dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: USAFACE
dnewton3, I read your article and try to comprehend as much as I could on everything. I understand one of your test subjects was a 4.6 Ford but this engine is still alot different than my 5.4 if I recall correctly the 4.6 does not have cam phasers, and since it does not it would mot have variable cam timing, and the heads are only 2v on the 4.6. I understand what your point is on universal averages even with adding in the differences between using conventional and synthetic, short ot long OCI ect. But this is also the first UOA I have ever done on this truck. So giving my usage and different variables my iron count does not necessarily mean my engine is hurt somewhere. Please don't find offense to what I am saying. I am kinda new to this stuff even though I have been reading here for awhile. Im just thinking out loud. -Cody
You need to go back and read my article again. And then again. And again.
The 5.4L engine is an outgrowth of the 4.6L, as is the 6.8L (being a 5.4L with two additional cylinders). No, they are not "the same" (as in identical). But they are VERY similar.
In my article, I CLEARLY speak to the topics of viscosity, various mod-motors, varying environments, different uses, etc. The fact that yours is a 3-v versus a 2v head, does not make any difference. Nor does the vis. The variance of mass-market inputs is already accounted for in macro-data analysis. The mass-market macro data average for Fe is 3.2 ppm per 1k miles. You are essentially 3x that high. In particular, read the last paragraph in the 4.6L section of my article. I clearly establish the wide variance of motors, use, environments, lube brands and grades, etc as inputs. And yet the outputs are extremely consistent.
I have successfully run dino oils for 10k miles in nearly a year. I am currently running a dino oil for up to 15k miles. Not for one second do I think your engine is going to suffer if you use a dino for a year. I run multiple-year OCIs in many pieces of my equipment, including my Kubota, my Dmax, my Mustang. All on dino oils.
Go back and read my article. It is not the super-duper synthetic molecule that reduces wear in short-to-moderate OCIs; it is the tribo-chemical barrier established by the desirable oxidation of the lube that lays down a protective boundary between parts. This is proven in the Ford/Conoco SAE study, and it's echoed in my thousands of UOAs.
You have a choice; you can listen to a bunch of hyped up syn-loving rhetoric and mythology, or you can learn from facts and data. I was a syn-loving junkie myself many, many years ago. But then I started to really analyze the inputs and outputs, and ignored the hype. I am not saying synthetic fluids are not viable, or that they are a bad product. In fact, I do use synthetic fluids in some of my applications. But they are NOT a one-size-fits-all answer for every OCI.
You can listen to the rhetoric, and succumb to the marketing hype, or ...
You can reread my article with a clear and open mind, purchase and read the SAE study (2007-01-4133), and review 2010_FX4's clear testing of PU versus MS5K.
Here's what I suggest you do:
1) continue on your current path, and keep taking UOAs. Establish your "baseline". Do this for a few years.
2) step out of your comfort zone and then run a dino under the same conditions, without all the extra "help" of fuel cleaners, etc.
It's your choice, do as you see fit. If facts and data will not convince you, then nothing will.
dnewton3, I read your article and try to comprehend as much as I could on everything. I understand one of your test subjects was a 4.6 Ford but this engine is still alot different than my 5.4 if I recall correctly the 4.6 does not have cam phasers, and since it does not it would mot have variable cam timing, and the heads are only 2v on the 4.6. I understand what your point is on universal averages even with adding in the differences between using conventional and synthetic, short ot long OCI ect. But this is also the first UOA I have ever done on this truck. So giving my usage and different variables my iron count does not necessarily mean my engine is hurt somewhere. Please don't find offense to what I am saying. I am kinda new to this stuff even though I have been reading here for awhile. Im just thinking out loud. -Cody
You need to go back and read my article again. And then again. And again.
The 5.4L engine is an outgrowth of the 4.6L, as is the 6.8L (being a 5.4L with two additional cylinders). No, they are not "the same" (as in identical). But they are VERY similar.
In my article, I CLEARLY speak to the topics of viscosity, various mod-motors, varying environments, different uses, etc. The fact that yours is a 3-v versus a 2v head, does not make any difference. Nor does the vis. The variance of mass-market inputs is already accounted for in macro-data analysis. The mass-market macro data average for Fe is 3.2 ppm per 1k miles. You are essentially 3x that high. In particular, read the last paragraph in the 4.6L section of my article. I clearly establish the wide variance of motors, use, environments, lube brands and grades, etc as inputs. And yet the outputs are extremely consistent.
I have successfully run dino oils for 10k miles in nearly a year. I am currently running a dino oil for up to 15k miles. Not for one second do I think your engine is going to suffer if you use a dino for a year. I run multiple-year OCIs in many pieces of my equipment, including my Kubota, my Dmax, my Mustang. All on dino oils.
Go back and read my article. It is not the super-duper synthetic molecule that reduces wear in short-to-moderate OCIs; it is the tribo-chemical barrier established by the desirable oxidation of the lube that lays down a protective boundary between parts. This is proven in the Ford/Conoco SAE study, and it's echoed in my thousands of UOAs.
You have a choice; you can listen to a bunch of hyped up syn-loving rhetoric and mythology, or you can learn from facts and data. I was a syn-loving junkie myself many, many years ago. But then I started to really analyze the inputs and outputs, and ignored the hype. I am not saying synthetic fluids are not viable, or that they are a bad product. In fact, I do use synthetic fluids in some of my applications. But they are NOT a one-size-fits-all answer for every OCI.
You can listen to the rhetoric, and succumb to the marketing hype, or ...
You can reread my article with a clear and open mind, purchase and read the SAE study (2007-01-4133), and review 2010_FX4's clear testing of PU versus MS5K.
Here's what I suggest you do:
1) continue on your current path, and keep taking UOAs. Establish your "baseline". Do this for a few years.
2) step out of your comfort zone and then run a dino under the same conditions, without all the extra "help" of fuel cleaners, etc.
It's your choice, do as you see fit. If facts and data will not convince you, then nothing will.
Last edited:
