10K Mile, 22 Mo. Royal Purple 5W20, '05 F150 5.4L

[Jim Allen]

My lost-in-the-mail oil sample finally arrived at the lab (only 30 days late)

Here are two long runs on RP 5W20 API SL oil, plus a virgin sample, in a 2005 Ford F-150HD 4x4 pickup. Both were on the same batch of oil blended in 2009. One run was just under 7500 miles and at 14.5 months, the other at just over 10,000 miles and 22 months (nearly two years!).

My Evaluation: Stellar oil. Nothing to complain about. Very high viscosity and TBN retention. Wear metals very low and the numbers at 7.5K and 10K are very comparable. Though I have changed oil viscosity and brand for various reasons, I would not be afraid to run this oil again in a heartbeat.

I really liked the ANA Labs (www.analaboratories.com) report and their info. Their basics tests include TBN and they are Accredited by ANSI-ASQ.

RE Iron PPM- Note the virgin 3.7 PPM. I asked and was told that it's not unusual to see iron in virgin samples (from pipes, tanks, etc) and that you would deduct the amount in the virgin sample to get a truer pic of the engine sample.

Correction to Chart Below (call me lazy) TBN should read 8.20 not 8.93

 

[Pablo]

Extended drain looks good.

Some would gripe about the Fe level at only 7 or 10K. Others may mention adding an entire quart of top up 700 miles from the end boosting TBN on the 10K. But everything looks to be holding up fine.

P dropped radically and Zn went up - same batch of oil. Ca dropped off in such a short difference.....could be the lab.

 

[Jim Allen]

Iron is pretty much in line with other Modular engines. I have no complaints or worries in that regard.

Hated to add the oil, knowing I was going to dump/UOA soon at but I was headed out on a long trip. One quart in 7... how much would that have boosted the TBN?

Yep, Z, P and CA level oddities are likely differences in labs when you get right down to it.

 

[tig1]

Pretty much in line with the UOA I did with my Ford Mod V8 at 10K OCI with the exception of the TBN. I have to question the accuracy of the TBN compared to any other oils I have seen for this long of time here on BITOG. Other reports with RP have showed TBN numbers in line with the average synthetic.

 

[kgb007stb]

Any opinions on the difference between wearcheck and analaboratories. I get the standard analysis + tan + tbn for 23.00 @ wearcheck, how do these guys compare in price?

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Iron is pretty much in line with other Modular engines. I have no complaints or worries in that regard.

Hated to add the oil, knowing I was going to dump/UOA soon at but I was headed out on a long trip. One quart in 7... how much would that have boosted the TBN?

Yep, Z, P and CA level oddities are likely differences in labs when you get right down to it.



Just saying some folks could point out the Fe. Doesn't bug me too much. I've seen others howl about 10 ppm at 10K. It's a BITOG thing.

I suspect ANA are using the ASTM D-2896 test method to measure the TBN. The method most other labs (B./S.) use (ASTM D-4739), would yield a TBN that's 2-3 points lower. Also, I guess the quart of oil bumped it 3 points or so. You might be surprised how much adding a quart of new oil easily overcomes anything depressing TBN.

 

[chubbs1]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Pretty much in line with the UOA I did with my Ford Mod V8 at 10K OCI with the exception of the TBN. I have to question the accuracy of the TBN compared to any other oils I have seen for this long of time here on BITOG. Other reports with RP have showed TBN numbers in line with the average synthetic.


I agree TIG, The TBN just seems so high for an oil in use that long, even with added oil. The end TBN is Higher that most Virgin TBN's.

Pablo, you are probably right about the different testing methods but it is still very high. I have seen quite a few UOA's on here where the user added fresh oil, but TBN was not near as high (even considering the brands). Good analysis! Silicon I have to disagree with, if I am reading it correctly, went down to nothing after 10+k in use.

 

[Jim Allen]

Did you gentlemen happen to read the virgin TBN?

Did you know that RP listed TBN 12 in their spec sheets for the RP 5W20 circa 2009? They no longer list TBN in the specs since their reformulation.

How do you "disagree" with test data? It is what it is. It may be notably anomalous in nature at times but it's just as possible that it's dead-on right as it is that it's wrong. Anything else is mere speculation until further study is made.

Analysis of results must also take into account the vehicle's operational situation and nobody has yet asked about that.

 

[tig1]

UOAs and VOAs performed by differant labs often give differant numbers from the same sample. Here is an example.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2275345&page=1

 

[Jim Allen]

The first two samples (the VOA and the 7.5K OCI) were done at the same lab at the same time, so there is a good comparison. The RP listing of TBN 12 and the WearCheck VOA at 13 correlate reasonably well. Comparing ANA and WearCheck may not correlate but I will see if I can find which TBN tests they each use.

 

[SSGSTbirdtoyman]

my last run with 5w-30 RP was in my 08 impala SS for 9,140 miles and had a TBN of 6.1 from Blackstone. Not makeup oil and took the car up to speeds of over 130 mph a few times due to impending emergencies, and also dozens of passing runs of over 100 mph. Did not seem to faze the RP.

 

[FZ1]

That tbn looks too good to be true. So does silicon at 2.

 

[ltslimjim]

So, what do you do to lower silicon levels so drastically? Driving conditions?

 

[Jim Allen]

Nothing special and I live in farm country on a gravel road no less. I have an AEM Dryflow filter, which is more efficient at filtering that most... though not by a huge amount. As big a surprise to me as to everyone. It may be an anomaly. I suppose it could be lab error but it's just as likely to be right. I changed to the AEM about the time I did that 18K OC with 19 ppm Si. We'll see if it holds, since I'm likely to be buried in this truck.

 

[Rob_Roy]

Nice report. Wear is in-line with my last 10k sample from our Navigator.

 

[Steve S]

Nice engine.

 

[badtlc]

TBN looks correct to me with the 1qt top off. I only have a 4qt sump and RP 5w20 still had a TBN of almost 7 after 7,500 miles for me with zero top off.a

 

[Jim Allen]

OK, I talked to Both WearCheck and ANA Labs and here is the take on TBN:

WearCheck uses ASTM 2896 and ANA typically uses ASTM 4739 for used oil. Both labs stated that 2896 will read about one unit higher than 4739. Expert speculation was that one new quart added to a 7 quart system would raise the TBN by as much as one unit using 4739. 2896 might raise it a little more than one unit for various reason I did not fully understand (something to do with the "weak" elements in the TBNs vs the "strong" ones and different rates of depletion... more study required). Either way, it varies somewhat by the strength of the add pack of the oil. The oil companies Data Sheet listings are almost always ASTM 2896.

As to my readings, if we speculate the TBN gain from one added quart as one unit, then my 10K OCI reading without it would have been around 7.93 on 4739. My 7.5K OCI reading would have been approximately TBN 9 on 4793, so about one unit drop from 7.5 to 10K.