2000 7.3, Amsoil , Hier copper

[Snowman66]

Here's the history. AME 15-40. Last sample the sump was 4 qts low.


mi 108K 114K - 126.6K 134.6K
oil 10K 14K - 14.6K 22.6K

Iron 27 37 - 37 53

Ni 1

Crom 1 1 - 1 2

Al 4 5 - 12 13

Cu 20 40 - 74 184

Lead 10 12 - 7 8

Tin 1 2 - 0 1

Vis 12.9 12.6 - 12.6 12.4

TBN 9.15 7.49 - 8.33 6.36

ox 37 38 - 39 54

Ni 13 16 - 17 20

 

[demarpaint]

4 qts low, I would expect high wear metals.

 

[dnewton3]

That leading post is confusing, at least to me ...

Let me start by offering an apology, because I'm going to be a bit critical, and don't mean to offend you.

Are we to assume that "mi" is total miles on the vehicle, and "oil" is total miles on the oil? If so, your numbers are messed up, to be blunt.

At 108K miles, you had 10k miles on the oil? You then accumlated 6k miles on the truck to get 114k miles, yet you only had 14k miles on the oil (a differnce of only 4k miles). How did the truck get 6k miles but the oil only get 4k miles? Then 12.6k truck driving miles later at 126.6k miles, you show 14k.6 miles on the oil? How did the truck get 12.6k miles but the oil only get .6k miles (only 600 miles)?????? The only part that made sense to me was that the last 8k miles on the truck matches up with the 8k miles accumulated on the oil.

You have one Ni entry, but four for Cu? Then towards the end you show "Ni" with four entries. Are you trying to differentiate between Nickle and Nitrates?

The "Cu" (copper) seems a bit odd to say the least. You start with 20, then double to 40, then nearly double again to 74, then more than double yet again to 184! It's normal to accumlate wear metals with mileage, but that should be typically in a somewhat linear fassion; your's is on a parabolic rise! At that rate, (presuming the numbers are correct, which is a big stretch of faith here) you're already in danger. Either something is wearing badly, or you're having a very agressive chemical reaction.

Your TBN drops, then rises (as if there was a top-off or OCI?), and then drops again?

Is "Crom" supposed to be your Chromium? Is that two numbers "11" and "12" or four numbers "1", "1", "1", "2"?

Was this all one load of AME and your numbers are messed up? If not one load, were these all AME? Were there other brands/grades? Was this the first load of an Amsoil product?

Why are you using hyphens ("-")between some numbers, but not others?

What lab services were used?

I just can't make sense of this initial post.

Please, re-enter your data in a fassion sillilar to this below, using the "dots" to seperate your data, and try to make the columns line up, please.:
oil brand.............ABC.............BCD................CDE.................DEF
oil grade............yw-zz............yw-zz..............yw-zz................yw-zz
truck miles ....... xxx,xxx .........xxx,xxx............xxx,xxx.............xxx,xxx
oil miles..............xx,xxx..........xx,xxx.............xx,xxx..............xx,xxx
wear metal ............xxx.............xxx.................xxx................xxx
wear metal.............xxx.............xxx.................xxx.................xxx
TBN....................xxx.............xxx.................xxx.................xxx
Vis....................xxx.............xxx.................xxx..................xxx
etc,
etc,
etc.

And double check your mileage numbers, please. Your math does not add up.

 

[m37charlie]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
4 qts low, I would expect high wear metals.


Depends on the (unstated) sump capacity. 1 gallon low in a 12 gal sump isn't much. Mercedes says my max oil capacity in the Unimog is 29.3L, minimum 23.0L
It would help if he told us the vehicle and engine, its' oil capacity and type and amount of makeup oil.

Charlie

 

[Snowman66]

Sorry about that.

Its a 2000 Ford Excursion 7.3. Started using Amsoil AME 15-40 at 80K, Oil Change at 98k and 112K. The last sample sump was 4 Qts low.

Mi..........108,000........112,000...OC....126,651........134,580
oil..........10,000.........14,000-----------14,651........22,556

Iron............27............37.............38.............53
Chrom...........1..............1..............1..............2
Nickel..........0..............0..............1...............1
Alumn...........4..............5..............12.............13
Copper..........20............40..............74............184
Lead............10............12...............7.............8
Tin..............1.............2...............0.............1
vis.............12.9.........12.6.............12.7..........12.4
TBN.............9.15.........7.49.............8.2...........6.38
OXIDA...........37..........38................39............54
NITRA...........13...........16...............17............20

 

[dnewton3]

Much better! Thanks.

For info, IIRC the sump capacity is 14 or 15 qts on the old 7.3 PSD in the "normal" pan/filter configuration.

Your Cu is spiking unfavorably; that is the wear metal I'd be most concerned about.
The Fe wear is reasonably linear, if a bit high.
The Al wear rate has accelerated as well contrasting the last load to this load.
Your lead and tin are not going anywhere.

So, we might suspect some component wearing heavily, but there are other clues to say perhaps not. Only the Cu is on a parabolic rise; the others are reasonably calm. Initially I was thinking of bearing wear, but there is no Pb or Tn to accompany it.

Your oil consumption really isn't bad; 1 qrt every 5.5k miles. That is often affected by your load factor. The more fuel you burn (working it harder) the more oil you'll tend to consume. But it seems reasonable to me. I just think you should top off more often.

Did you recently add an additional oil cooler or other lube system modification? Perhaps the Amsoil is having a "chemical reaction"? The only thing that I see playing into Amsoil's favor is that the Cu spike is backwards in progression of what we'd expect. Typically Amsoil can (at times, but not always) spike the Cu, but then it comes down over time. Your situation is completely opposite; starting low and seriously trending out of control. I can't find any reason to say Amsoil caused that; I don't see them as anything but benign here.

So, what would wear heavily to contribute to Cu, but not have any other trace metals? To be honest, I'm a bit stumped.

**********
Note - I think you have a typo; the fourth TBN listed at "54" is likely your eyes drifting down to the oxidation "54". Did you mean for it to be "6.36" from your initial post? If you give me permission, I'll change it for you.

 

[Snowman66]

Yes a typo. TBN is 6.38, Ox is 54.

I'm burning more oil than that. I haven't kept records, est about a qt per 2000Mi.

I did add bypass filter, aluminum filter block and brass fittings. The truck is chipped and opened up intake. I hear turbo surge once in a while and suspect thats whare the Cu is coming from. The Hi Cu is what concerns me. When I start there's about 7 seconds of blue smoke.

yes you can edit.

 

[dnewton3]

How long ago did you add the bypass filter? If it was at the same time as this last OCI, then the metals might just be from the chemical reaction of the Amsoil to these "new" components.

 

[Snowman66]

I put the bypass filter on at 98K.

 

[dnewton3]

I would tend to say you've got a bearing(s) going out, but the Pb and Tn are not climbing. I just don't see the Amsoil being the issue here; the data doesn't lead us to that conclusion. I must admit I'm a bit stumped.

Since the bypass filter has been there for quite some time, we can assume that MOST (but not all) of the Cu in the UOA is below 3um in size, as the bypass filter should be doing a good job of removing stuff larger than that. Also, what brand and type of bypass? Who installed it? Is it plumbed correctly? I ask this last question because there are people who have plumbed their bypass filters in reverse, and basically dead-heading the oil flow.


Depending upon your comfort level with the current Cu trend, and the cost of OCIs, you have a few options.
* You could leave this load in, and see what develops from the continued risk.
* You can OCI with Amsoil again, and see where it goes.
* You can OCI with an inexpensive dino oil, do a few short-duration flushes, and see if the Cu comes down immediately. If it does, you know that it was the Amsoil causing the reaction. (note: I doubt Amsoil is the cause, but at this point you're in a fact-finding mode, and it's time for some "Red-X RRCA", a form of methodical process of elimination. This should rule out the Amsoil, rather than blame it).

 

[wulimaster]

I had noticed a spike when switching from AME to HDD many years ago. Perhaps the latest formulation of AME uses a different additive previously found only in HDD. I would guess a reaction with the oil cooler.

Btw, My spike in copper stayed high for a very long time. It was high even after 50k miles on HDD. I haven't done an analysis in 50k miles since, so I don't know if the copper levels ever came back down. That is a lot of oil consumption. I get about 8-10k miles per quart.

 

[Snowman66]

I changed oil to Delvac 14-40. Ran it 7200 miles.
The coppper dropped way down to 4. Vis is hier at 15.2. Oxidation is lower as well 14. TBN is lower 4.75.

Evidently the hi copper with Amsoil was leaching.

Amsoil............................................Delvac

Mi...........15.3K..........22.5K..................7.2K
Iron.........38............ .53.....................17
Chrom.........1............. .2......................1
Nickel........1........... ...1......................0
Alumn........13..............13......................2
Copper.......89.............184......................4
Lead..........7...............8......................7
Vis.........12.7............ 12.4..................15.2
TBM..........8.2..............6.3...................4.7
Oxidation....38..............54 ...................14

 

[Qwiky]

Stick with the Delvac. That Amsoil is a disaster in that engine.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: Qwiky
Stick with the Delvac. That Amsoil is a disaster in that engine.


I'm going to disagree in priciple. Perhaps the Amsoil is causing the high CU, but that does not make it a disaster, and it's a bit wreckless to state it that way.

I don't think the use of Amsoil would ever result in a "disaster" in that engine, or any engine for that matter. Amsoil makes fine products.

What I do think is a possibility is that continued high Cu readings due to "leaching" (more often accepted as flaking or chelation) could mask other "disasterous" events.

But in no way do I believe that using Amsoil in itself is disasterous and I would challenge your basis for stating as such.

 

[Qwiky]

Pretty sure I saw the same trend on a motorcycle UOA. The aluminium and iron were trending up as well. The copper was getting crazy. Went back to HDEO (again) and it all settled down again to near perfect.

Seen some UOAs where it doesn’t happen and the results are real good.

But when it comes to the big name HDEOs I have never seen as big as inconsistencies as with Amsoil.

 

[Steve S]

Originally Posted By: Snowman66
Yes a typo. TBN is 6.38, Ox is 54.

I'm burning more oil than that. I haven't kept records, est about a qt per 2000Mi.

I did add bypass filter, aluminum filter block and brass fittings. The truck is chipped and opened up intake. I hear turbo surge once in a while and suspect thats whare the Cu is coming from. The Hi Cu is what concerns me. When I start there's about 7 seconds of blue smoke.

yes you can edit.
Chips are bad news for engines according to my bud who works at a Ford dealer. He says the chipped trucks are almost guaranteed to have problems.

 

[rufushusky]

"Chips" or tuners properly used and monitored via gauges are not going to cause problems by themselves. If you ignore your gauges or drive your truck like you stole it problems will quickly follow. Now you say "opened up" intake...now what does that mean? Are you running a 6637 intake or K&N or?

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: Qwiky
Pretty sure I saw the same trend on a motorcycle UOA. The aluminium and iron were trending up as well. The copper was getting crazy. Went back to HDEO (again) and it all settled down again to near perfect.

Seen some UOAs where it doesn’t happen and the results are real good.

But when it comes to the big name HDEOs I have never seen as big as inconsistencies as with Amsoil.



Well - in some regard, I understand and might agree, but only on a limited basis.

The Amsoil-Cu phenomonon is well known in Dmax engines. I suppose it's certainly happening in other engines, but I'm very into the Dmax (it's what I own) so I am more exposed to those UOAs than others.

What I take issue with is a blanket statement that the use of Amsoil is "disasterous". One could argue, as I have, that high Cu readings (some of them grossly, amazingly high) would certainly effect the knowledge of development of other events, and that "masking" (as I refer to is) is very undesirable.

But I draw a very strong line of distinction in that UOA results can be different from "disasterous" engine events. I see no evidence that using Amsoil is a negative in that regard. I have "opined" that ultra-high Cu readings may effect other wear metals, and Blackstone has commented as such in some UOAs. But to say using Amsoil is "disasterous" is unfounded, in my eyes.

The distinction I'm trying to make is that UOA results and engine events are related, but not directly. UOAs are a DIRECT view of oil health, but only an INDIRECT view of equipment health. I would not want spiked Cu in my UOAs; I don't use Amsoil for that (and other) reasons. But I would NEVER agree that using Amsoil is, in itself, disasterous.

In fact, the greatest offense I find in regard to using Amsoil is the operator's under-utilization of the synthetic.

 

[m37charlie]

Originally Posted By: Snowman66
I changed oil to Delvac 14-40. Ran it 7200 miles.
The coppper dropped way down to 4. Vis is hier at 15.2. Oxidation is lower as well 14. TBN is lower 4.75.

Evidently the hi copper with Amsoil was leaching.

Amsoil............................................Delvac

Mi...........15.3K..........22.5K..................7.2K
Iron.........38............ .53.....................17
Chrom.........1............. .2......................1
Nickel........1........... ...1......................0
Alumn........13..............13......................2
Copper.......89.............184......................4
Lead..........7...............8......................7
Vis.........12.7............ 12.4..................15.2
TBM..........8.2..............6.3...................4.7
Oxidation....38..............54 ...................14


Delvac 1440? I doubt you can find that in N. America.
http://www.mobil.com/Spain-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENCVLMOMobil_Delvac_1440.aspx

It is a very high TBN (17.4!!) oil designed for high sulfur fuel (>1%) in hot climates, i.e. Saudi Arabia etc.
Maybe 1640? Or 15W40 MX?

Charlie

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3


What I do think is a possibility is that continued high Cu readings due to "leaching" (more often accepted as flaking or chelation) could mask other "disasterous" events.


Thanks. Just to be clear Amsoil will not cause "flaking" of any engine parts. Copper Chelation can with with most all motor oils that contain esters. Look at some Redline Deisel UOA's. Chelation is at the molecular level - the copper is held in solution and detected in a UOA.