Ravenol SFE 5w-20 / 10,005mi on oil / 2017 Ford Focus 1.0L Turbo 6spd

[dhunter19]

Bought car new in 2017. I've used the Ravenol SFE 5w-20 since new. I put about 20,000 highway miles per year on the car and change anywhere from 5,000 - 7500 miles. This is the first time I've gone to 10,000 miles. Car was tested at about 87K a few months ago and currently have 94K on it.

My plan since the car was new is to drive it till the wheels fall off. This is the first time I've had the oil tested so this will be my baseline.

The car has had zero problems (knock on wood).

 

[KCJeep]

Looks to be in fantastic shape and wow on that TBN. This is what you get with a premium oil and easy highway miles. You could go 15k easy.

 

[JavierH19]

i mean yeah 20k highway miles a year is gonna yield good tbn. There's a guy on here who went 12k in an ecoboost v6 with just supertech 10k and still had i think 1.9 tbn. Wasn't bad at all. I'm surprised by the 2500ppm calcium in that gdi turbo engine. Guess lspi isn't an issue with that particular 1.0 as fuel is less than 0.5 but then again it does a lot of highway cruising.

 

[Artem]

Are you planning on extending the oil use even further, since the lab analysis supports it? Seems you’ve been dumping it early all these years.

 

[OVERKILL]

Excellent (unremarkable) report!

Viscosity retention was excellent, virgin is 8.5cSt, so only 5% viscosity loss. Flashpoint is good, down a bit from virgin (460F) but we are also dealing with lab variance on both of these parameters.

The oil held up extremely well.

 

[Focus82]

Excellent UOA. The 1.0 EcoBoost is very little LSPI prone as far as i know.

 

[dhunter19]

Are you planning on extending the oil use even further, since the lab analysis supports it? Seems you’ve been dumping it early all these years.

Yes, I am going to 12K this time and see what it looks like.

 

[dnewton3]

I echo others comments.
Fe wear is admirable, as are the other wear metals.
No contamination to speak of.

12k (even 15k) miles is a no-brainer; 20k would not be inconceivable, but I'd recommend walking your way up to 20k a little at a time and not going straight there.

 

[Artem]

I echo others comments.
Fe wear is admirable, as are the other wear metals.
No contamination to speak of.

12k (even 15k) miles is a no-brainer; 20k would not be inconceivable, but I'd recommend walking your way up to 20k a little at a time and not going straight there.

Yea with what sounds like very easy highway cruising with a very eco engine, it’s definitely a good candidate for extended OCIs with only positives like less oil waste and a thicker wallet.

 

[Oliveoil2]

This has the oil bath timing belt which starts to disintegrate between 80-120k. If not changed preventively it will clog the oil pump screen and ruin the engine. Poor design, especially since it was advertised as a life-time belt. Newer 1.0t use chains. Do some research and keep it at 10k oci.

 

[dhunter19]

Excellent UOA. The 1.0 EcoBoost is very little LSPI prone as far as i know.

I started using it way back when because I was worried about LSPI. However, I don't think I've come across any instances of it thus far

 

[dhunter19]

This has the oil bath timing belt which starts to disintegrate between 80-120k. If not changed preventively it will clog the oil pump screen and ruin the engine. Poor design, especially since it was advertised as a life-time belt. Newer 1.0t use chains. Do some research and keep it at 10k oci.

Frankly, the timing belt has been the only thing so far that has scared me off from doing longer changes. I"m going to take this to 12K (not far off now) and see what the oil looks like.

 

[dnewton3]

Re: the timing belt issue ...
So what's the trigger for the timing belt relative to oil? Don't tell me it's the OCI distance, because there can be so many other variables within that same distance (heat cycles, hwy vs city, ambient temps, oil base stocks, oil add-packs ...). Not for one second do I think that a timing belt that experiences 9k mile OCIs would live X miles longer than the same belt which experiences 12k mile OCIs.

Now, if someone has some clinical data that shows X miles OCI = Y hours belt life, then I'd be all ears. Until then, I consider it anecdotal at best.

 

[Oliveoil2]

Re: the timing belt issue ...
So what's the trigger for the timing belt relative to oil? Don't tell me it's the OCI distance, because there can be so many other variables within that same distance (heat cycles, hwy vs city, ambient temps, oil base stocks, oil add-packs ...). Not for one second do I think that a timing belt that experiences 9k mile OCIs would live X miles longer than the same belt which experiences 12k mile OCIs.

Now, if someone has some clinical data that shows X miles OCI = Y hours belt life, then I'd be all ears. Until then, I consider it anecdotal at best.

Maybe your right. I don’t know. But my feeling is shorter ocis will allow one to drain most of the belt debris before anything happens. Mostly the belt starts to shed rubber and fiber. It doesn’t sink to the bottom like metal or dirt and it gets caught in the oil pump suction screen clogging it. Have a look at the UK Ford Focus sites that have outlined the issue.

 

[dnewton3]

I'm still skeptical regarding the OCI vs timing belt life.

Oliveoil2 stated that the belt "starts to disintegrate between 80-120k". Ok - I'll accept that in the absence of any other info.

But lets play the theorhetical game here ...
- Engine 1 has a belt that experiences easy drive cycles; hwy crusing, nominal temps and OCIs at 12k miles religously
- Engine 2 has a belt that experiences hard drive cycles; city stop/go, very hot ambient temps, OCIs every 8k miles religiously
Am I supposed to believe that the longer OCI will somehow make the belt "disintegrate" 50% quicker just because the OCI is 50% longer??? Whenever it's experiencing the effect of "shedding rubber and fiber", how is that tied to an OCI??? I would agree that the life cycle may be related to the belt total mileage exposure (80-120k), but the OCIs??? I don't buy it.

The OPs car has 94k miles on it. I would agree that a preventative belt change would be prudent. But not because of the OCIs; rather the mileage overall. Change the belt at 100k as a precaution. But given the admirable wear of the engine, and the easy nature of the miles accumulated, the OCIs can be 12-15k easily.

Nothing I've seen or heard yet convinces me that shorter OCIs will lengthen timing belt life. 10k miles on this OCI ... the insolubes are very low, the wear metals are very low and the contamination is practically non-existent (silica, fuel, coolant all practically nil). Exactly what is it in the oil that's risking belt life????????????

If this UOA had the exact same data results, but only 5k miles of use, would you say it's perfectly fine ... that the oil was not risking belt life? But when this very same data comes from 10k miles of use, somehow the belt is at risk??????
That's nothing but fear mongering bovine manure based on illogical thinking. It's emotional garbage and not based on any cricital analysis.

 

[Oliveoil2]

I'm still skeptical regarding the OCI vs timing belt life.

Oliveoil2 stated that the belt "starts to disintegrate between 80-120k". Ok - I'll accept that in the absence of any other info.

But lets play the theorhetical game here ...
- Engine 1 has a belt that experiences easy drive cycles; hwy crusing, nominal temps and OCIs at 12k miles religously
- Engine 2 has a belt that experiences hard drive cycles; city stop/go, very hot ambient temps, OCIs every 8k miles religiously
Am I supposed to believe that the longer OCI will somehow make the belt "disintegrate" 50% quicker just because the OCI is 50% longer??? Whenever it's experiencing the effect of "shedding rubber and fiber", how is that tied to an OCI??? I would agree that the life cycle may be related to the belt total mileage exposure (80-120k), but the OCIs??? I don't buy it.

The OPs car has 94k miles on it. I would agree that a preventative belt change would be prudent. But not because of the OCIs; rather the mileage overall. Change the belt at 100k as a precaution. But given the admirable wear of the engine, and the easy nature of the miles accumulated, the OCIs can be 12-15k easily.

Nothing I've seen or heard yet convinces me that shorter OCIs will lengthen timing belt life. 10k miles on this OCI ... the insolubes are very low, the wear metals are very low and the contamination is practically non-existent (silica, fuel, coolant all practically nil). Exactly what is it in the oil that's risking belt life????????????

If this UOA had the exact same data results, but only 5k miles of use, would you say it's perfectly fine ... that the oil was not risking belt life? But when this very same data comes from 10k miles of use, somehow the belt is at risk??????
That's nothing but fear mongering bovine manure based on illogical thinking. It's emotional garbage and not based on any cricital analysis.

Wow!!! That’s a lot of writing. As I said Shorter oil changes removes the floating crap from a belt that’s wearing out. It has nothing to do with good or bad UOA’s. Rubber and fiberglass don’t show up in UOA’s. Owners of this little 1.0t have to be concerned about the oil pump screen clogging. Nothing Bovine scary about it.

 

[FZ1]

Yes, I am going to 12K this time and see what it looks like.

Or, you could just keep the oci at 10k and save the anaylsis $.

 

[dnewton3]

Wow!!! That’s a lot of writing. As I said Shorter oil changes removes the floating crap from a belt that’s wearing out. It has nothing to do with good or bad UOA’s. Rubber and fiberglass don’t show up in UOA’s. Owners of this little 1.0t have to be concerned about the oil pump screen clogging. Nothing Bovine scary about it.

So if that's the concern for failure mode ... debris from the belt clogging the intake screen, they why not use a very inexpensive oil and OCI every 3k miles? Would that make the belt last longer? Would it make the belt life nearly infinite? What you're stating is that long OCIs increase belt wear, which in turn affects the belt "material shed-rate". Is that shed-rate linear? Is it parabolic?

In post #10, you indicate that belt life is limited by miles; "80-120k". That is a MILEAGE ONLY limit; has nothing to do with an OCI.
In post #14, you switch gears and say that your "feeling" is that shorter OCIs will allow the shed material to be flushed out.
Which is it? Is the OCI the determining factor, or the total milage the determining factor?

Show me some data that equates X miles of oil OCI to Y miles of belt shedding increase, and I'll see the connection. Otherwise, it's just hooey. I'm not saying you're wrong. What I'm challenging is the notion that the OCI determines belt life. Either way, I'm asking for you to back up your claim with some hard facts. ALL timing belts often should be replaced around 80-120k, even ones that are run dry outside of the sump; that's not an abnormal belt life.

I can accept that perhaps the "shed material" may clog the screen, but how is it that you're attempting to tie the OCI duration to that shedding event??? And IF we accept the premise that the OCI is the determining factor, why not use a cheap conventional oil and OCI more often??? There are plenty of dino oils from all the bigs that meet the Ford oil spec for that engine (WSS-M2C945-A; and the updated equiv of 960-A). If "shed material" is a problem with clogging the oil pick-up tube and flushing the material is the solution, then why not OCI at 3k or 5k miles with cheaper oil? And IF doing so will reduce belt degradation, does the belt life become 150k? 200k? Otherwise, the entire premise is just flawed rehetoric.

 

[Oliveoil2]

It’s a design flaw. I don’t have a premise. If I owned this vehicle I’d start with shorter oci’s at 80k and strain the oil to see if the belt is shedding. It’s not the oils fault. I’d also change the belt before 100k or sell the car.

 

[Focus82]

A little sidenote:
The newer European Mk4 Focus with almost redesigned 1.0 EcoBoost engine has chain driven cams. The older Mk3 and Mk3.5 Focus with 1.0 EcoBoost engine was cam belt driven in oil.