PP 0w-20, 1.9k oil mi, 4.3k veh miles, CX-5 2.5L

[bobdoo]

I -think- this UOA is of PP, but I had done a change with Mobil 1 0w-20 prior. I compared other UOA's, and PP looks closest.

I also add Liqui Moly 2009, about an ounce, to the 4.5 quarts the my 2016 CX-5 takes, with a new filter.

This vehicle suffers from infrequent short trips, and I try to do a 1-hour highway run monthly to dry out the oil. The engine isn't burning any noticeable oil, and dipstick levels don't rise, either.

I'm not interested in saving money with fewer oil changes, but of maximizing my chances of having zero engine issues over a 10 to 12 year ownership.

https://imgur.com/a/Bgzb4en

 

[irv]

Looks good for such a brand new engine.

 

[PimTac]

It looks like the engine is breaking in nicely. Fuel dilution is minimal.
I'm in a similar situation with the short trips. I purposely take the longer route to our destinations.

These motors love to be wound up. Putting it in Sport Mode will help in those cases when you can do it.

 

[1JZ_E46]

I'd skip the moly additive next time. You're just exasperating the intake valve carbon build up issue. Modern synthetics don't need any help from additives.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

1JZ, I don't know about the GDI problems, because I don't (won't) own one anytime soon. But, I agree on not using moly additives this early in an engine's life. PP will serve OP's engine just fine... If you're honestly worried about keeping this vehicle for 10-12 years with minimal issues, I would step up to a thin 5W30 next OCI... but that's just me.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
I would step up to a thin 5W30 next OCI... but that's just me.


Good call. Or maybe even a "thicker" 5W20.

 

[bobdoo]

Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
If you're honestly worried about keeping this vehicle for 10-12 years with minimal issues, I would step up to a thin 5W30 next OCI... but that's just me.


Already purchased!

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted by bobdoo
... This vehicle suffers from infrequent short trips ....
I'm not interested in saving money with fewer oil changes, but of maximizing my chances of having zero engine issues over a 10 to 12 year ownership.


Infrequent short trips are not a risk at all. Even daily short trips really don't escalate wear trends the way the OEMs would have us believe; not in a substantial manner that can be quantified with data. This is an overblown relic of decades past. Today's modern engines with fuel injection and closed crankcases don't suffer the ills of years past. I've seen many examples of "short-trip" soccer-mom type use, and the wear rates were every bit as "normal" as any other use. I would challenge anyone to show otherwise in a modern vehicle; where's the proof this is a risk? Don't point the to the owner's manual; show me quantifiable data streams that illuminate causation. I'll give you a hint here, there is no correlation between short trips and wear rate changes in most any UOA stream. If there is no correlation, then causation is impossible!

Also, what makes you think that saving money somehow equates to risk of ownership? There is no proof (zero, nada, zilch, zippo) that frequent oil changes make for anything other than waste. OCI with the OLM, using any decent qualified lube. No additives necessary (and may cause Mazda to deny/delay a warranty claim, should the unthinkable happen). Frequent oil changes will not hurt the engine. But they have never, ever shown to be a "help" either. Wear rate trends show higher wear with shorter OCIs, and as the OCIs mature, the wear rates trend steadily down IN JUST ABOUT EVERY APPLICATION UNDER THE SUN. Again - prove me wrong. Show the data that indicates frequent OCIs lessens risk of "issues over a 10 to 12 year ownership."


This UOA is proof of two things; break in wear is typical and there is no overt contamination of any kind. Other than those, it proves nothing.

 

[Triple_Se7en]

Originally Posted by bobdoo
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
If you're honestly worried about keeping this vehicle for 10-12 years with minimal issues, I would step up to a thin 5W30 next OCI... but that's just me.


Already purchased!

Stay with PP for a couple more UOAs. Seems to be working better than Mobil-1 here.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by Triple_Se7en
Originally Posted by bobdoo
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
If you're honestly worried about keeping this vehicle for 10-12 years with minimal issues, I would step up to a thin 5W30 next OCI... but that's just me.


Already purchased!

Stay with PP for a couple more UOAs. Seems to be working better than Mobil-1 here.





How can you tell?

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by Triple_Se7en
Originally Posted by bobdoo
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
If you're honestly worried about keeping this vehicle for 10-12 years with minimal issues, I would step up to a thin 5W30 next OCI... but that's just me.


Already purchased!

Stay with PP for a couple more UOAs. Seems to be working better than Mobil-1 here.





How can you tell?


LOL that's what I was wondering TimTac. But seriously just go with what's on sale with a rebate from one of the majors and seriously you can't go wrong.

 

[tiger862]

Originally Posted by dnewton3
Originally Posted by bobdoo
... This vehicle suffers from infrequent short trips ....
I'm not interested in saving money with fewer oil changes, but of maximizing my chances of having zero engine issues over a 10 to 12 year ownership.


Infrequent short trips are not a risk at all. Even daily short trips really don't escalate wear trends the way the OEMs would have us believe; not in a substantial manner that can be quantified with data. This is an overblown relic of decades past. Today's modern engines with fuel injection and closed crankcases don't suffer the ills of years past. I've seen many examples of "short-trip" soccer-mom type use, and the wear rates were every bit as "normal" as any other use. I would challenge anyone to show otherwise in a modern vehicle; where's the proof this is a risk? Don't point the to the owner's manual; show me quantifiable data streams that illuminate causation. I'll give you a hint here, there is no correlation between short trips and wear rate changes in most any UOA stream. If there is no correlation, then causation is impossible!

Also, what makes you think that saving money somehow equates to risk of ownership? There is no proof (zero, nada, zilch, zippo) that frequent oil changes make for anything other than waste. OCI with the OLM, using any decent qualified lube. No additives necessary (and may cause Mazda to deny/delay a warranty claim, should the unthinkable happen). Frequent oil changes will not hurt the engine. But they have never, ever shown to be a "help" either. Wear rate trends show higher wear with shorter OCIs, and as the OCIs mature, the wear rates trend steadily down IN JUST ABOUT EVERY APPLICATION UNDER THE SUN. Again - prove me wrong. Show the data that indicates frequent OCIs lessens risk of "issues over a 10 to 12 year ownership."


This UOA is proof of two things; break in wear is typical and there is no overt contamination of any kind. Other than those, it proves nothing.

You could argue short OCI shorten life of engine
Every time you change oil you have wear from lack of oil any how only for second. When you cold start filter already has oil and when you change it all components dry as well as filter. Longer interval means 12 dry starts and short interval 33 dry starts. HMM