03 Dmax 4 yr, 3479 mi on AmsOil 15W40

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 22, 2006
Messages
615
Location
USA
Here's the UOA on my 2003 Chevy 3500 that I purchased in June.
4 years, 3479 miles on oil, 32,900 miles on truck.
Iron 9
Chromium 0
Nickel 0
Aluminum 1
Copper 12
Lead 19
Tin 1
Cadmium 0
Silver 0
Vanadium 0
Silicon 13
Sodium 2
Potassium 1
Titanium 0
Molybdenum 0
Antimony 0
Manganese 0
Lithium 0
Boron 1
Magnesium 15
Calcium 3976
Barium 0
Phosphorus 1139
Zinc 1240
Fuel Water 0.00
Soot Vis 100C cSt 13.50

Here's the back story: I bought the truck and a slide in camper from a widow who had kept the truck after her husband died. In 4 years she put less than 1,000 miles on the truck. Everything looks like new. They were AmsOil fans.
The truck is now on Kendall Super D-XA 15W-40. I've been a Kendall user for more than 25 years and faithfully use their UOA on everything that contains lube.
The only things that stood out are lead and calcium. Huge Ca seems to be an AmsOil additive. I'll watch Pb. Planned drain, 1 yr. or 6,000 miles.
Any comments?
 
For 4 years, I think it looks great. I wouldn't be concerned about anything. The truck needs to be drove. In my experience non-use is just as hard on an engine as running the snot out of it.

Congrats on the new ride.
 
Overall, the the oil seems to be in reasonable shape, as the UOA tells. I must say that the Pb seems high for such a short run, but it's a bit of uncharted territory (or at least, infrequently traveled) when you're looking at a 4-year, low-mileage UOA.

Interesting that the Amsoil has not grossly elevated the Cu in this report. It is so apparent to me that when using Amsoil, you'll just NEVER know what kind of Cu will show up until you run a few reports. There are a couple of guys on another site where their use of Amsoil has shot the Cu through the roof (readings of almost 700ppm for one, and 1000ppm for the other!). Yet here we see a reasonable level after four full years! There is NO logic to how/why Amsoil reacts to the Cu from vehicle to vehicle (presumably in the oil cooler as most would agree). One will react wildly, the next will simply ignore it. Who knows???

Another comment I have is that this is yet another example (I love seeing these) where the whole " ... or one year OCI" is just bunk. As long as your engine is in good mechanical shape (no leaks or contaminant intrusion), the quality of lubes is such that they can sustain a much greater period than 1 year in the crankcase, and still be viable. Certainly verification with a UOA is a good thing, but the grotesque fear some people have of the long calendar count is continually being disproven.

By far and away, the most critical thing to watch on the first generation Dmax engines is the fuel dilution; they have a 200,000 mile warranty on the injectors for known leak problems. Keep an eye on it.
 
A wild guess for the lead would be the non use,the crank and rod bearings are setting on their journals. I would bet you will see the numbers drop as you do a few more oil change intervals..... share the next uoa with us.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
By far and away, the most critical thing to watch on the first generation Dmax engines is the fuel dilution; they have a 200,000 mile warranty on the injectors for known leak problems. Keep an eye on it.


I agree. Two things that I'm doing to try to improve injector life:
1. Adding Stanadyne performance additive to every fillup. Since the truck sat for four years, it hasn't seen much ULSD.
2. Changing the fuel filter religiously. 30 years of running Cats, Macks and Detroits taught me to change fuel filters every oil change.
Filters are cheaper than injectors.
 
Like dnewton said, if you're not up to the 6,000 mile mark, I think it would be totally cool to go past a year on an OCI. I posted one off a Cummins 5.9L awhile back that had 331 hours and 31 months that looked fine yet.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
By far and away, the most critical thing to watch on the first generation Dmax engines is the fuel dilution; they have a 200,000 mile warranty on the injectors for known leak problems. Keep an eye on it.


Dave,

Wasn't it 7yr/200k?

Unfortunately, not being driven often may result in injector issues in the next few years, but he may get lucky. I would definitely do UOAs and keep an eye on the fuel dilution number.

Nice find on a low mileage Dmax...
thumbsup2.gif


Rob
 
Last edited:
Yes, his "extended" injector warranty is likely nearing it's end, if not there already. Depends upon the "in service" date.
 
Build date 10/02. I'm screwed, but I would rether spend the $ to replace injectors than end up with EGR, urea injection, and 7 M.P.G.
 
Originally Posted By: AITG
Build date 10/02. I'm screwed, but I would rether spend the $ to replace injectors than end up with EGR, urea injection, and 7 M.P.G.


True, but injectors can cost up to $2700 depending on the dealer...
 
Originally Posted By: AITG
Changing the fuel filter religiously. 30 years of running Cats, Macks and Detroits taught me to change fuel filters every oil change.
Filters are cheaper than injectors.


Pretty low soot too. I run three year intervals on conventional oil, so four years on Amsoil doesn't scare me.

I would, however, like to challenge your logic on the fuel filter comment. A slightly dirty filter changed at every oil service isn't going to pass any more dirt than one that's reached it's required interval and is ready for replacement. In fact, the sintering effect that a filter undergoes tends to increase filtering ability as debris builds up. I submit you are just wasting money for no gain. Unless you are using cruddy fuel.

As to the Stanadyne, the PF is good stuff, but I wouldn't use it in summer. Use the Lubricity Formula (which is cheaper too) if you are worried about injectors. You don't need a cetane boost with ULSD and the PF drops the specific gravity of the ULSD even lower than it already is.
 
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen

I would, however, like to challenge your logic on the fuel filter comment. A slightly dirty filter changed at every oil service isn't going to pass any more dirt than one that's reached it's required interval and is ready for replacement. In fact, the sintering effect that a filter undergoes tends to increase filtering ability as debris builds up. I submit you are just wasting money for no gain. Unless you are using cruddy fuel.

I agree with your logic as it applies to air filters - if it hasn't tripped the restriction indicator, leave it alone. The problem with fuel filters is that I don't know if I've bought cruddy fuel or not. I have seen the layer of bacterial growth that builds up in the fuel / water interface in a storage tank. I've also seen replacable element filters that looked great at service intervals ... and the next change the filter is an ugly mess.
The bottom line is that I can't sample and test every fillup so I would rather change a filter that still has useable life than wait long enough to start pulling guck through the system.
You may well be right, and I'm certainly comfortable with running filters however long you prefer ... on your truck. ;-)
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: BoiseRob
Originally Posted By: AITG
Build date 10/02. I'm screwed, but I would rether spend the $ to replace injectors than end up with EGR, urea injection, and 7 M.P.G.


True, but injectors can cost up to $2700 depending on the dealer...


Right, and nobody wants to pay that bill. On the other hand, the money I spent on this truck plus $2700. won't buy me anything better than what I've got. I'll just try to keep enough put away to pay it when it happens (Dave Ramsey fanatic...)
 
Originally Posted By: AITG
[q

Right, and nobody wants to pay that bill. On the other hand, the money I spent on this truck plus $2700. won't buy me anything better than what I've got. I'll just try to keep enough put away to pay it when it happens (Dave Ramsey fanatic...)


Now THAT'S logic I can endorse! That's why I still have a truck I bought 23 years ago. Though one could argue about better trucks these days versus then, it's earned the right to stay with me for the rest of it's life. Or mine.
 
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Originally Posted By: AITG
[q

Right, and nobody wants to pay that bill. On the other hand, the money I spent on this truck plus $2700. won't buy me anything better than what I've got. I'll just try to keep enough put away to pay it when it happens (Dave Ramsey fanatic...)


Now THAT'S logic I can endorse! That's why I still have a truck I bought 23 years ago. Though one could argue about better trucks these days versus then, it's earned the right to stay with me for the rest of it's life. Or mine.

I particularly don't want to buy a Govt. GM truck. I'm not impressed with the durability of Dodge's transmissions and the engine installation on Fords is a nightmare. All three are saddled with emmision equipment that destroys fuel mileage.
However, at some point parts availability gets to be a struggle. Have you run into any problems in that area?
PS Apologizing in advance for thread drift!
 
No serious parts troubles yet, but no serious problems either. Blew a head gasket this winter so I am taking this time to go through some other stuff with the engine out. It's an '86 Ford F-250 diesel, by the way, with a number of '80s era modifications including a 1st gen. Banks turbo kit.
 
Jim-I think your post went in the wrong thread-so I'll help with the hijack-let me know what went wrong with your 6.9 when you get it all checked out (other than the likely stretched head bolts)-I'm contemplating a Banks or similar turbo kit for my '89 7.3 IDI, also let me know what kind of boost & EGT #s you were seeing when running hard.
 
Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
Jim-I think your post went in the wrong thread-so I'll help with the hijack-let me know what went wrong with your 6.9 when you get it all checked out (other than the likely stretched head bolts)-I'm contemplating a Banks or similar turbo kit for my '89 7.3 IDI, also let me know what kind of boost & EGT #s you were seeing when running hard.


ONly a partial hijack ( : < ). I was answering a question from the post previous to mine. Full hijack now.

Anyway, considering this happened some 23 years after I installed the Banks kit and with the truck having about 80K towing/hauling miles... I don't think it's a major concern. Inconvenient... yeah! I am putting in an ARP head stud kit, though, which will prevent that from happening again.

With the early non-wastegated Banks kit, I usually run a max of 10-12 psi boost. Have seen 14 psi a few times. EGT varies with load and where I have the pump set. If you set it up for decent power, you can get into terminal EGTs under load, so you have to drive with some sense and back out of it. My sustained limit is 900 degrees.All day if iI need to. For short periods I will do up to 1150 and it's seen 1250 a few times back in it's younger days (and mine) when it ruled the passes over the Rockies back in the early '90s (cue music: "Those were the days, my friend....").
 
An 86 7.3 may be the perfect choice to run forever - International only made about 50 billion 7.3s as T-444 school bus and truck engines. Parts will probably be around forever.
 
That's what I wanted to know-I know the 6.9 had thicker cylinder walls, but fewer head bolts than the 7.3. The '89 has a recent factory Ford rebuild in it, but could use a little more power (especially w/the 3.73s over the 5.13 gears it had). Unfortunately, it's still the N/A motor, not the stronger turbo IDI, I'm just wondering if a turbo kit would help a little.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top