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

[SubieRubyRoo]

If you exclude data, it's no longer a universal average.
But don't let that cloud your thinking.

Including known failures does not provide a valid trend as a whole. Garbage in, garbage out.

Besides, if you want to really get picky, all UOA universal averages are garbage by your metrics, because the simple fact that because it costs roughly the same as the oil change, the data set eliminates all the people who refuse to spend extra and simply “check the box” on maintenance. They likely neglect their engines to a degree which is not likely matched by those who perform UOAs. So you’re never going to get a “universal” number anyways…

 

[Imp4]

Including known failures does not provide a valid trend as a whole. Garbage in, garbage out.

Besides, if you want to really get picky, all UOA universal averages are garbage by your metrics, because the simple fact that because it costs roughly the same as the oil change, the data set eliminates all the people who refuse to spend extra and simply “check the box” on maintenance. They likely neglect their engines to a degree which is not likely matched by those who perform UOAs. So you’re never going to get a “universal” number anyways…

Those are some mighty big leaps of logic there and some questionable conclusions.
I'm not here to argue with you though.
Think what you'd like.
Cheers!!!

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Those are some mighty big leaps of logic there and some questionable conclusions.
I'm not here to argue with you though.
Think what you'd like.
Cheers!!!

Where’s the leap of logic? You can’t make assumptions on data that’s not collected. Thanks for the entertainment, discussion clarifies topics… I didn’t think you were arguing.

 

[High Performance Lubricants]

I don't know the exact percentage, but I can guarantee it wasn't 90% highway, and it includes numerous hours of idling away.

Actually 90% dirt 10% pavement with high idle time.

 

[OVERKILL]

If you exclude data, it's no longer a universal average.
But don't let that cloud your thinking.

It depends on what you are trying to average. Including data of engines run on anal grease and kangaroo sperm for 25,000 miles is certainly going to skew the results, are you trying to get an average of every unit on the road whether it was run on hot pocket drippings fortified with meth or Redline changed at 2K intervals, or are you looking for averages run on a specific range of lubes and of a specific viscosity that aligns more similarly to your usage profile, maintenance regimen and what you are planning to do to establish a like comparison?

Worded differently:
If I'm collecting ballistic data on Savage rifles, do I include ones run over by a tank, dropped into a sandbox and then fed Chinese surplus, or do I specifically scope what is being included to be meaningful and useful?

Averages from a large fleet of vehicles run on the same lubricant, changed at the same interval, certainly provides some valuable macro data for that equipment in that usage profile, run on that product. If your operating profile aligned similarly with the fleet, and you were considering a similar lubricant choice, this could be quite valuable data. If you are planning on running Supertech and doing WOT pulls to Walmart and dumping it once a month, probably not. Conversely, knowing that your engine is throwing better numbers than a sample group from within which quite a few were fed the wrong viscosity and tossed a rod is pretty low value. If we exclude those and the comparison significantly changes, that value is arguably of higher value.

 

[DAVIDO49]

So what do you have to say about an entire fleet of 3.5EBs running 15k OCIs and similar results?

I say possibly Gen2 3.5EB..though I've said before & will say again the Gen1EB performed very well for an early design. Far less issues then other manufacturers earky TGDI motors. Millions still on the rds.

 

[DAVIDO49]

Those are some mighty big leaps of logic there and some questionable conclusions.
I'm not here to argue with you though.
Think what you'd like.
Cheers!!!

Yea the arguing on here is a bit much i've noticed as well. We are all a fringe bunch at the end of the day being as concerned w/lubrication/wear/UOAs etc. I'm an engineer by trade & none of my engineering associates engage in these kinds of discussions whatsoever! LOL I love tribology myself though.

 

[Impatient]

Personally, I am interested in HPL, but the shipping surcharge takes it from being expensive, to being hyper-expensive. I wish Dave could address that. That said, I might call him (them) to understand difference between PCMO vs Premium PCMO, vs Premium Plus PCMO, vis a vis fuel dilution.

 

[The Critic]

Personally, I am interested in HPL, but the shipping surcharge takes it from being expensive, to being hyper-expensive. I wish Dave could address that. That said, I might call him (them) to understand difference between PCMO vs Premium PCMO, vs Premium Plus PCMO, vis a vis fuel dilution.

They have a $25 flat-rate for shipping. This is fairly reasonable for the 4-gal cases.