Red Line 5W Racing Oil, 2019 Lincoln Navigator 3.5L Turbo, 1,059mi - Oil, 29,000mi - Truck.

I'm used to Ford using Alumisil (bi-metal) bearings, silicon is really high, but aluminum isn't, which would lead one to conclude it isn't bearing material. I also don't see enough lead/tin for it to be a tri-metal bearing to explain the copper, so that's likely coming from something else (chelation), but where is the question! Also, your metal particles didn't look like copper, though if they are big enough to see, they are too big for the UOA to see them. Silicon is probably coming from silicone sealant from your timing set job if I had to guess.
Are the turbo bearings ball or journal? If journal, they are brass. That's a possible source of the copper. The zinc would be masked by the additive package. Some brass alloys use a bit of lead. That could explain the lead that may or may not be there.

Ed
 
"He has 12ppm/6,100 miles; 2ppm/1,000 miles; 7x less iron per 1,000 miles than in this report."

Runs of 1,000 miles have issues. There may be some of that initial cleaning from the esters? Also acid cleaning in this case? If it was run for another 1,000 miles perhaps the rate/1,000 mi would decrease on the second leg and eventually settle to a constant rate some time thereafter. A way to test this would be to get a UOA every 1,000 miles without changing the oil, then add them all together to get a 5,000 mile sample when the time comes up. Some proper math would be involved. That could be difficult for me. I learned most of it during my 3 years in the 8th grade.

Of course the engine would dissolve by then using this oil so not a good idea. (You don't have to say it, let me save you the trouble - Nothing I do is a good idea).

I am going to do the 1,000/UOA testing. I'll run for a total of 5,000 miles. The question is. Do I start with the current 0W20 or start with the next oil I plan to use, the 0W16? I know, do both but I am only planning on doing one. What are the arguments for each?

Ali

PS: "One of the worst contaminants is water, which is rarely discussed. Combustion of ethanol and gasoline. The oil has to emulsify the water. Some oils do in fact handle water better than others. This is what Valvoline is currently running on with their 24x better claims. Just an FYI."

That reminded me. One time in high school I remember dropping the oil and when the plug was removed the first thing that came out was water!
 
Last edited:
Since we have to standardize to ppm per 1,000 miles for these results to be put into perspective, this is a worrying report. 14ppm/1,000 miles of iron is extremely high. Here is another Ecoboost 3.5L UOA:

He has 12ppm/6,100 miles; 2ppm/1,000 miles; 7x less iron per 1,000 miles than in this report.

Iron tracks with mileage, so at 6,000 miles your iron would have been 84ppm. 😬

I'm used to Ford using Alumisil (bi-metal) bearings, silicon is really high, but aluminum isn't, which would lead one to conclude it isn't bearing material. I also don't see enough lead/tin for it to be a tri-metal bearing to explain the copper, so that's likely coming from something else (chelation), but where is the question! Also, your metal particles didn't look like copper, though if they are big enough to see, they are too big for the UOA to see them. Silicon is probably coming from silicone sealant from your timing set job if I had to guess.

Zinc and Phos are insanely high! WOW. Like @RDY4WAR I am surprised that phosphorous is higher than zinc. Unlike him however, I don't think this is a good report, lol. That's primarily based on what I previously noted about the iron.

I think the interval is too short to draw significant conclusions in ppm/1k. Residual oil leftover, the high ester could've kicked up some trapped metals in deposits left behind by other oils, and/or a corrosive effect from a lack of sufficient detergent content. I'm not suggesting he keep going with this oil.
 
I think the interval is too short to draw significant conclusions in ppm/1k. Residual oil leftover, the high ester could've kicked up some trapped metals in deposits left behind by other oils, and/or a corrosive effect from a lack of sufficient detergent content. I'm not suggesting he keep going with this oil.
Well iron is the only one that really tracks with mileage, with ~30,000 miles on it, I wouldn't expect much in the way of deposits. The other ones just sort of "are", so we take them for where they stand.

I agree, a short interval may muddy things somewhat, but at least with respect to the iron, it should trend pretty naturally, which I guess we'll see as he continues to experiment with this vehicle. I think 14ppm/1,000 miles is worrisome even if we allow for some fudge factor, it's still 7x another vehicle with the same engine in it, I'm sure we could look at some other UOA's and create a rough average for this engine.
 
A way to test this would be to get a UOA every 1,000 miles without changing the oil, then add them all together to get a 5,000 mile sample when the time comes up.

I am going to do the 1,000/UOA testing. I'll run for a total of 5,000 miles. The question is. Do I start with the current 0W20 or start with the next oil I plan to use, the 0W16? I know, do both but I am only planning on doing one. What are the arguments for each?
Each sample will be cumulative, since you aren't changing the oil, so no, you wouldn't add them together.

So, for example, let's pretend you are running this same "0W5" and we were watching iron:
1,000 miles: 14ppm
2,000 miles: 27ppm
3,000 miles: 51ppm
4,000 miles: 67ppm
...etc.

That's roughly how you'd expect iron to trend when sampled at 1,000 mile intervals. Other metals do not track with mileage, so they will stay the same or do other non-linear things.
 
Are the turbo bearings ball or journal? If journal, they are brass. That's a possible source of the copper. The zinc would be masked by the additive package. Some brass alloys use a bit of lead. That could explain the lead that may or may not be there.

Ed
Good thought!

Doing some Google-Fu, it appears to have Borg-Warner K03 turbos, which, looking at this rebuild kit from ECS, do not have ball bearings:
 
“So, for example, let's pretend you are running this same "0W5" and we were watching iron:”

1,000 miles: 14ppm = 14ppm for 1st 1,000mi
2,000 miles: 27ppm 27-14 = 13 for 2nd 1,000mi
3,000 miles: 51ppm 51-27 = 24 for 3rd 1,000mi
4,000 miles: 67ppm. 67-51 = 16 for this 1,000mi interval

We shall see. 'Not sure if this experiment has been done recently. There are a lot of variations possible here, with cars that are new and clean, older with poor care then changed to an ester formula, for example....

Ali
 
“So, for example, let's pretend you are running this same "0W5" and we were watching iron:”

1,000 miles: 14ppm = 14ppm for 1st 1,000mi
2,000 miles: 27ppm 27-14 = 13 for 2nd 1,000mi
3,000 miles: 51ppm 51-27 = 24 for 3rd 1,000mi
4,000 miles: 67ppm. 67-51 = 16 for this 1,000mi interval

We shall see. 'Not sure if this experiment has been done recently. There are a lot of variations possible here, with cars that are new and clean, older with poor care then changed to an ester formula, for example....

Ali
To be clear, I just made up that series to show it should roughly double, since iron tends to track with mileage. This is one of the parameters that @Doug Hillary used as a condemnation point for his OTR truck OCI's.
 
The run of this 5W grade oil was 1,059 miles from about 28,000 to 29,000 miles on the truck. According to Red Line the HTHS = 1.58. The J300 has a minimum kinematic viscosity requirement but no HTHS requirement for this grade. The HTHS for an 8 grade oil is 1.7.
SAE J300 does not address any "5 weight" oil, assuming you meant that by using the term "5W" to mean that and not a 5W winter rating. What J300 are you looking at?
 
Corrosive wear must always be a concern.

BTW I would absolutely freak out over this level of copper.
Journal bearings getting down below the top layer perhaps - ??

1675913071158.jpg
 
When I dropped this 5W oil it was replaced with PZ 0W20 oil. I will also get a UOA on this oil. Later I am planning on going to a 16 grade oil. So we are going to get some long term results.
Doing one UOA on each oil for a short run isn't "long term test results". That data set will not really tell you much. Try running each oil for way more than 1000 miles and for many more oil run UOAs.
 
It makes sense that a racing oil would prioritize the AW and FM additives
I would hope so with a "0W-5" used for short term "racing" purposes. What you lose in film thickness (MOFT) needs to try and be made up with film strength (AF/AW package).
 
Funny, I just came across this article, now on the internet, that is a little embellished but will give some people more reasons to throw stones. What the heck!

On the other hand it may help people understand why I stretch the envelope...


Ali
What motor oil did you design? And who's making it?
 
I'm used to Ford using Alumisil (bi-metal) bearings, silicon is really high, but aluminum isn't, which would lead one to conclude it isn't bearing material. I also don't see enough lead/tin for it to be a tri-metal bearing to explain the copper, so that's likely coming from something else (chelation), but where is the question!
Check the oil filter for visibles ... maybe that's where the aluminum is hiding, lol.
 
Well iron is the only one that really tracks with mileage, with ~30,000 miles on it, I wouldn't expect much in the way of deposits. The other ones just sort of "are", so we take them for where they stand.

I agree, a short interval may muddy things somewhat, but at least with respect to the iron, it should trend pretty naturally, which I guess we'll see as he continues to experiment with this vehicle. I think 14ppm/1,000 miles is worrisome even if we allow for some fudge factor, it's still 7x another vehicle with the same engine in it, I'm sure we could look at some other UOA's and create a rough average for this engine.
There is also the aspect of doing a short UOA at only 1000 miles being skewed by the left over oil from the last oil run. Depends on how much old oil is left inside the engine to mix with the new. What he should do is get a UOA on the new oil fill within a short interval, like 25 miles or less so that will become the more accurate baseline for the new oil run.
 
The first column is the SAE Grade. 5W has to meet these criteria:
View attachment 139569
Those are "monograde" values and are concerned with the low-temperature performance only. There is a low-shear rate value of 3.8 minimum at 100C. Note that there is no HT/HS for a "5" oil, in fact note that there is nothing for a 5 oil.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top