UOA - 2021 Ford F150 3.5 Ecoboost Castrol Edge 5W30 4,052 Miles

Joined
Sep 13, 2022
Messages
1
Location
Montana
First post and UOA.

We all know the 3.5 Ecoboost destroys oils. I change at 4,000 miles and have since the truck was new. I have a handful of reasons why: It's easy. Oil is cheap, engines, timing chains, phasers and turbos are not. I want to keep it in a 30 weight or above spec, and it's a satisfying feeling when I'm done. Overkill? Maybe.

I have only used Castrol Edge 5W30 U.S. When I got the truck, API SP oils that mentioned meeting Ford's new WSS-M2C961-A1 were limited, and I read good things about Castrol handling shear, mostly from the Magnatec crowd. I'm aware there's a lot more oils now and I am open to suggestions.

Here is my report:

7TnvH43.png


Overall I am pretty happy with the results. Glad to see it's 100C Viscosity is 9.61, only dropping slightly from Castrol's advertised 10.0 starting point. Of course these results are based on my driving style and fuel usage. 91 E10 only, about a 30 mile commute, half of which is freeway so I am pretty much always hitting operating temp. I also deactivate auto start stop every time I start the truck for what that's worth and tow a 5000 lb trailer every once in awhile.

Let me know what you think!
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
4,508
With your driving style I'd feel just as good at 5k as you do now at 4k. Looks like it's working. Caution as 1 UOA is establishing a baseline so to speak. A few more UOA's over the next 20-50k will surely show you a better set of data to analyze.
 

FZ1

Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
5,917
Location
Texas
First post and UOA.

We all know the 3.5 Ecoboost destroys oils. I change at 4,000 miles and have since the truck was new. I have a handful of reasons why: It's easy. Oil is cheap, engines, timing chains, phasers and turbos are not. I want to keep it in a 30 weight or above spec, and it's a satisfying feeling when I'm done. Overkill? Maybe.

I have only used Castrol Edge 5W30 U.S. When I got the truck, API SP oils that mentioned meeting Ford's new WSS-M2C961-A1 were limited, and I read good things about Castrol handling shear, mostly from the Magnatec crowd. I'm aware there's a lot more oils now and I am open to suggestions.

Here is my report:

7TnvH43.png


Overall I am pretty happy with the results. Glad to see it's 100C Viscosity is 9.61, only dropping slightly from Castrol's advertised 10.0 starting point. Of course these results are based on my driving style and fuel usage. 91 E10 only, about a 30 mile commute, half of which is freeway so I am pretty much always hitting operating temp. I also deactivate auto start stop every time I start the truck for what that's worth and tow a 5000 lb trailer every once in awhile.

Let me know what you think!
Good run and proactive oci.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
7,886
Doesn't look like your Ecoboost is that hard on oil. TBN is good and no shear on your report.
 
Joined
Jun 8, 2022
Messages
154
First post and UOA.

We all know the 3.5 Ecoboost destroys oils. I change at 4,000 miles and have since the truck was new. I have a handful of reasons why: It's easy. Oil is cheap, engines, timing chains, phasers and turbos are not. I want to keep it in a 30 weight or above spec, and it's a satisfying feeling when I'm done. Overkill? Maybe.

I have only used Castrol Edge 5W30 U.S. When I got the truck, API SP oils that mentioned meeting Ford's new WSS-M2C961-A1 were limited, and I read good things about Castrol handling shear, mostly from the Magnatec crowd. I'm aware there's a lot more oils now and I am open to suggestions.

Here is my report:

7TnvH43.png


Overall I am pretty happy with the results. Glad to see it's 100C Viscosity is 9.61, only dropping slightly from Castrol's advertised 10.0 starting point. Of course these results are based on my driving style and fuel usage. 91 E10 only, about a 30 mile commute, half of which is freeway so I am pretty much always hitting operating temp. I also deactivate auto start stop every time I start the truck for what that's worth and tow a 5000 lb trailer every once in awhile.

Let me know what you think!
YES, gen1 (esp) 3.5L V6 TGDI was harder on oil. The Gen2 w/ DI & port inj much less so it seems. Nonetheless anyone running more then 5-6k mis in any TGDIs are pushing it. Just don't do it. The Honda guys are having fits w/those TGDI engines & I feel for em but great maintenance can mitigate alot! We have 2 newer F150s & new gen '20 Ranger . All TGDI engines. 5k mi OCI keeps me happy & trucks running great. No oil burning at all! UOAs are very good tho don't do em often .. usually 1st 25-30k mis . #PennUltraPlatinum
 
Joined
May 15, 2012
Messages
5,693
Location
The land of USA-made Subies!
YES, gen1 (esp) 3.5L V6 TGDI was harder on oil. The Gen2 w/ DI & port inj much less so it seems. Nonetheless anyone running more then 5-6k mis in any TGDIs are pushing it. Just don't do it. The Honda guys are having fits w/those TGDI engines & I feel for em but great maintenance can mitigate alot! We have 2 newer F150s & new gen '20 Ranger . All TGDI engines. 5k mi OCI keeps me happy & trucks running great. No oil burning at all! UOAs are very good tho don't do em often .. usually 1st 25-30k mis . #PennUltraPlatinum
So what do you have to say about an entire fleet of 3.5EBs running 15k OCIs and similar results?
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
2,776
Location
Somewhere in time
So what do you have to say about an entire fleet of 3.5EBs running 15k OCIs and similar results?
In the context of the current conversation, I'd have nothing to say.
We both know that it's invalid to compare UOAs from different vehicles to one another so it would be a fool's errand to do so.
Why ask that question in this context?
 
Joined
May 15, 2012
Messages
5,693
Location
The land of USA-made Subies!
In the context of the current conversation, I'd have nothing to say.
We both know that it's invalid to compare UOAs from different vehicles to one another so it would be a fool's errand to do so.
Why ask that question in this context?
It's invalid to compare individual UOAs, sure, we agree. But as @dnewton3 has shown several times, the macro-level data (30 samples from a single machine, averaged, or multiple UOAs from multiple vehicles) is certainly a valid reference. It's not a true indicator of wear, but it is definitely an accurate point to evaluate against. We're not talking a handful of ppm on any given element, but the overall condition of the oil including viscosity, TBN, flashpoint, and the presence of sodium or silicon. Looking at "your" engine's trends against a much larger sample of the same engines has the ability to help identify issues at a much earlier point than just comparing to itself.

There is always good information in macro-level data when you know how to properly apply it, and it most certainly can be used to maximize whatever life is left in the engine in question. I really wish David @High Performance Lubricants could share some high-level data from the fleet, even though because of their environment his group of samples will likely show elevated silicon compared to a truck that's strictly highway.
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
2,776
Location
Somewhere in time
It's invalid to compare individual UOAs, sure, we agree. But as @dnewton3 has shown several times, the macro-level data (30 samples from a single machine, averaged, or multiple UOAs from multiple vehicles) is certainly a valid reference. It's not a true indicator of wear, but it is definitely an accurate point to evaluate against. We're not talking a handful of ppm on any given element, but the overall condition of the oil including viscosity, TBN, flashpoint, and the presence of sodium or silicon. Looking at "your" engine's trends against a much larger sample of the same engines has the ability to help identify issues at a much earlier point than just comparing to itself.

There is always good information in macro-level data when you know how to properly apply it, and it most certainly can be used to maximize whatever life is left in the engine in question. I really wish David @High Performance Lubricants could share some high-level data from the fleet, even though because of their environment his group of samples will likely show elevated silicon compared to a truck that's strictly highway.
If I were to want to observe macro level differences, I'd look at the universal averages that Blackstone provides with each report.

I sure wouldn't rely on an unverifiable internet poster and the results he claims for his "fleet". Too many unknowns.
 
Joined
May 15, 2012
Messages
5,693
Location
The land of USA-made Subies!
If I were to want to observe macro level differences, I'd look at the universal averages that Blackstone provides with each report.

I sure wouldn't rely on an unverifiable internet poster and the results he claims for his "fleet". Too many unknowns.
Yep, a board sponsor who’s had open houses specifically for members and is much more open with data than oil companies is an unknown, unverifiable source. That same company has somehow managed to brainwash the board admin as well. Ok, you win.

You do realize that Blackstone’s universal averages include engines that have had failures, right? I had gotten the full list (at the time) of several hundred samples from the 2.5 Mazda engine in my ‘11 Fusion, and some had iron counts in the 600 range IIRC. Is that going to give you a good reference?

You’re obviously free to pick and choose your macro reference, but ignoring valid data when it will simply be contrasted against your samples, seems quite shortsighted. To me, getting the much longer data runs (longer than anyone here on the board is willing to do) gives a “safety net” to bridge the gap of data between the 4-6k crowd and the 15k (with 3 filter changes & top-ups). More data, more better. ✌️
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
2,776
Location
Somewhere in time
You do realize that Blackstone’s universal averages include engines that have had failures, right? I had gotten the full list (at the time) of several hundred samples from the 2.5 Mazda engine in my ‘11 Fusion, and some had iron counts in the 600 range IIRC. Is that going to give you a good reference?
If you exclude data, it's no longer a universal average.
But don't let that cloud your thinking.
 
Top