahead of me. I think that 20 weight would probably be fine if it was all highway miles, but mine is now 80%+ city driving. Others have suggested moving to a heavier weight (Xw40) also. I am seriously considering that as well.


Defy, Pennzoil HM, Castrol HM, Valvoline Max Life, Havoline HM would be my personal choices. I think Castrol is the thickest of the bunch. I haven't found a whole lot of user experience UOA's with Mobil 1 HM to have anything to compare to but I may get lashed for this on here but there are many complaints with Mobil 1 and higher iron like you are experiencing so I am not sure Mobil 1 HM would provide the results you want, but then again it could be very different than normal Mobil 1. RP is good as any but expensive and probably comparable to Max Life full synthetic which might be cheaper. I think, again just my opinion, before I would hit the w40's, I would maybe try a HDEO, they are a little thicker in their grade and resist shear, one that comes to mind right away is T5 10w30, Chevron Delo 5w30 and I am sure a few more are out there in the 30 range. I have used 0w40 Castrol not long ago, probably too thick, I noticed a little sluggishness in the engine and lost mpg's (mine is spec'd for 5w30).


I have never considered the HDEOs. Im going to look into how that would work in my application. As for the RP HM, its pricey, but if it is anything like the rest of their stuff it must be good. I have never had bad luck with any RP product, and I use their API SN oil exclusively in the wifes SUV. Lot of good info here. Thanks for the input!

Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
I'd only use MMO as a final-500-mile before an oil change "flush" to clean it up a bit.
On the entire question of putting in additives at all, I think we all have to recognize that engine oils could be better if the oil companies wouldn't just quit adding good stuff in there as soon as they pass their specs. They save money often times by using LESS moly, nano-boron, etc. Additives, if carefully chosen by looking at the data available on it, can be excellent. Ceratec, Liquimoly MoS2, Hyperlube, Lubegard Biotech, all can be a good idea to boost oil.

Surprisingly, I must say I completely agree. A lot of people utilize the benefits of additives such as Liquimoly, Riselone, MMO etc. This is why I use MMO, for extra boron and cleaning properties. I leave it in the full OCI though, as my intervals never (with the exception of this sample) run more than 5k miles. I also use a 5 minute motor flush before each oil change (but that is added after taking a small sample from the oil pan for the UOA)

 

[jk_636]

Quote:

What makes you think they need boosting?


He was very clear about that.

Quote:

...Ultimately without extensive tear-down testing we really have no idea what these products are doing (or not doing) when added. We do not have the resources of the OEM's and the oil companies to perform the necessary testing and most of this centres around the idea that "more is better". More moly, more boron more this, more that. With nothing to prove that our application will benefit in any appreciable way from that approach.


Of course you can know if there is a benefit. When your motor isn't sludging, you pull the valve covers and they are absolutely spotless or something like a noisy lifter quits ticking, it shows you that it started working quickly. In this case, more is always better. If things like sodium, moly, boron, calcium, etc. are good at preventing wear, then more has to be better. That is why people on this site do VOAs. To see who has the best add pack, and use that one as opposed to one that has less additives present. It seems that you just dont like additives in general. Thats fine, but there are many out there that do and those who have seen real benefit from their use.

 

[Rand]

MMO is 60% mineral spirits and has less additives in it than motor oil.. its also very thin.. about straight 5 weight..

So basically you are watering down your oil's additive package and viscisity with some 1930's era formula that was designed to be added to API SA oil that needed it.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Quote:

What makes you think they need boosting?


He was very clear about that.



Not really. It was a whole lot of opinion based on the fact that the oil companies make money. Well so do these additive companies. So if one is guilty, then so is the other. So then what additive do we add to the additive to make up for the products obviously left out due to the company's capitalist tendencies? At some point we have to realize that this is a dog chasing its tail with no proof that anything is actually accomplished.





Originally Posted By: jk_636
Of course you can know if there is a benefit. When your motor isn't sludging, you pull the valve covers and they are absolutely spotless or something like a noisy lifter quits ticking, it shows you that it started working quickly. In this case, more is always better. If things like sodium, moly, boron, calcium, etc. are good at preventing wear, then more has to be better. That is why people on this site do VOAs. To see who has the best add pack, and use that one as opposed to one that has less additives present. It seems that you just dont like additives in general. Thats fine, but there are many out there that do and those who have seen real benefit from their use.


I don't have noisy lifters, sludge, or any of that. The reason being that I look after my equipment so I'm not playing Captain clean-up after the fact. And that logic behind more is better is seriously flawed. Too much ZDDP for example is corrosive. Chlorine is used to treat drinking water but fatal if you drink it straight-up. There is this thing called moderation. That's why lubricants are formulated and tested not just buckets of AW additives dumped into a random base oil.

And VOA's only show you metallic additives, they do not tell you VII treatment level, base oil choice, or the presence of organic compounds that are commonly being used now.

If developing an oil was as simple as pouring in all these additives we'd all be doing it. But it isn't. It is a complex science, one that requires extensive testing and verification. That's why it costs millions of dollars to develop a fully formulated motor oil that passes all the requisite testing protocols and why companies like BMW, Ford, GM, Mercedes, Porsche...etc come up with their own procedures for evaluating lubricant performance.

And you are right, I don't like additives. I don't like the unknowns, the fact that there is no formal testing or standardized process for evaluating their function or the fact that many of them contain solvents. I also find that the attachment to them is mostly emotional with anecdotes and conjecture paraded around as "proof" with no process or control attached to it.

But hey, I must be doing something right. I've never worn an engine out or had one fail on me. And that includes a fair deal of power improved 5.0L Ford builds being used well above their designed power level and RPM operating range.

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: Rand
MMO is 60% mineral spirits and has less additives in it than motor oil.. its also very thin.. about straight 5 weight..

So basically you are watering down your oil's additive package and viscisity with some 1930's era formula that was designed to be added to API SA oil that needed it.


It is a straight 10 weight. Just because it was designed in the 30s doesnt make it obsolete.

 

[kschachn]

It does make it obsolete as a PCMO though, right?

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Originally Posted By: Rand
MMO is 60% mineral spirits and has less additives in it than motor oil.. its also very thin.. about straight 5 weight..

So basically you are watering down your oil's additive package and viscosity with some 1930's era formula that was designed to be added to API SA oil that needed it.

It is a straight 10 weight. Just because it was designed in the 30s doesnt make it obsolete.

 

[kschachn]

Lol, that is a bunch of nonsense. More is not better, and you know that you can't prove the effectiveness of a preventative without a baseline. I've never used MMO and I don't have a problem - so how do you explain that?

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Of course you can know if there is a benefit. When your motor isn't sludging, you pull the valve covers and they are absolutely spotless or something like a noisy lifter quits ticking, it shows you that it started working quickly. In this case, more is always better. If things like sodium, moly, boron, calcium, etc. are good at preventing wear, then more has to be better. That is why people on this site do VOAs. To see who has the best add pack, and use that one as opposed to one that has less additives present. It seems that you just dont like additives in general. Thats fine, but there are many out there that do and those who have seen real benefit from their use

 

[kschachn]

You have absolutely no evidence of any of that, most certainly the part about using MMO to "clean it up a bit". None.

Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
I'd only use MMO as a final-500-mile before an oil change "flush" to clean it up a bit.
On the entire question of putting in additives at all, I think we all have to recognize that engine oils could be better if the oil companies wouldn't just quit adding good stuff in there as soon as they pass their specs. They save money often times by using LESS moly, nano-boron, etc. Additives, if carefully chosen by looking at the data available on it, can be excellent. Ceratec, Liquimoly MoS2, Hyperlube, Lubegard Biotech, all can be a good idea to boost oil.

 

[OVERKILL]

And just a few pics of what proper maintenance practices look like in application:

This is my buddy's 302 that he gave me a hand in building. Trick-Flow heads, TFS-R intake, CI cam. this is with only 60,000 miles on it but the shortblock is untouched from 1988. Oil used was M1 0w-40:

Same engine, previous car (when it was carb'd):

Here's a shot under the valve cover of my 302:

Engine has 338,000Km on it (210,000 miles). Internals are spotless (like that head). It's had nothing more than reasonable oil changes on various grades of Mobil 1.

A shot through the fill cap on the M5 (M1 0w-40):

I base my advice on my experience and I try to back that up as best I can. Hopefully these pictures help demonstrate that.

BTW, the Expedition had some light varnish on the cams when we bought it due to dealer OCI's (we bought it with 150,000Km on it (90,000 miles). This is now gone due to just using quality synthetics, no additives. I posted pictures of the particulate that was coming out in my oil filters for a while when I started with Mobil 1 in that engine. It was disgusting. This was posited to be coming from the ring land area, as it was certainly not from the heads. The eventually stopped after a few OCI's and now the oil stays clean between changes. And it now has 290,000Km on it (180,000 miles).

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
It does make it obsolete as a PCMO though, right?


That is for the consumer to decide.

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Lol, that is a bunch of nonsense. More is not better, and you know that you can't prove the effectiveness of a preventative without a baseline. I've never used MMO and I don't have a problem - so how do you explain that?


It isn't nonsense. Some people (like many on this site) select motor oils based on the amount of additives or package present in the product. That is why you go to PQIA or VOAs to compare/contrast different oils. Higher levels of certain additives make for a better oil. Heck, some manufacturers (Mercedes IIRC) recommend adding additives like Mos2 to your oil to increase engine protection.

It seems like there are some here that want to continue to argue over the value or benefit(s) of oil additives in general. There is a whole section on this forum for that. Lets try and stay on topic please.