'06 GMC LBZ, 13893 mi on Shell RT6

[DNVDMAX]

I was hoping wear would be lower but the truck is tuned with EFI live and is beaten on when driven. First ~4,500 mi was on the hot tune dynoed that at 521 RWHP then I switched to a milder tune, previously dynoed at 447 RWHP, for pulling our 7300 lb cargo trailer from Anchorage, AK thru Canada to Georgia. Temps ranged from -23F to 84F. Wife likes walking mustangs, camaros, and M3s frequently on the street with the truck. The oil filter was a Baldwin B1441.

 

[Artem]

Strange how the TBN is so high after so many miles...

 

[LargeCarManX2]

Is the oil T6 or T5?

TBN seems high for that many miles on the oil. A bypass filter might just do the trick for that iron grit...LOL. I Like the comment from BlackStone "With a TBN of 8.3 with fuel and water" LOL!

 

[m37charlie]

Actually I think the Fe is excellent for the mileage. If you are still doing distance driving, with the slow rate of TBN decrease a longer OCI like 20,000 mi would be interesting.

Charlie

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
DNVDMAX - I usually don't pass judgement on UOAs but the comments from Blackstone regarding Fe (...a little abrasive...)and ëxtra" aluminium should not concern you. Sometimes their comments are humerous and IMO this one is bordering on it too!!!

 

[dnewton3]

I must admit, I find the Blackstone comments dubious here.

First, I presume the "T5 5w-40" is actually T6; just a typo in the UOA report?

Let's recap this UOA for quick viewing:
TBN is STRONG after 14k miles
Insolubles are crazy low (almost non-existent)
No contamination (fuel, coolent, dirt, etc)
The FP is fine
The Vis is fine
Wear metals are mixed; some wear rates are lower than average, some are slightly higher.

In regard to wear, the Fe and Al are above "average", but no where near any danger in regard to condemnation levels. The Fe and Al are likely slightly elevated due to the high-power tunes you use. The super-low to non-existent Cu and Pb indicate no bearing wear at all. So, is the Fe becoming abrasive? Possibly so, but not to a point as to condemn the oil; not yet anyway. It's hard to say with complete certainty because the "universal averages" don't reflect a lot of "tuned" Dmax's. I suspect if you cut back the power to normal levels, your Fe and Al would drop to at or below universal averages. IOW - the oil is doing a great job given the situation you've put it into.

Often, dino oils can give really good numbers like this up to 10k miles or a bit more at times. You paid at least 2x the $$$ for the T6; to get your ROI you'd need to run out to 20k miles just to break even. There is no reason, with this type of UOA performance in your rig, that you could not go 20k miles, or maybe more. If this were my set-up, I'd run to 15k miles on the next UOA, then 17.5k, then 20k, etc. Escalate up slowly as you build UOA history.

You should be increasing the OCI with results like this! The only "abrasive" here is their suggestion to reduce the OCI, in my view. Why they advise to cut back is beyond me ...

 

[DNVDMAX]

Thank all of you for the comments.

I did dump the oil and replaced with the same Rotella T6 and Baldwin filter.

Yeah, I was not so convinced on BStone's credibility due to the lack of detail by stating it was T5 and not T6. Maybe I have bad handwriting. I too thought the TBN was surprisingly high.

So I have left the mild tune on it and will be cleaning the AFE 7-layer filter soon.

My questions are should I replace the filter @ 10k and top off to take it to 20k? Are there better non-boutique oil filters I should be using? Will any of this have an effect on Al and Fe #s? Should I stay with the current setup as the Si level was okay?

Thanks

 

[dnewton3]

I'm going to comment from a very specific, nearly scientific, view point here. Presuming you're really going to use the UOAs as a tool, and not a toy, then consistiency is paramount.

I would caution you from changing too many things at once. When you "shotgun" a perceived problem, you really cannot attribute any particular change that might occur to any one variable.

If you want to manipulate the FCI (filter change interval) that's fine, but then keep all other things the same. Also, realize that an FCI automatically brings a minature-OCI with it, because you have to top-off some of the oil you take out with the FCI. (Probably about a quart for the Dmax filter). That's not a bad thing at all, but it does contribute to the topic of multiple-variables changing at one time.

In short, don't change your OCI, your FCI, your tune, etc, all at once or you'll not know which has the greatest and least effect.

Baldwin filters are very good quality. Another thing to know is that filters get better with age; as they load up the media, they actually get better at trapping ever smaller particles so the effiency increases. Only if the media were to totally blind off and open the bypass, would your filter be an issue. With insolubles at .1 after 14k miles, I don't think that's much of an issue. Blackstone quantifies the insolubles visually as a conbination of soot, oxidation remnants and other truly insoluble components all as "insolbules" in the UOA. Therefore, it is an indirect reference to the efficiency of the filtration. If your insolubles are low, it would indicate one of two things:
1 - the filtration is doing a good job
2 - the oil is not oxidizing and the soot is very low
To me, since both are desirable, I really don't care which is the root contributing actor. A good low insoluble count is the goal regardless of how it gets there.

Personally, I don't see an issue with running 15k mile OCIs and FCIs; your UOA is showing that's very managable, and 20k miles would not be unquestionable.