Mobil1 0w16 AFE 5015 miles, '07 Dodge Dakota 3.7L

The ending viscosity raises a question mark for me as well. With that level of fuel dilution it should not be near where it is in my opinion. Could be an indicator the oil was used up, per se and viscosity has begun to come up as was mentioned. A 3.5 TBN regardless if it's relevant or not is still a serviceable number, again in my opinion.
 
himemsys said:
I haven't seen this here once, let alone many times. Can you post any links? Granted, I haven't been on here that long.
Click to expand...
I think you’ve even been in some of those discussions, I remember you supporting Blackstone’s analysis results. Those posts are here, there are even some where a VOA showed out-of-grade results that upon retest came within range of the manufacturer’s PDS.
 
kschachn said:
I think you’ve even been in some of those discussions, I remember you supporting Blackstone’s analysis results. Those posts are here, there are even some where a VOA showed out-of-grade results that upon retest came within range of the manufacturer’s PDS.
Click to expand...
What I'm remembering had to do with Phosphorus levels, not viscosity. And it's been shown that the Phosphorus levels that Blackstone got "wrong" were verified by at least one other lab (Mobil 1's own VOA of their oil showed similarly low levels in that YT video).

Edit: Here is another post I remember where the OP sent samples of three different virgin oils to three different labs (WearCheck, Polaris and Blackstone). Some differences here and there but overall the three labs had comparable results. Interesting that someone in this thread made the comment about M1 AFE Phosphorus levels being below the 600ppm spec in 2 out of 3 labs, with the 3rd lab being barely over 600. But the viscosity results all look comparable between the three labs.

A tale of 3 identical VOA samples tested by three different test laboratories...

I thought some may find this interesting. I sent off three different 0w30 oils each to three different laboratories. Each oil was sample was from the same container of each oil. The laboratories i used were: Blackstone Wearcheck Polaris The three virgin samples sent to each lab were: Mobil...
bobistheoilguy.com
 
Last edited:
FZ1 said:
I defer to your expertise, but, the oil had to have sheared more than .05 in 6800 miles. AFE is not a long run oil.
Click to expand...
Why does it have to have sheared? If there's little to no VII, then there's nothing to shear. The base oil itself doesn't shear. It being a long-drain oil, or not, is more about the additive package and how the product is blended to cope with longer usage in that respect.

Most viscosity loss is driven by fuel dilution, not shear, as we've discussed in the past. Blackstone doesn't properly report fuel dilution (it's inferred from flashpoint) so getting a solid handle on how much there is, and therefore how it is impacting viscosity, is nary impossible with one of their reports.

Let's say the oil has 2% fuel though. That would definitely reduce the viscosity, so then it would be oxidative thickening that brought the visc back up. We are more likely to see oxidative thickening on oils with little to no VII content because, other than dilution, that's really the only direction viscosity of the product itself can go, because there's nothing really to shear. Oxidative thickening does not however mean the oil has been run too long or is "used up". This is where looking at other characteristics, like TAN, TBN depletion...etc allow us to form a more complete picture as to the health of the lubricant.
 
Last edited:
Bonz said:
The ending viscosity raises a question mark for me as well. With that level of fuel dilution it should not be near where it is in my opinion. Could be an indicator the oil was used up, per se and viscosity has begun to come up as was mentioned. A 3.5 TBN regardless if it's relevant or not is still a serviceable number, again in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind, Blackstone doesn't measure fuel, it's simply inferred from the flashpoint. The MSDS for this lubricant shows a flashpoint of 392F.
 
kschachn said:
For one thing it’s a Blackstone report. There is no reliable way to tell if a viscosity deviation is due to mechanical shear or fuel dilution. More so, Blackstone has also shown they cannot reliably measure viscosity so you’ve got two issues with ascribing something on that report to any one problem. As Overkill noted, there is very little VII in that oil and it’s these molecules that exhibit shear not the oil. Oil molecules do not shear.
Click to expand...
Defer to your expertise, but....... fact is ,if the report is accurate re vis, I'll use the word Thinned .05 over 6800 miles. That can't be. Engine used 12 ounces of oil so there is probably a little blow by. Mavens can call it thinning or shearing but it's probably both. Like the line from the song by Train , "I been down and I've been up" This oil has been down and now it's up. .02
 
Lots of assumptions being made about the data in this thread. Without multiple samples, including VOA, we don't know how up or down it is. And PDS data isn't really useful because there are variances in batches and changes in formulation.

There is abolutely nothing I see in that UOA data that should cause any concern, limited as it may be. It'd be better if we had a VOA and a couple more UOA's to see trends, but as a snapshot, it looks good. But it does make for fun discussion.
 
Pazuzu said:
Oh, no good reason. I just thought I'd give it a shot. I ran 0w10 in an '02 Sentra several years ago that did very well.
Click to expand...
Well, 0w-10 doesn't exist as a grade, do you happen to know what the 100C visc of that lube was by chance? I ask because there was a "0w-5" that was actually in the 0w-20 range at one point.

I'd say the biggest risk here is insufficient MOFT in the rod bearings that might cause a spin and poke. However, realistically, this oil isn't much different than an xW-20 that's had some fuel dilution happen to it, so while I certainly wouldn't advocate it, it likely isn't as dangerous as it appears.
 
FZ1 said:
Defer to your expertise, but....... fact is ,if the report is accurate re vis, I'll use the word Thinned .05 over 6800 miles. That can't be. Engine used 12 ounces of oil so there is probably a little blow by. Mavens can call it thinning or shearing but it's probably both. Like the line from the song by Train , "I been down and I've been up" This oil has been down and now it's up. .02
Click to expand...
Again, there are only two mechanisms of viscosity loss:
1. Mechanical shearing of the VII polymers in a multigrade that results in the oil heading back towards the viscosity of the base oils
2. Fuel dilution, which is exactly what it sounds like. Gas/diesel are thinner than oil, so ingress into the sump is going to reduce viscosity.

If the oil has little to no VII, there's nothing to shear so then our mechanism would be fuel dilution. The flashpoint has dropped about 20F, which suggests a bit of fuel, but not a massive amount. There may be a bit of oxidative thickening of the base oil (which is normal) that has cancelled out the small amount of fuel dilution.

And yes, it's entirely possible for an oil not to thin much, if any, in service. This is application dependant. Certain designs are much harder on oil and more inclined to shear VII polymers than others. On top of that, there are different types of VII polymers, some of which are massively more shear resistant than others. Many engines also don't fuel dilute, particularly port injected ones that aren't short tripped.

What's more amusing to see is a longer run on an oil like Redline or AMSOIL where there's no fuel and the oil just increases in viscosity from oxidation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: a5m
OVERKILL said:
Well, 0w-10 doesn't exist as a grade, do you happen to know what the 100C visc of that lube was by chance? I ask because there was a "0w-5" that was actually in the 0w-20 range at one point.

I'd say the biggest risk here is insufficient MOFT in the rod bearings that might cause a spin and poke. However, realistically, this oil isn't much different than an xW-20 that's had some fuel dilution happen to it, so while I certainly wouldn't advocate it, it likely isn't as dangerous as it appears.
Click to expand...
It was Royal Purple XPR 0w10

I still have the report if you're interested.
 
Pazuzu said:
It was Royal Purple XPR 0w10

I still have the report if you're interested.
Click to expand...
Ahhh, OK. That oil was ~7cSt @ 100C, which would make it a 0w-20, 0w-16 or 0w-12 depending on what its HTHS viscosity was.

EDIT: Just found an old thread that listed HTHS for this oil, and it was 2.5cP. That makes it a 0w-20.
 
Last edited:
OVERKILL said:
Ahhh, OK. That oil was ~7cSt @ 100C, which would make it a 0w-20, 0w-16 or 0w-12 depending on what its HTHS viscosity was.

EDIT: Just found an old thread that listed HTHS for this oil, and it was 2.5cP. That makes it a 0w-20.
Click to expand...
🤔 So what makes them label it as a 0w10 then? 🤨
 
wemay said:
In a vacuum.

Oil thinner than recommended but excellent UOA - "we need more data...."

Oil thicker than recommended but excellent UOA - "well yeah, of course it would be..."

Some members are hilarious
🤣
Click to expand...
Eh, not quite. Going thinner than specified carries with it significantly more risk than going thicker and of course UOA's don't really tell us how an engine wears beyond potentially letting us know that something dramatic is taking place. Yes, the commentary on some of this is entertaining, but the aforementioned is why I typically don't comment on wear rates and look more for contamination and fuel or abnormalities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
23 Equinox AWD, 1.5 liter, Mobil1 0W-30 AFE, 5,400 miles
Replies
8
Views
582
BobsArmory
fortyeightjake
Mobil 1 0W-20 AFE, 4802 miles, 2019 Subaru Crosstrek
Replies
4
Views
1K
fortyeightjake
michael007
Mobil 1 AFE 0W30, 5074 miles, 2016 Honda HR-V
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
Patman
A
2015 Toyota 2.5L 2AR-FE M1 AFE 0W-30 ~8000 miles ish UOA
Replies
11
Views
2K
FZ1
C
2007 Suburban 2500 124k Delo XSP 7000 mile OCI UOA
Replies
16
Views
860
Snagglefoot
Back
Top