New Holland T9030 Iveco 12.7L engine, Service Pro

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
486
Location
Michigan
Unit Make : NEW HOLLAND Unit Model : T9030 Serial No : {n/a} Date Rec'd : Aug 12, 2015 Comp Make : IVECO Cust. Ref No. : {n/a} Sample Date : Aug 4, 2015 Comp Model : CURSOR 12.9L Stub No. : RW-M2253672 Diagnostician : Wes Davis RECOMMENDATION Resample at the next service interval to monitor. Sample Date 05/09/14 09/05/14 Current UOM Time on Unit 2040 2444 3023 hrs Time on Oil 315 669 561 hrs Time on Fltr 315 669 0 hrs Oil Maint. not chg not chg not chg --- Filter Maint. not chg not chg not chg --- CONTAMINATION There is no indication of any contamination in the component. Sample Date 05/09/14 09/05/14 Current Abn Silicon 7.1 17 4.4 25 Potassium 2.7 5.2 2.8 20 Sodium 6.8 8.7 6.4 80 Fuel (%) <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 5 Glycol --- --- --- 0.06 Water (%) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 Soot (%) 1.6 2.4 1 3 Sulfation (%) 55 58 42 100 Nitration (%) 75 75 58 100 OIL CONDITION Oil Type: 7 GAL of SERVICE PRO 15W40 The BN result indicates that there is suitable alkalinity remaining in the oil. The condition of the oil is suitable for further service. Sample Date 05/09/14 09/05/14 Current Base Boron 3.6 4.5 11 --- Barium 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- Calcium 1175 1356 1721 --- Magnesium 792 762 597 --- Molybdenum 41 36 39 --- Sodium 6.8 8.7 6.4 --- Phosphorus 1026 916 1003 --- Sulfur 929 2970 4232 --- Zinc 1163 1132 1205 --- Visc 40°C (cSt) --- --- --- --- Visc 100°C (cSt)14.97 15.57 14.69 --- VI --- --- --- --- Oxidation (%) 52 56 44 --- AN (mg/KOH/g) --- --- --- --- BN (mg/KOH/g) 9.12 6.43 4.21 --- WEAR All component wear rates are normal. Sample Date 05/09/14 09/05/14 CurrentAbn *White Metal NONE NONE NONE --- *Babbitt NONE NONE NONE --- PQ --- --- --- --- Iron 66 115 48 100 Nickel 1.0 1.3 0.6 2 Chromium 2.8 6.4 1.5 20 Titanium 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 Copper 4.0 6.5 3.4 330 Aluminum 3.0 5.3 2.8 20 Tin 2.0 1.8 1.3 15 Lead 6.6 42 14 40 NOTE: all elemental values reported in parts per million (ppm). Finally figured out a fast way to post UOAs. My wear numbers look real good currently but my TBN is getting pretty low at 4.1. Do you think I should change the oil soon. Using Service Pro 15w-40 which often retains TBN very well.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
9,472
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Been a while since we've seen a UOA from you; nice to see you're back! Excellent UOA; nothing but solid performance here. We've come to expect that from your lube selection. As for the TBN, 4 really isn't "low". You want to know the TAN in relation to the TBN. Many folks suggest the OCI happen when TAN crosses over TBN. I disagree. I've seen lots of UOAs where TAN crossed over TBN, and no wear-rate change occurred at all. In fact, I have yet to see a UOA where the cross happened, and the ONLY contributor (the flip) was a sole cause of anything bad at all. The concept of cross-over is misunderstood. It is a predictor that you need to start paying closer attention for wear to shift, escalating a trend line. Crossover is NOT a condemnation point for the lube, but rather a signal that closer scrutiny needs to be done. When TAN crosses TBN, it may be prudent to UOA a bit more often, looking for any potential shift in wear that would only then lead to potential for condemnation further down the line. In short, the TBN/TAN relationship is not one to command an OCI; it's one to cause you to simply view the situation a bit more often, with a bit closer focus. Let me give you an example; I'm going to make up some numbers ... Perhaps your average for Fe was 17ppm/100hrs prior to the cross-over. And, the std dev variance might be another 1.2ppm/100hrs. Therefore the "normal" upper range might be around 20.6ppm/100hrs. (That is calculated by adding 3x the variance to the mean; 17 + 3.6 = 20.6). After a while, you do a UOA and find that TAN is 5.3 and TBN is 4.1; the crossover has occurred. Now, look at your successive wear rates. After cross-over happens, you're going to want to watch the Fe wear rate and see if there is a significant trend upwards OUTSIDE of normal variation. It is completely normal to think wear rates are NOT static, but vary up and down a bit. So some amount of shift is expected REGARDLESS of what inputs change. What you want to look for is a shift in wear, after TAN overcomes TBN, that would make the wear rate change past "normal". IF crossover occurs, and you see your Fe wear rate at 25ppm/100hrs, then the TBN/TAN has affected wear. If the wear rate is only 19.9ppm/100hrs, it didn't. Once you determine the wear rate, you ALSO must look at an overall condemnation point. If your Fe is higher (by overall percentage) than that of the OEM accepted norm, you may still need to OCI even if your wear rate is low. Conversely, having a high wear rate may not be an automatic cause to OCI, but it's certainly a marker (a signal flare) for you to pay close attention. To really know when to OCI, presuming your want to actively manage the sump and not be guessing, you need to know three things: 1) wear rates 2) normal variation 3) condemnation points Make sense?
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
1,332
Location
oh
With your Fe @ 100 I would say if not now then you're real close. You need to come up with a condemnation limit either through manufacturer or other reliable source. There are some other numbers quite elevated as well over your last sample. Pb went from 14-40, Tin went from 1.3-15, Al went 2.8-20, Ch 1.5-20, among others. Why did Your Cu go through the roof? (3.4-330) Why the oil itself may be OK for extended service with all of your wear metals jumping over your last sample I would change now and monitor. I have a marine 7.6 Deere diesel that gets 500 hr. service as recommended by Deere. I don't know what your application is here, but I'm going to assume its Agriculture, so we have similar usage. From the looks of your sample 500 hrs. should be your limit also. Through continued sampling you should be able to dial it in.
 

sdan27

Thread starter
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
486
Location
Michigan
I just copied and pasted the UOA I received. I had edited the listing in preview but then it shifted all my values back over. The current iron is 48 and copper 3.4. I've only done three samples and the fourth number is what Wearcheck considers the abnormal wear limit. Next time I should just delete that aspect and just use actual numbers I've gotten back.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
18,755
Location
NE,Ohio
Code:
Try posting with the CODE feature
it will keep it lined up better
pick the # symbol above the reply window and go down to code/code and you can also post it up as an image but if you do its best to do both so the results will still be here years later.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
8,856
Location
Texas
I'm curious about the steady and significant increase in sulfur, presumably accumulating from combustion by-products. Wouldn't that be a high acid formation risk if an event caused a spike in oil moisture content?
 
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
1,464
Location
Alaska
What about the high lead level of 42 followed by 14ppm? I presume the number on the far right of each row is max "allowable"/condemnation level? Charlie
 

sdan27

Thread starter
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
486
Location
Michigan
Some of the wear metals shot up between the initial and the second analysis I did so I did an oil change and now they are low again but the tbn is kinda low probably because of the high sulfur. There is a crank case vent filter fitted on back side of engine that the manual recommends changing every 1200 hours or so and we got the tractor with about 2000 hours and kinda doubt it was ever dealt with so I might try and change that and see if it helps bring sulfur down.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
1,292
Location
Northern, NY
You have some coolant in the oil. Glycol, bump in sodium & potassium, and some water. Change the oil now and troubleshoot the cooling system.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
1,292
Location
Northern, NY
Sorry guys, just realized that I was reading the "abn" values instead of the current sample. Everything looks pretty good, only thing that seems strange is the big jump in Sulfur. Fuel quality issue? That could impact the TBN.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top