Motorcraft FL-820S and a K&N drop-in air filter. It saw some pretty dusty roads on the trip to work this fill, looks like the K&N is going bye-bye.
The report took so long to get I've already got 3,000 miles on the current Red Line 5W-20 fill.
Pennzoil Ultra 5W-30 6,000 miles 2001 Ford F150
- Thread starter Ben99GT
- Start date
- Status
Motorcraft FL-820S and a K&N drop-in air filter. It saw some pretty dusty roads on the trip to work this fill, looks like the K&N is going bye-bye.
The report took so long to get I've already got 3,000 miles on the current Red Line 5W-20 fill.
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Motorcraft FL-820S and a K&N drop-in air filter. It saw some pretty dusty roads on the trip to work this fill, looks like the K&N is going bye-bye.
More often than not it's not the filter itself, but rather the seal. Most filters actually do a better job of filtering as they get dirty. On my old truck, I used to put a bead of grease around the filter seal to help it seal, although I'm not 100% sure it actually helped. Probably just made me feel better lol
Motorcraft FL-820S and a K&N drop-in air filter. It saw some pretty dusty roads on the trip to work this fill, looks like the K&N is going bye-bye.
More often than not it's not the filter itself, but rather the seal. Most filters actually do a better job of filtering as they get dirty. On my old truck, I used to put a bead of grease around the filter seal to help it seal, although I'm not 100% sure it actually helped. Probably just made me feel better lol
In case the image gets lost
Comments: Universal averages show typical wear metals for oil from this type engine after a routine run on the oil.
Your oil was run 6,000 miles and wear metals were at about average levels. Silicon was above average. Silicon can
show dirt escaping air filtration, so you may want to check this system. No gas or coolant found in the oil. The TBN
read 5.6, so you had plenty of active additive left. 1.0 is low. The TAN read 0.0, so there was no acidity. The ISO
Cleanliness Code read 18/17/15, clean, Except for the silicon, tests show normal results.
ALUMINUM - 3
CHROMIUM - 1
IRON - 12
COPPER- 6
LEAD - 0
TIN - 3
MOLYBDENUM- 54
MANGANESE - 0
SILVER - 0
TITANIUM - 0
POTASSIUM - 4
BORON - 252
SILICON - 36
SODIUM - 12
CALCIUM - 2776
MAGNESIUM - 14
PHOSPHORUS - 663
ZINC - 799
BARIUM - 0
SUS Viscosity @ 210°F - 59.8
cSt Viscosity @ 100°C - 10.16
Flashpoint in °F - 420
Fuel % - Antifreeze % - 0.0
Water % - 0.0
Insolubles % - 0.2
TBN - 5.6
TAN - 0.0
ISO Code - 18/17/15
Comments: Universal averages show typical wear metals for oil from this type engine after a routine run on the oil.
Your oil was run 6,000 miles and wear metals were at about average levels. Silicon was above average. Silicon can
show dirt escaping air filtration, so you may want to check this system. No gas or coolant found in the oil. The TBN
read 5.6, so you had plenty of active additive left. 1.0 is low. The TAN read 0.0, so there was no acidity. The ISO
Cleanliness Code read 18/17/15, clean, Except for the silicon, tests show normal results.
ALUMINUM - 3
CHROMIUM - 1
IRON - 12
COPPER- 6
LEAD - 0
TIN - 3
MOLYBDENUM- 54
MANGANESE - 0
SILVER - 0
TITANIUM - 0
POTASSIUM - 4
BORON - 252
SILICON - 36
SODIUM - 12
CALCIUM - 2776
MAGNESIUM - 14
PHOSPHORUS - 663
ZINC - 799
BARIUM - 0
SUS Viscosity @ 210°F - 59.8
cSt Viscosity @ 100°C - 10.16
Flashpoint in °F - 420
Fuel % - Antifreeze % - 0.0
Water % - 0.0
Insolubles % - 0.2
TBN - 5.6
TAN - 0.0
ISO Code - 18/17/15
Looks nice, another good showing for Ultra. I'm surprised the extra Si didn't cause a little more wear, at least more than universal averages. With that TBN and wear numbers(minus Si), I would think 10,000 would be feasible.
Originally Posted By: panthermike
Another good showing for Ultra.
Yep. So far, 11 reported UOAs on Ultra and 9 reported Universal Averages. The average Ultra OCI is 5540 miles, or approximately 15% longer than the average Universal Average. Here's the wear metal breakdown:
Ultra UOA vs. Universal Avg
Al 4.8 v. 3.7
Chr 0.7 v. 0.9
Iron 11.2 v. 14.2
Copper 8.8 v. 11.7
Lead 1.1 v. 2.7
Tin 0.9 v. 1.0
Impressive combined 26% reduction in Iron, Copper & Lead on 15% longer OCIs. The Aluminum result is skewed by a 15 ppm finding on Genesis 3.8 that was averaging 39 ppm Al in two prior UOAs.
Another good showing for Ultra.
Yep. So far, 11 reported UOAs on Ultra and 9 reported Universal Averages. The average Ultra OCI is 5540 miles, or approximately 15% longer than the average Universal Average. Here's the wear metal breakdown:
Ultra UOA vs. Universal Avg
Al 4.8 v. 3.7
Chr 0.7 v. 0.9
Iron 11.2 v. 14.2
Copper 8.8 v. 11.7
Lead 1.1 v. 2.7
Tin 0.9 v. 1.0
Impressive combined 26% reduction in Iron, Copper & Lead on 15% longer OCIs. The Aluminum result is skewed by a 15 ppm finding on Genesis 3.8 that was averaging 39 ppm Al in two prior UOAs.
Originally Posted By: buster
RL won't improve anything over this.
Depends on your criteria for improvement, if it's drain intervals or a "prettier" UOA then I agree that you are likely right. Time will tell, I plan to have a UOA done of the RL after the second run. I will say RL has already offered improvements over this oil in my application.
RL won't improve anything over this.
Depends on your criteria for improvement, if it's drain intervals or a "prettier" UOA then I agree that you are likely right. Time will tell, I plan to have a UOA done of the RL after the second run. I will say RL has already offered improvements over this oil in my application.
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: buster
RL won't improve anything over this.
Depends on your criteria for improvement, if it's drain intervals or a "prettier" UOA then I agree that you are likely right. Time will tell, I plan to have a UOA done of the RL after the second run. I will say RL has already offered improvements over this oil in my application.
In the 3K the Red Line has been in there, what improvements would that be?
Originally Posted By: buster
RL won't improve anything over this.
Depends on your criteria for improvement, if it's drain intervals or a "prettier" UOA then I agree that you are likely right. Time will tell, I plan to have a UOA done of the RL after the second run. I will say RL has already offered improvements over this oil in my application.
In the 3K the Red Line has been in there, what improvements would that be?
The ISO cleanliness code? That's a first one on me.
Originally Posted By: Johnny
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: buster
RL won't improve anything over this.
Depends on your criteria for improvement, if it's drain intervals or a "prettier" UOA then I agree that you are likely right. Time will tell, I plan to have a UOA done of the RL after the second run. I will say RL has already offered improvements over this oil in my application.
In the 3K the Red Line has been in there, what improvements would that be?
More consistent and quieter sounding cold starts, .4 MPG improvement, and a quieter/smoother sounding warm engine.
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: buster
RL won't improve anything over this.
Depends on your criteria for improvement, if it's drain intervals or a "prettier" UOA then I agree that you are likely right. Time will tell, I plan to have a UOA done of the RL after the second run. I will say RL has already offered improvements over this oil in my application.
In the 3K the Red Line has been in there, what improvements would that be?
More consistent and quieter sounding cold starts, .4 MPG improvement, and a quieter/smoother sounding warm engine.
Originally Posted By: addyguy
With a TBN of 5.6, a complete waste to drain at 6k.
You could have gotten similar results on PYB, and not have spent so much $$$.
But hey, that's the 'style' here, right?!
Sure, I could have run a dino.
I have yet to discover the purpose of this standard response that seems to show up over and over in the UOA section.
With a TBN of 5.6, a complete waste to drain at 6k.
You could have gotten similar results on PYB, and not have spent so much $$$.
But hey, that's the 'style' here, right?!
Sure, I could have run a dino.
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: Johnny
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: buster
RL won't improve anything over this.
Depends on your criteria for improvement, if it's drain intervals or a "prettier" UOA then I agree that you are likely right. Time will tell, I plan to have a UOA done of the RL after the second run. I will say RL has already offered improvements over this oil in my application.
In the 3K the Red Line has been in there, what improvements would that be?
More consistent and quieter sounding cold starts, .4 MPG improvement, and a quieter/smoother sounding warm engine.
That just goes to show you the butt dyno works different in MS than it does in WI.
Originally Posted By: Johnny
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: buster
RL won't improve anything over this.
Depends on your criteria for improvement, if it's drain intervals or a "prettier" UOA then I agree that you are likely right. Time will tell, I plan to have a UOA done of the RL after the second run. I will say RL has already offered improvements over this oil in my application.
In the 3K the Red Line has been in there, what improvements would that be?
More consistent and quieter sounding cold starts, .4 MPG improvement, and a quieter/smoother sounding warm engine.
That just goes to show you the butt dyno works different in MS than it does in WI.
Originally Posted By: Johnny
That just goes to show you the butt dyno works different in MS than it does in WI.
Well, I've used my ears to nail timing curves on 600+ rwhp Mustangs which have gone on to be dyno verified as optimal. I trust my ears, not others.
That just goes to show you the butt dyno works different in MS than it does in WI.
Well, I've used my ears to nail timing curves on 600+ rwhp Mustangs which have gone on to be dyno verified as optimal. I trust my ears, not others.
Originally Posted By: buster
I highly doubt you can accurately say you noticed a .4 mpg difference in fuel economy. RL 5w20 is essentially a 30 grade in terms of shear stability.
It's pretty obvious when I look back at records, .4 mpg is a bigger increase in a 4700 lb. (empty) full size truck than a Mazda 3.
RL 5W-20 has a HTHS vis of 3.3 cP, Ultra 5W-30 has a HTHs vis of 3.1 cP. Even though HTHS vis has a greater correlation with fuel economy than kinematic viscosity, I've shown you in the past that friction modification impacts the degree of correlation. RL advertises right on the bottle "lowest cofficient of friction available".
I highly doubt you can accurately say you noticed a .4 mpg difference in fuel economy. RL 5w20 is essentially a 30 grade in terms of shear stability.
It's pretty obvious when I look back at records, .4 mpg is a bigger increase in a 4700 lb. (empty) full size truck than a Mazda 3.
RL 5W-20 has a HTHS vis of 3.3 cP, Ultra 5W-30 has a HTHs vis of 3.1 cP. Even though HTHS vis has a greater correlation with fuel economy than kinematic viscosity, I've shown you in the past that friction modification impacts the degree of correlation. RL advertises right on the bottle "lowest cofficient of friction available".
Yeah I am aware of that, however, I just think too many variables are at play to accurately assess mpg gains. I believe what you saw, but I just think it could be due to other variables.
HT/HS is highly correlated to mpg. Redline does use a lot of FM's so it could be possible. I would think their 0w20 would be the best oil for fuel economy.
HT/HS is highly correlated to mpg. Redline does use a lot of FM's so it could be possible. I would think their 0w20 would be the best oil for fuel economy.
How much more expensive is the RL than Ultra? If the mpg increase of .4mpg stayed consistent over the whole OCI, the extra cost would probably be worth it.
Just a basic scenario; If you average 15mpg on Ultra and 15.4 on RL, you would save around $28.00 in fuel over a 6,000 mile interval(Unless my math is wrong). This is also ASSUMING an average fuel price of $2.70/gallon. I don't know what you pay for fuel or your average mpg, but I figured probably relatively close.
Not sure if this is relevant to you, just having fun
.
Just a basic scenario; If you average 15mpg on Ultra and 15.4 on RL, you would save around $28.00 in fuel over a 6,000 mile interval(Unless my math is wrong). This is also ASSUMING an average fuel price of $2.70/gallon. I don't know what you pay for fuel or your average mpg, but I figured probably relatively close.
Not sure if this is relevant to you, just having fun
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: addyguy
With a TBN of 5.6, a complete waste to drain at 6k.
You could have gotten similar results on PYB, and not have spent so much $$$.
But hey, that's the 'style' here, right?!
Sure, I could have run a dino.
I have yet to discover the purpose of this standard response that seems to show up over and over in the UOA section.
No real point, except to highlight that many members have more money than brains.
Originally Posted By: addyguy
With a TBN of 5.6, a complete waste to drain at 6k.
You could have gotten similar results on PYB, and not have spent so much $$$.
But hey, that's the 'style' here, right?!
Sure, I could have run a dino.
No real point, except to highlight that many members have more money than brains.
- Status
