PU 5w30 + LM MoS2, 13,987 Mi., '06 Forester X 2.5L

Status
Not open for further replies.

gib

Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
164
Location
A Tropical Isle
This is my father's car, though it's often used by my sister as well. I was surprised by this at first, but upon reflection it makes some sense. The air filter needed replacing, which has now been done. Also of note, oil leaked from the oil filter (it collected and accumulated [censored] directly below the filter on a plastic piece that protects some of the undercarriage). Not as much oil drained from the pan as usual, so the oil had gotten somewhat low. Our driveway is heavily sloped and I never drive the car, so checking the dipstick takes some planning on my part. I'll need to stay on top of that in the future. Anyway, between the air filter and and low oil level, it's ugly.

Oil Filter: PureOne PL14459
Air Filter: Fram
Previous Oils (left to right): Mobil 1 0w30, Pennzoil Ultra 5w30, 50/50 mix of Castrol Syntec 0w30 (GC) and Castrol Syntec 10w30.

foresteruoa4.png
 
Incidentally, the censored word in that first post starts with c and ends with rap. I didn't realize that was such a bad word. I guess I should have put dirt or grit or junk or something.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: gib
Not as much oil drained from the pan as usual, so the oil had gotten somewhat low.


Whoa....... That's a lot of the problem right there. About how much drained out??

The oil HAS to be checked at regular intervals & filled!
 
Ouch, not a good report, may I ask why wait so long to change the oil? This could have easily been prevented.
 
Originally Posted By: Turk
About how much drained out??

The oil HAS to be checked at regular intervals & filled!

Honestly, about 1.5 quarts less than usual. I check the oil on my car regularly (1995 Honda Accord EX) because it leaks oil, so I expect it to steadily lose significant amounts. But the Forester had never had that happen before. Again, I learned my lesson here. I'm pretty embarrassed.

Originally Posted By: gregk24
Ouch, not a good report, may I ask why wait so long to change the oil? This could have easily been prevented.

I run these OCIs because this engine with the oil I use is perfectly capable of these intervals, as can be seen by the previous excellent reports, each one extended a little more than the previous. I agree this could easily have been prevented - by getting off my butt and checking the oil levels and air filter. This was my fault, the distance wasn't the problem. That being said, even if the oil had not leaked and the air filter was clean, I suspect 14k miles is about 100% utilization for this combo.
 
A n/a EJ25 is typically pretty easy on oil, and doesn't have a huge sump. I'm thinking it has a 4.5 or 5 quart sump in the Foz? 1.5 quarts over 14K miles is not enough that I would be worried as far as consumption goes. However, topping up is needed. I'm thinking if it had gotten a quart and a half as it used oil, the report would have been fairly unremarkable.

FWIW, my Outback uses around half a quart like clockwork over a 5000-7500 mile OCI on conventional, always has since I got it around 80K ago.
 
Originally Posted By: Hollow
I'm thinking it has a 4.5 or 5 quart sump in the Foz? 1.5 quarts over 14K miles is not enough that I would be worried as far as consumption goes.

Owners manual states 4.2 quarts, though I always put in ~4.5. And you misunderstand; what drained out was roughly 1.5 quarts less than what usually drains out, not what I put in. So it was down some amount due to typical consumption, plus an extra ~1.5 quarts presumably due to the leaking around the oil filter that I found. Upon further reflection it was probably more like 1 quart than 1.5, but it was significantly less than usual.
 
Originally Posted By: Hollow
A n/a EJ25 is typically pretty easy on oil, and doesn't have a huge sump. I'm thinking it has a 4.5 or 5 quart sump in the Foz? 1.5 quarts over 14K miles is not enough that I would be worried as far as consumption goes. However, topping up is needed. I'm thinking if it had gotten a quart and a half as it used oil, the report would have been fairly unremarkable.

FWIW, my Outback uses around half a quart like clockwork over a 5000-7500 mile OCI on conventional, always has since I got it around 80K ago.



That make sense. If the oil was topped up prior to taking the sample the concentrations of wear metals would have been much lower.
I'm surprised that the mos2 didn't help. Every used oil analysis I've seen with mos2 in the sump completely smokes blackstones universal averages.
 
Originally Posted By: Clevy
I'm surprised that the mos2 didn't help.

MoS2 is good stuff, but between the dirty air filter and the lower quantity of oil due to the leak, I think the MoS2 was simply overmatched.

The dirty air filter allowed some dirt ingress which increased wear. The lower quantity of oil wore out faster (TBN exhaustion leading to oxidation and the reduction of the oil's lubricating ability). Plus, more wear metals circulating in the oil presumably causes wear rates to increase.
At this point wear metals are going to be higher than usual. Then take those wear metals and concentrate them due to the lower quantity of oil, thus making their PPM readings higher, and MoS2 had no chance to make this report look good. heh
 
Originally Posted By: gib
Originally Posted By: Clevy
I'm surprised that the mos2 didn't help.

MoS2 is good stuff, but between the dirty air filter and the lower quantity of oil due to the leak, I think the MoS2 was simply overmatched.

The dirty air filter allowed some dirt ingress which increased wear. The lower quantity of oil wore out faster (TBN exhaustion leading to oxidation and the reduction of the oil's lubricating ability). Plus, more wear metals circulating in the oil presumably causes wear rates to increase.
At this point wear metals are going to be higher than usual. Then take those wear metals and concentrate them due to the lower quantity of oil, thus making their PPM readings higher, and MoS2 had no chance to make this report look good. heh



That's a really good explanation. Makes sense.
 
Doesn't look that bad to me considering there are 14k miles on what's left of the oil. If it had been topped off at, say 8k, the results would have been fine IMO.
 
Blackstone wasn't pointing to a dirty air filter, they were pointing to an air filter leak that was letting things past the filter. If the air filter is aged enough that the seal is compromised you might have found your problem, but otherwise you could have an intake leak at a clamp or something.
 
Or it could be that the MoS2 didn't do anything, right?

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: gib
Originally Posted By: Clevy
I'm surprised that the mos2 didn't help.

MoS2 is good stuff, but between the dirty air filter and the lower quantity of oil due to the leak, I think the MoS2 was simply overmatched.

The dirty air filter allowed some dirt ingress which increased wear. The lower quantity of oil wore out faster (TBN exhaustion leading to oxidation and the reduction of the oil's lubricating ability). Plus, more wear metals circulating in the oil presumably causes wear rates to increase.
At this point wear metals are going to be higher than usual. Then take those wear metals and concentrate them due to the lower quantity of oil, thus making their PPM readings higher, and MoS2 had no chance to make this report look good. heh



That's a really good explanation. Makes sense.
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
If the air filter is aged enough that the seal is compromised you might have found your problem...

I believe that to be the case. The filter was in rough shape in all aspects.

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Or it could be that the MoS2 didn't do anything, right?

Certainly, but I've seen MoS2 give positive, or at at least non-negative, results enough that I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. But if I could, I'd love to run this identical experiment without the MoS2.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top