Ford 6.7L diesel (yeah, the new one)

[npauli]

miles on truck: 5537
miles on oil: 1708
oil type: Mobil1 10W30 SM/CF

Cu 7
Fe 28
Cr 1
Al 3
Pb 0
Sn 0
Si 3
Na 5
K 4
Mo 88
Ni 1
Ca 2631
Mg 14
Zn 965
P 820

Soot 0
Oxidation 14
Nitration 7
Sulfation 18
Water neg
Antifreeze neg
Fuel 2.98%
V100 9.9


This is not a normal UOA. Here's the story behind it:

This truck is a member of Ford's press fleet to show off the new 6.7L diesel. Ford puts extra fuel in cylinder
during DPF regen, and claims to be able to do so without oil dilution problems with B20. However, they do
recommend using only 5W40 or 15W40 when running B20, but allow as light as 0W30 when running petro diesel. We did
a little experiment to see for ourselves.

The oil was changed at the start of the trip but the wrong oil was mistakenly used for fill (wasn't CJ-4). The
truck was driven by a journalist/hypermiler I know from the press launch in Phoenix to Chicago with the goal of
getting maximum fuel economy. That means very low speeds, loads, and temperatures. I think it went through a
regen ~ 4-6 times, with total regen time of ~ 1 hour. It was also run on B20, so we might have been pretty close
to the worst-case scenario for getting fuel in oil. He stopped by my house along the way and I pulled a sample
and sent it in to a CAT dealer for analysis.

More details of this trip can be found here: If you're curious, he got 28mpg on the trip.

Questions for the experts:

1) Would you expect the wrong oil to have any effect on fuel in oil?

2) How much fuel in oil would make you nervous? Is 3% @ 1700 miles scary?

3) Would you expect results on the same truck 20k miles later to be any different? Perhaps the rings aren't
"broke in" enough yet to seal properly.

4) If you were running B20 in this truck and doing UOA to set OCI's to avoid dilution problems, what values would
you be watching? Just % fuel, or something else like viscosity?

5) Would you expect fuel in oil to keep going up ~ linearly under the same conditions, or would you expect it to
slow down and approach an equilibrium?

6) I'm sure that the way this truck was operated is far from typical, but I have no idea how much less fuel in oil
we'd see for more commong operating conditions (lots of idle time in the cold, for example). Have any guesses?

 

[Johnny]

I don't really know the answers to your questions but I am glad you and them realized they put the wrong type of oil in there.

 

[roadrunner1]

well viscosity is low and fuel is marginally high, but i think that can be attributed to the wrong oil, not even diesel grade oil!

the high iron is on a new engine with the wrong oil, so i don't think (or hope) that this is reflective of what this new powerplant is capable of.
i had already read the story of the mileage test and was quite impressed.
my 07 6.0 has 96,000mi., and i hope to keep it for a few more years before i have to replace it with one of those 6.7's.

i'm sure that there will be some uoa's shortly with the correct oil for comparision, and i'm also assuming this new powerplant is why ford recently released a 0w-30 CJ-4 motor oil

 

[m37charlie]

I don't think 3% fuel in 1700 miles has anything to do with the oil. It is a function of in-cylinder late cycle injection for DPG regens. The percentage would be the same with CJ4 oil, the very low viscosity would be less low with an xW40 oil.
For example, 15cSt going to 12.5 instead of 12.2 going to 9.9.
I liked the initial reviews on this engine but 3% fuel in the oil after only 1700 miles is very worrisome even if it was B20. Extrapolate to 10000 miles....although it will approach an asymptote. Faster with petro-diesel than B20. The rings may have something to do with it.
IMHO they should have a post engine injection system for the DPF regens. Those types of systems don't have dilution problems.

Charlie

 

[Steve S]

Sure seems Ford should fire the engine and body designers and their management working on the Superdutys. It has been a down hill failure since 2003 or 4.

 

[m37charlie]

Originally Posted By: npauli
1) Would you expect the wrong oil to have any effect on fuel in oil? No

2) How much fuel in oil would make you nervous? Is 3% @ 1700 miles scary? Mercedes' condemnation limit for oil in the 900 series engine (like my Unimog) is 7% but also lower limit of V100 = 12.5
3) Would you expect results on the same truck 20k miles later to be any different? Perhaps the rings aren't
"broke in" enough yet to seal properly. Maybe, one can hope.

4) If you were running B20 in this truck and doing UOA to set OCI's to avoid dilution problems, what values would
you be watching? Just % fuel, or something else like viscosity? Both fuel and viscosity

5) Would you expect fuel in oil to keep going up ~ linearly under the same conditions, or would you expect it to
slow down and approach an equilibrium? Equilibrium, but at this rate it might be at 10-12%

6) I'm sure that the way this truck was operated is far from typical, but I have no idea how much less fuel in oil
we'd see for more commong operating conditions (lots of idle time in the cold, for example). Have any guesses?
Maybe worse with lots of idling and cold running


Let me reiterate - I really hope this engine works out for them.
Charlie

 

[dnewton3]

I read over the link with the trip log data in it. I hereby admit I didn't read the whole thing, because I'm limited on time and also on tolerance for nearly incoherent ramblings.

This "test" is not really very indicative of real world use. The main goal I can see was to milk the best fuel economy possible. Some of the fill-ups were very short duration. Further, I noted that he said he slept in the truck overnight in OK, in February, but didn't note if he left it running or not to keep warm. If he did, that could greatly affect the fuel dilution as we all know, from the regen at idle. The whole trip log is more of a rambling, and not good analytical data. I'm not picking on him to be cruel, it's just that this isn't real science to make fair judgements upon. Geez, even 1700 miles is really short to make any fair UOA judgement, ESPECIALLY WHEN USING THE WRONG OIL!

Here are some quotes from the log:
"I must have screwed up that fill in Gilbert"
"I am sitting in the station for 15-minutes and will try and fill some more to make sure I do not screw up like I did on the first top off."
"Pumped in another .752 gallons to the top of the filler neck so the final is now 450.9 miles/14.706 gallons = 30.6609 mpg."
"I can only assume I was about 1.5 gallons short from a true top off"

You simply cannot expect to get micro-acurate MPG data from this type of average-joe fill up. Over long term use, you can make some fair assumptions, but not "topping off" with .752 gallons for goodness sake. We all know that foaming, along with the differences in shut-off from pump to pump, do not lend themselves to sub-gallon data analysis. The only decent MPG numbers would come from the total gallons used over the total trip mileage; that would be a "reasonable" average MPG I could put some faith in. When I drove to AZ and back for Christmas, I only looked at the total fuel used and total mileage driven; just over 30 MPG for my 2010 Fusion. THAT is how you can find a real-world fuel economy number; not playing games with top-off's of the tank. It appears, on the surface, that good MPG is possible with this new engine, but in no way are we able to make any real solid conclusions.

As for the UOA results themselves, IMO, there are too few miles to make any conclusions there as well. The only thing I can summize is that if you use the WRONG oil, the engine apparently will not degrade and melt away (not that I expected it would). After all, what kind of "press release trip" uses the wrong oil; geez - at least validate your correct inputs before your trip starts! I am not really clear on who organized and ran this "press trip"; did Ford? or this "MPG" forum?


This is only interesting in the same way it's hard to turn away from watching a train wreck; hardly data worth making any fair conclusions with.

Better to start over and get some real world info with proper fluids. Pay my salary for a month, and I'll volunteer to use the truck for 30 days in a "real" manner, and promise to maintain it with proper lubricants.

 

[Scienceman]

Originally Posted By: Steve S
Sure seems Ford should fire the engine and body designers and their management working on the Superdutys. It has been a down hill failure since 2003 or 4.


Say thanks to international Harvester/Navistar for that! Those were sure no DT466's!

 

[Brons2]

I think this is actually a pretty good report. Used a non-approved oil grade, in a non-approved weight for the fuel used. and the wear numbers came back pretty good. High iron could be blamed on being new or M1 PCMO, or both. Maybe with a non M1 PCMO, iron wear could be even lower

I'm particularly impressed by the 0 lead, running PCMO of the wrong weight, with 3% fuel dilution. Good stuff. Built Ford Tough!

I would hold judgment on the fuel dilution until we get a more real-world usage scenario.

 

[dnewton3]

Something else occured to me as I was reviewing another topic elsewhere.

The oil used in this UOA (Mobil 1 10w-30) is a PCMO SM rated oil; the sulphur limit for these fluids is 5000ppm, is it not? I don't know off hand what the VOA sulphur content is; typically they are not at the upper limit. Still, even dino PCMOs have around 2000 - 2500 ppm of sulphur. That is WAY above the CJ-4 limit of 15ppm. I wonder how that affected the DPF/regen system??? Would that have skewed results (UOA, fuel mileage, regens, etc) one way or another? Probably so.

Yet another reason to ignore this unscientific romp through inadequately prepared trials ...

 

[m37charlie]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

. That is WAY above the CJ-4 limit of 15ppm.


You are mistaken. The limit for sulfur on ULSD fuel is 15 ppm. The limit on ACEA E9 oils (virtually identical to CJ4) is 0.4% or 4000ppm.

Charlie

 

[dnewton3]

Yikes; you are correct and I am wrong. I was thinking of the fuel limit. My apologies. Now, if that were the limit of my mistakes today, I'd be in great shape.

 

[ProStreetCamaro]

Originally Posted By: Troy_Built
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Sure seems Ford should fire the engine and body designers and their management working on the Superdutys. It has been a down hill failure since 2003 or 4.


Say thanks to international Harvester/Navistar for that! Those were sure no DT466's!


Negative. International/Navistar warned ford there would be problems but ford insisted they build the engine to the way ford wanted it built.

 

[LateArrivalforLSU]

Originally Posted By: ProStreetCamaro
Originally Posted By: Troy_Built
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Sure seems Ford should fire the engine and body designers and their management working on the Superdutys. It has been a down hill failure since 2003 or 4.


Say thanks to international Harvester/Navistar for that! Those were sure no DT466's!


Negative. International/Navistar warned ford there would be problems but ford insisted they build the engine to the way ford wanted it built.

Right on the money. That's exactly what happened. FoMoCo made Navistar look like the bad guy, while in reality Navistar told them the engine shouldn't be released.

FoMoCo, in reality didn't care about the consumer, and released the 6.0 anyway. The results were one of the costliest engines in warranty repair history. Not to mention, the poor resale value of the 6.0 due to its' reputation. I unfortunately owned a 6.0 and can speak about its' problems and how it was the biggest pile of garbage (next to the Detroit that Chevy used to put in their light duty pickups) that's ever hit the road. Ford should be ashamed of themselves for putting their name on it.

I guess I'm done with my rant now.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: Arkapigdiesel
Originally Posted By: ProStreetCamaro
Originally Posted By: Troy_Built

Sure seems Ford should fire the engine and body designers and their management working on the Superdutys. It has been a down hill failure since 2003 or 4.


Say thanks to international Harvester/Navistar for that! Those were sure no DT466's!


Negative. International/Navistar warned ford there would be problems but ford insisted they build the engine to the way ford wanted it built.


You guys are so off base it isn't even funny. I've known guys that managae UPS fleets and Blue Bell fleets and the 6.0 has a reputation for being a p.o.s. even in the International trucks.

The Blue Bell trucks were requiring major engine repairs by 150K (valvetrain, among other things), while their 7.3s were going well over 300K before similar was required. Navistar was the bad guy for backing out on warranty agreements and designing a lame engine family.

As for Ford insisting the engine be built a certain way, nonsense. Ford was buying a product from Navistar; engineering, R&D, and production of the basic engine rests on Navistar's shoulders, and that's where a bulk of the engine's weaknesses lie. Those early International VT365s saw plenty of reflashes too, I guess that's because Ford insisted the engine be "built a certain way" too, right?

Navistar is the one that decided they needed to move away from the 444 to meet emissions and power requirements, Navistar is the one who came up with the 365 as the asnwer, not Ford. If Navistar knew Ford needed the new engines by a certain time and they screwed up the timetables (or couldn't meet deadlines), they are the ones responsible.

Want to bet the all Ford 6.7 makes the Navistars look like boat anchors?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: ProStreetCamaro
Originally Posted By: Troy_Built
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Sure seems Ford should fire the engine and body designers and their management working on the Superdutys. It has been a down hill failure since 2003 or 4.


Say thanks to international Harvester/Navistar for that! Those were sure no DT466's!


Negative. International/Navistar warned ford there would be problems but ford insisted they build the engine to the way ford wanted it built.


They didn't build it any differently than the way they built it for themselves. Have you seen the two together? Jon (slammds15) works for an International dealer and he's shown me numerous 6.0L (VT365) engines apart. They are no different than the 6.0L PSD. What IS different is how the engine is PROGRAMMED.

And why Ford re-programmed the things a million times. The "quiet" injector tune had a propensity to kill the injectors.

But as Ben stated, the VT365 in truck/bus trim is no less prone to the issues Ford had with it.

 

[Scienceman]

+1


Screw emissions, too. Bring back the 444.

wonder how that 6.7 will work out?

 

[LateArrivalforLSU]

Originally Posted By: Troy_Built
Screw emissions, too. Bring back the 444.

wonder how that 6.7 will work out?


There are ways around emission equipment

Hopefully it goes well. Competition makes everyone better.

 

[snoboy]

That's amazing, only using 61 gallons of fuel in 1708 miles.

 

[Blaze]

Originally Posted By: snoboy
That's amazing, only using 61 gallons of fuel in 1708 miles.
Really!! I would have had to been there. Not saying its possible but it doesn't seem real. Are they really getting those fuel numbers on those trucks??