Amsoil OE 15w40, 5K, 10 Ford F-350

[TXHunter]

2nd ever UOA sample. Owner increased from 3K mile intervals using Motorcraft 10w30 in this first fill with Amsoil OE 15w40. Oil was dumped at time of test and refilled with the same flavor from Amsoil

Make/Model: Navistar 6.4L V-8 Power Stroke Twin Turbo
Vehicle: 2010 Ford F-350

Code:


OIL AmsoilOE 15w40 Ford MC 10w30

MILES IN USE 5100 3300

MILES ON UNIT 51K 46K

SAMPLE TAKEN 2/22/13 9/1/12

MAKE UP OIL 0 0



ALUMINUM 27 14

CHROMIUM 2 1

IRON 34 33

COPPER 2 2

LEAD 4 7

TIN 1 2

MOLYBDENUM 5 8

NICKEL 1 1

MANGANESE 1 1

SILVER 0 0

TITANIUM 1 0

POTASSIUM 12 9

BORON 21 8

SILICON 7 6

SODIUM 6 8

CALCIUM 2185 2149

MAGNESIUM 12 10

PHOSPHORUS 910 898

ZINC 1036 1003

BARIUM 2 14



SUS @ 210F 63.6 58.6

Visc @ 100C 11.22 9.82

Flashpoint 415 400

Fuel %
Antifreeze % 0.0 0.0

Water % 0.0 0.0

Insolubles % 0.4 0.3

TBN 2.6 NA


Blackstone Comments:
Aluminum is nearly twice the average amount after this 5,100-mile oil run and shows more wear at the pistons. The good news is that lead came down and is closer to average now, so we're less worried about the bearings. The viscosity was thin for 15W/40, but it wasn't caused by any harmful contamination like fuel, coolant, or water. Insolubles were low at 0.4%. The TBN read 2.6 and anything less than 1.0 is low. The lab noted some soot, which might show some combustion issues. Try another ~5,000 mile oil run for an apples-to-apples comparison.

 

[johnnydc]

That's alot of wear for Amsoil. What's going on?

 

[dnewton3]

That's a lot of money for a fluid that didn't really do any better than any dino HDEO could do. Especially when 5k miles are the limit for the OCI.

The oil itself did OK; certainly nothing bad happened. But it didn't distinguish itself over what any normal fluid can do in this application.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: johnnydc
That's alot of wear for Amsoil. What's going on?


Metals all came down with the exception of Al considering he went ~1.6x longer. So not exactly sure where you are coming from. As for the other comment, let's find out just a little more about this engine before we start talking about the costs and benefits of base oils.

To me the first UOA does not look good at all for such a short run. What happened during the first interval? Looks like an intake leak - but Si is not high. Maybe this engine just puts a lot of metals in solution. I agree, let's look at the next interval, it will be more telling.

 

[TXHunter]

Agree with Pablo, for 1.6x the results certainly look like a step in the right direction to me. Looking forward to the next oil analysis. As far as the cost, let's do some math.

User was doing 3K intervals with Ford Motorcraft and spending about $120 per oil change. At 15K miles a year that's $600. Owner is spending the same on the Amsoil oil changes, about ~$70 for the oil and ~$40 for install, which would run $360 for the year. So he's saving $240/yr over his previous program.

As far as the oil analysis, looking to see how the trends develop and interested in other operators experience with this engine and drain intervals. Not really interested in how much the owner could save by spending $3/QT instead of $4/QT. The guy drives a 2010 King Ranch F-350, he can certainly afford the extra $15 per oil change.

 

[dnewton3]

Let's be frank here ...

1) Regarding wear metals, the 6.4L engines show a LOT of range variation; wide sigma nodes in statistical analysis. You only have to look at the other 6.4L he just posted. Herein lies the danger of thinking you can look at two UOAs of different fluids and make concrete decisions in micro-analysis. Do not look at one or two UOAs and think you're making a sound decision of two competing products. You can most certainly look at them in a sense of macro-analysis, but that reveals the fact that metals for these engines are all over the map, and so it's "normal" to see large variation.

2) In particular, these things apparently shed Al with some regularity. Again, looking only at the other thread he started, the dino Rotella had 28ppm at 6k miles, but then 45ppm at 5k miles. Get the idea of what I was trying to infer above in point #1?

3) The "savings" isn't coming from Amsoil; it's coming from extending the OCIs. That could be true for any fluid. Dinos can run this far, and the other UOAs he just posted show it. I certainly get the point you made; a King Ranch owner isn't directly concerned with daily cost operations, perhaps. But don't credit the Amsoil with the savings; it's the OCI that was extended that saved money. And as your other recent thread just shows, ANY dino could also have been extended and seen "normal" wear rates like these. So the savings cannot be fairly attributed to the brand, but only the OCI.



I'm not picking on the lube here; it did a find job. In fact, it did a totally normal job. The wear variation in these engines is all over the map. That does not mean it's the fault of the Amsoil should a spike occur, but it also means you should not attribute some singular success to the brand. It's just the nature of this engine series to bounce all over the place, especially in Al.

 

[Clevy]

I saw the other posted thread where rotella was used. Dnewton is right about aluminum being all over the place but iron seems consistent and linear based on miles in service.
I like Amsoil however it seems the extra cost didn't translate to a reduction in wear however by the looks of it this engine is still breaking in. I guess just monitor and take the wait and see approach.
Ford should have never done away with the 7.3. That engine is a legend. Everything they have done since is a [censored].
Jmo