2004.5 Cummins 5.9, 180k, Schaeffers 5w40 S9k CJ-4

[deeter16317]

Not happy...iron higher than ever, lead was higher than ever, viscosity was elevated...and that's comparing similar mileages to Rotella CJ-4 15w40. There was NO towing on this oil, only highway miles and some mixed city/highway.

19,500 on the oil, 6 quarts of make up at 10k with a bypass change. Blackstone recommended dumping the oil because of the lead.

Fe - 22ppm (elevated, typically 10 or less...only ever this high when towing heavy for long miles)
Cu - 4ppm (typically less than 2)
Pb - 10ppm (elevated, typically 3 or less)
Moly - 318ppm (not found in Rotella)
Silicon - 5ppm (only 1ppm higher than typical)
Ca - 1235ppm (1000ppm lower than Rotella)
Mg - 813ppm (not found in Rotella)
Ph - 1004ppm (similar to Rotella)
Zn - 1224ppm (similar to Rotella)

SUS - 79.7 (tagged as elevated)
cSt - 15.44 (tagged as elevated)

Insoluables - trace (typically less than 0.4%)

TBN - 6.7 (similar to Rotella)

Even when it was "bad", the Rotella showed better numbers on similar mileages. So I will be dropping the Schaeffers in lieu of Rotella 15w40 since there is no perceived benefit to running synthetics in this truck.

 

[azsynthetic]

If this is your first time with Schaeffers synthetic over dino Rotella then I suggest you give Schaeffers another try. The synthetic oil is cleaning out the stuffs that your dino oil if leaving behind.

 

[REDDOG]

Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
If this is your first time with Schaeffers synthetic over dino Rotella then I suggest you give Schaeffers another try. The synthetic oil is cleaning out the stuffs that your dino oil if leaving behind.


+1

 

[LargeCarManX2]

I really don't think iron and lead are clinging to his engine and being cleaned out by synthetics!

The viscosity is climbing...the oil is getting thicker at only 10K on the sample!

You are close to 200K could very well be that the bearings and rings are wearing. Not normal...but not unusual. Keep a close eye on those indicators.

 

[dnewton3]

I've got to admit this is a bit perplexing.

While I do recommend sticking with one oil for a few UOA cycles, to let the chemistry normalize, I can't discount the oddity of these readings. Everything went up. I don't buy the whole "synthetics cleaning out the dino stuff"; it's not like Rotella doesn't have a good dispersant/detergent package, after all.

Viscosity climb is odd as well. I would have thought that running a bypass system would keep the oil more "clean", and therefore keep the vis at a more "normal" level. Not that it's out of sight, but it's elevated.

Sometimes, for nearly unexplainable reasons, synthetics and bypass just don't always add up. A good dino oil on reasonable OCIs can perform quite well.

But, I'd say to give it a fair chance, you'd have to run the current combination a few more OCIs to make some "fair" comparisons. One UOA does not make for solid conclusions; just assumptions.

 

[deeter16317]

Originally Posted By: LargeCarManX2
I really don't think iron and lead are clinging to his engine and being cleaned out by synthetics!

The viscosity is climbing...the oil is getting thicker at only 10K on the sample!

You are close to 200K could very well be that the bearings and rings are wearing. Not normal...but not unusual. Keep a close eye on those indicators.




That's what I posted (it didn't show) regarding the increased contaminant levels, but for whatever reason I can't post using my BlackBerry...

Just as some more info...

The oil increasing in viscosity was why I decided to try the Schaeffers in the first place. The Rotella seemed to "boil off" after a good hard run...but it also only had wear numbers like this after towing hard for >10k intervals. When it was used as a car, my wear numbers were, for all intents and purposes, zero.

This sample has almost 20k on it...I changed the bypass and 1.5 gallons of oil at 10k, which is around 33% of the total sump with the bypass...so 66% of the oil has almost 20k, and 33% has 10k.

At 200k, this engine has almost no blow-by...and if I had a ring problem, the fuel number should have been something other than non-detect. The engine is in good shape, I am confident I don't have any mechanical issues. It is a 3rd gen Cummins, which has the 3rd injection event for emissions, which creates a bunch of soot (the reason I added the bypass).

 

[deeter16317]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I've got to admit this is a bit perplexing.

While I do recommend sticking with one oil for a few UOA cycles, to let the chemistry normalize, I can't discount the oddity of these readings. Everything went up. I don't buy the whole "synthetics cleaning out the dino stuff"; it's not like Rotella doesn't have a good dispersant/detergent package, after all.

Viscosity climb is odd as well. I would have thought that running a bypass system would keep the oil more "clean", and therefore keep the vis at a more "normal" level. Not that it's out of sight, but it's elevated.

Sometimes, for nearly unexplainable reasons, synthetics and bypass just don't always add up. A good dino oil on reasonable OCIs can perform quite well.

But, I'd say to give it a fair chance, you'd have to run the current combination a few more OCIs to make some "fair" comparisons. One UOA does not make for solid conclusions; just assumptions.



Viscosity increasing is most likely not a result of soot...I had higher soot loads in Rotella and it did not cause a marked viscosity increase. Soot was tagged as "trace", which is meaningless in my opinion...trace as compared to??? In all my other reports, it was always "< 0.X% insoluables".

To run the current oil, I would need to purchase yet another case of oil, to change it as recommended by Blackstone...to change the sump (and all filters) is 4.5 gallons. Not sure that makes sense at this point?? I have 15 gallons of Rotella sitting here...so I'm sort of biased towards using what I have on hand.

I'm a little skeptical at this point...these numbers are on a run that was actually diluted 33% at 10k when I changed the bypass (which holds 1.5 gallons). That could mean that the contaminant levels could have been much higher if I had not diluted the oil by adding 1.5 gallons of fresh oil?

What really gets me is the fact the 5.9L Cummins is generally thought to be one of the easiest engines on oil...

 

[deeter16317]

 

[D-Roc]

I wouldn't worry about the viscosity much, Steve. In the Product Specs for the 9000, it details the viscosity as anywhere between 13.5 and 15.75, possibly your first uoa had a lower end number in that batch, and your makeup was higher? Relative to your numbers, you're still fine.
Those other numbers aren't bad, either. 20k is a fair amount of miles. This is just one run of the oil, as well. You're subsequent numbers will most likely "clean up" or come down, if you change your oil and filters. (Trending)
TBN looks good for now, 22 ppm iron is fine. And as for 10 ppm lead, I wouldn't think there is any issue at this point either.
I think your engine is fine, but I also believe that Blackstone isn't the most accurate when it comes to their comments...
I would stick with the Schaeffers.
JMO.

 

[deeter16317]

This wasn't what I expected...almost 5 gallons of oil to change, its not cheap. Especially when you have been seeing numbers in the single digits, and approaching zero, with dino...it doesn't give a fuzzy feeling.

And the worst part is, I took this sample right before I changed filters (about a week ago)...so I wasted $20 in filters, as well as the 1.5 gallons of makeup oil...just to dump everything and start over...

Frustrating...

 

[D-Roc]

I wouldn't even change with those numbers next time, Steve. I've had a few uoa's (that I did not post) a while back with Delo, that were a little strange (on OEM intervals, no doubt)...but they returned to "my normal readings".
Don't place too much faith in Blackstone, either. Their lab is good for sure, but their comments leave some to be desired.
I'm sure some of the more experienced members on the board will attest to the fact that you're well within normal operating numbers. I don't believe anything is near condemnation yet.

 

[REDDOG]

I agree with D-Roc.

No way would I dump this oil. None of these numbers is the least bit alarming. Give this oil some time to do it's thing.

 

[deeter16317]

Originally Posted By: REDDOG
Give this oil some time to do it's thing.




And what "thing" might that be?? Its already proving to show bigger wear numbers...

I'll leave it in for another 10k...and re-sample. But if its not looking better by then, its getting dumped.

 

[REDDOG]

Originally Posted By: deeter16317
Originally Posted By: REDDOG
Give this oil some time to do it's thing.




And what "thing" might that be?? Its already proving to show bigger wear numbers...

I'll leave it in for another 10k...and re-sample. But if its not looking better by then, its getting dumped.



I'm not a chemist (I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night) but this oil contains organic esters and it seems to me that after installing it in an engine with 180k on the clock that has been run on dino that some cleaning is going to take place. This will require time for the oil chemistry to stabilize. The "wear" you see in an oil analysis does not necessarily equate to real world wear in the normal sense. Some metals can be freed up from the cleaning of the engine deposits. This is often the case when switching to ester containing oils, such as Redline. Minus the bypass filter I bet the insols on this report would be pretty interesting.


An actual chemist, such as Molekule hopefully can shed further light on this. He is a genius with this stuff, and he knows Schaeffer's products.

Paging Molekule!

At any rate, none of these numbers represent anything to panic about, even though I realize they look worse than your trends on the Rotella.

 

[deeter16317]

Not arguing, but I know what my engine looked like inside, it was clean enough to eat off...Rotella and a bypass, are a fairly good combination. There were no visible deposits. I could understand "cleaning deposits" if there were appreciable deposits to begin with. I had the valve cover off several times over the past few months (injector issues).

And think of this...if there are deposits in the engine that another oil has the ability to clean off, then the PREVIOUS OIL would have needed a LOT HIGHER concentrations to deposit those deposits at those levels being cleaned off. You would have seen those elevated levels in previous UOAs. Simply stated, how does a lead concentration at 3PPM in previous samples create a 10ppm spike in this sample?? Where did it come from???????

All in hopes of a good discussion...

 

[salesrep]

PPM would have to be much higher than discussed here to be visible by the naked eye. I think that Reddog and D-roc make some valid points.

 

[deeter16317]

Originally Posted By: salesrep
PPM would have to be much higher than discussed here to be visible by the naked eye. I think that Reddog and D-roc make some valid points.



But as eluded to early, you would need some sort of a deposit...which is supposed to be eliminated by running a bypass and quality detergent oil...this system was far from neglected.

While a concentration in PPM of a single element might not be visible, one would suspect visible deposits of other "gunk" made of many elements and combustion byproducts???

Another way to look at it...

I do understand PPM and PPB concentrations, I deal with investigating compounds that are carcinogenic in the 0.00000X ug/kg or ug/L range...its not foreign to me.

 

[Mokanic]

After running Rotella for several years in my farm equipment and trucks I switched one(at first) to Schaeffer. The first couple of UOA's were not impressive as far as wear numbers. Schaeffer will clean an engine that "looks" spotless inside. Now, my whole fleet of tractors,trucks, and those that my shop work on run on Schaeffer. You could not give me the Rotella for my personal equipment.
High-end synthetics are not designed for a one-interval miracle. I've been labelled the a-hole on here before for saying it but i'll say it again. There's no way you can determine anything about an oil's performance by trying to judge it from one interval. Trending analysis is the only way to make a determination as to how well and how long an oil can stay in service.

 

[REDDOG]

The way I understand it the esters are very polar and have a strong attraction to metal surfaces. The cleaning is actually a side effect of the polarity- ie the esters are added to the oil to provide anti wear and friction modification and the cleaning is a secondary characteristic.

I remember Terry Dyson posting years ago that even in perfectly maintained engines coking takes place in the high heat, high load areas of the engine. Even if under the valve cover appears spotless. These deposits can be freed up by esters. I understand this even happens with the finest syns available over time, if not cleaned out periodically with Auto Rx (which is composed of esters specifically engineered to do the cleaning).

If not exactly technically correct in my wording I believe this is the general science behind it. This stuff really blows my mind, man do I wish someone like Molekule would elaborate on this. He knows this stuff inside and out and could clear up my statements (which I hope and believe are at least generally accurate).

The general results of your UOA appear to be fairly common with first use of the 9000 from what I have noticed. I believe this is quite temporary and with further use of the 9000 you will be happy with the results.

 

[White_Buffalo]

Wow, how can Blackstone consider Lead & Iron as being elevated? Iron & Lead are considered normal under 100 ppm at approx. 5,000 mile.

I know these numbers are higher than what you experienced with Rotella but CAT put out an article about changing oil brands and how it affects UOA reports. I need to try to find it for you to add some clarification. The article states that changing oil brands can show elevated Iron & Copper wear numbers temporarily on a single UOA report. The article was targeted at the issue of changing the oil brands at each change interval in order to find the best UOA results for that application. What CAT noted was that the oil should be run for 3 or more OCI's in order to get accurate UOA reports. The different chemistry of the oils (as noted above) can cause temporary elevations in some wear metals.

I'll do my best to dig up the article.....