You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Interesting: F150, 2.7L Ecoboost, PPPP, 4752 mi
- Thread starter 09_GXP
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
09_GXP
Thread starter
Originally Posted By: FZ1
Let the dealer do the oil changes. You can provide your own oil if you wish.
Please explain? I see no reason for the dealer to do the changes.
Let the dealer do the oil changes. You can provide your own oil if you wish.
Please explain? I see no reason for the dealer to do the changes.
I have seen lots of UOAs over the years, but this one stumps me.
As I mentioned, I am clueless on this UOA. So whenever I have that problem, I try to get around it by getting more data...So if this were my vehicle, I would want to know the following:
1) Are you using any unusual brands or gas stations to fill up? Like Blackstone asked, are you using any gasoline additives?
2) Is there anything unusual about the antifreeze formulation used in this vehicle? Given the turbos, I was wondering if there was anything odd about the formulation. The reason why I am asking - I am trying to see if it's possible an antifreeze could show potassium, but no sodium.
I don't know what to suggest about the aluminum or Lead...But I would recommend you continue to perform UOAs at equal interviews so we can better understand the trends...
- The Level of lead is a puzzler - where is it coming from?
- Potassium? Another puzzler.
- Manganese spiked also, but I think that is an additive in gasoline.
As I mentioned, I am clueless on this UOA. So whenever I have that problem, I try to get around it by getting more data...So if this were my vehicle, I would want to know the following:
1) Are you using any unusual brands or gas stations to fill up? Like Blackstone asked, are you using any gasoline additives?
2) Is there anything unusual about the antifreeze formulation used in this vehicle? Given the turbos, I was wondering if there was anything odd about the formulation. The reason why I am asking - I am trying to see if it's possible an antifreeze could show potassium, but no sodium.
I don't know what to suggest about the aluminum or Lead...But I would recommend you continue to perform UOAs at equal interviews so we can better understand the trends...
09_GXP
Thread starter
No gasoline additives have been used. Fuel is almost always top tier. The coolant is the standard Motorcraft Orange. I will be running another UOA after winter and before towing.
Originally Posted By: 09_GXP
Spec is 5w30 with Ford certification.
Yes and oil is now a 5w20. So that doesn't really comply with their specs for the car. I'd buy some 5w30 and 0w40. Keep receipt for 5w30 and use the 40. When it shears to 30 and you have a receipt for 30, how will Ford refuse any potential warranty related issues?
Spec is 5w30 with Ford certification.
Yes and oil is now a 5w20. So that doesn't really comply with their specs for the car. I'd buy some 5w30 and 0w40. Keep receipt for 5w30 and use the 40. When it shears to 30 and you have a receipt for 30, how will Ford refuse any potential warranty related issues?
Originally Posted By: KL31
Originally Posted By: 09_GXP
Spec is 5w30 with Ford certification.
Yes and oil is now a 5w20. So that doesn't really comply with their specs for the car. I'd buy some 5w30 and 0w40. Keep receipt for 5w30 and use the 40. When it shears to 30 and you have a receipt for 30, how will Ford refuse any potential warranty related issues?
Again... Ford would have to prove the 0W-40 cause the failure.
Originally Posted By: 09_GXP
Spec is 5w30 with Ford certification.
Yes and oil is now a 5w20. So that doesn't really comply with their specs for the car. I'd buy some 5w30 and 0w40. Keep receipt for 5w30 and use the 40. When it shears to 30 and you have a receipt for 30, how will Ford refuse any potential warranty related issues?
Again... Ford would have to prove the 0W-40 cause the failure.
09_GXP
Thread starter
Originally Posted By: KL31
Originally Posted By: 09_GXP
Spec is 5w30 with Ford certification.
Yes and oil is now a 5w20. So that doesn't really comply with their specs for the car. I'd buy some 5w30 and 0w40. Keep receipt for 5w30 and use the 40. When it shears to 30 and you have a receipt for 30, how will Ford refuse any potential warranty related issues?
The spec is for new oil. Ford does not have a spec for used oil so we can't say that the oil in the sample violates anything. A lot of people get nervous when oil shears down from 30wt to 20wt but this is not in itself cause for concern. #1. The oil weight grading system is just that a system, there is not something magic that happens at the cutoff line. #2. It is highly likely (almost guaranteed) that the same oil conditions were seen in testing or at the very least assumed during design calculations.
As CT8 pointed out Ford would still have to prove a non-recommended oil caused the failure but something here is happening beyond just the oil.
Originally Posted By: 09_GXP
Spec is 5w30 with Ford certification.
Yes and oil is now a 5w20. So that doesn't really comply with their specs for the car. I'd buy some 5w30 and 0w40. Keep receipt for 5w30 and use the 40. When it shears to 30 and you have a receipt for 30, how will Ford refuse any potential warranty related issues?
The spec is for new oil. Ford does not have a spec for used oil so we can't say that the oil in the sample violates anything. A lot of people get nervous when oil shears down from 30wt to 20wt but this is not in itself cause for concern. #1. The oil weight grading system is just that a system, there is not something magic that happens at the cutoff line. #2. It is highly likely (almost guaranteed) that the same oil conditions were seen in testing or at the very least assumed during design calculations.
As CT8 pointed out Ford would still have to prove a non-recommended oil caused the failure but something here is happening beyond just the oil.
Have heard of dealerships coming up with some pretty [censored] excuses though.
Edit: just saw your post and yes I agree that something wacky is happening Un related to oil. Disagree on the viscosity though. You wouldn't feel comfortable running a 20 grade which is isn't specd for. And nobody else would but you defend that it's sheared it's [censored] off to a 20 and says it's ok? Not trying to troll you but I don't understand the logic.
I wouldn't assume the engineers accounted for all this shearing. It's just an assumption and they may have calculated things based on an ideal world. Also an assumption but how will we ever know?
Edit: just saw your post and yes I agree that something wacky is happening Un related to oil. Disagree on the viscosity though. You wouldn't feel comfortable running a 20 grade which is isn't specd for. And nobody else would but you defend that it's sheared it's [censored] off to a 20 and says it's ok? Not trying to troll you but I don't understand the logic.
I wouldn't assume the engineers accounted for all this shearing. It's just an assumption and they may have calculated things based on an ideal world. Also an assumption but how will we ever know?
Last edited:
09_GXP
Thread starter
Originally Posted By: KL31
Have heard of dealerships coming up with some pretty [censored] excuses though.
Edit: just saw your post and yes I agree that something wacky is happening Un related to oil. Disagree on the viscosity though. You wouldn't feel comfortable running a 20 grade which is isn't specd for. And nobody else would but you defend that it's sheared it's [censored] off to a 20 and says it's ok? Not trying to troll you but I don't understand the logic.
I wouldn't assume the engineers accounted for all this shearing. It's just an assumption and they may have calculated things based on an ideal world. Also an assumption but how will we ever know?
I understand the confusion and am not trying to sound like a know-it-all but just trying to help understanding via my expertise. One of my past jobs was actually in engine development. Each engine is ran through a battery of tests to prove that it will last in the real world. If the shearing is a function of the engine design it will be seen quite often in testing. If it only occurs due to fuel dilution or during certain duty cycles then it will be captured in those tests. Any company worth their weight in salt would evaluate these tests and determine if adequate protection was provided. The oil spec likely isn't defied by a certain viscosity but rather by a minimum oil film thickness. This is then backed out to a SAE weight based on the running conditions of the engine.
There will be certain requirements after which the oil is unserviceable but we do not have access to those values. We are only given the specification for new fluid. The fact that the oil shears or has fuel dilution is not a surprise at this level and is no cause for concern.
Bringing in my previous point. There is nothing special about the boundary between a 30wt and 20wt. It could be that the engine's minimum required oil film thickness can be met with a light 20wt but if a 20wt is spec'd you could go below this. If you spec a 30wt you know you are starting with sufficient film thickness that everything will be okay once it shears.
TLDR: I'm okay with it because I am meeting the only recommended spec I am give, 5w30 when new, and trust the engineers have done their work to account for the very predictable shear and fuel dilution that will occur.
Have heard of dealerships coming up with some pretty [censored] excuses though.
Edit: just saw your post and yes I agree that something wacky is happening Un related to oil. Disagree on the viscosity though. You wouldn't feel comfortable running a 20 grade which is isn't specd for. And nobody else would but you defend that it's sheared it's [censored] off to a 20 and says it's ok? Not trying to troll you but I don't understand the logic.
I wouldn't assume the engineers accounted for all this shearing. It's just an assumption and they may have calculated things based on an ideal world. Also an assumption but how will we ever know?
I understand the confusion and am not trying to sound like a know-it-all but just trying to help understanding via my expertise. One of my past jobs was actually in engine development. Each engine is ran through a battery of tests to prove that it will last in the real world. If the shearing is a function of the engine design it will be seen quite often in testing. If it only occurs due to fuel dilution or during certain duty cycles then it will be captured in those tests. Any company worth their weight in salt would evaluate these tests and determine if adequate protection was provided. The oil spec likely isn't defied by a certain viscosity but rather by a minimum oil film thickness. This is then backed out to a SAE weight based on the running conditions of the engine.
There will be certain requirements after which the oil is unserviceable but we do not have access to those values. We are only given the specification for new fluid. The fact that the oil shears or has fuel dilution is not a surprise at this level and is no cause for concern.
Bringing in my previous point. There is nothing special about the boundary between a 30wt and 20wt. It could be that the engine's minimum required oil film thickness can be met with a light 20wt but if a 20wt is spec'd you could go below this. If you spec a 30wt you know you are starting with sufficient film thickness that everything will be okay once it shears.
TLDR: I'm okay with it because I am meeting the only recommended spec I am give, 5w30 when new, and trust the engineers have done their work to account for the very predictable shear and fuel dilution that will occur.
I thought viscosity and film thickness went hand in hand? Either way I understand your points and respect your decision. There are a number of the same engines and cars with UOA's currently on the forums but I have not seen any using a 40 grade. Would be interesting to see if the iron content went up/down at all or just stayed the same. Perhaps if either you or the others are game at some point, you could give it shot for comparison.
The UOA's I have seen have show potassium and aluminum also though (in varying degrees but still there).
The UOA's I have seen have show potassium and aluminum also though (in varying degrees but still there).
09_GXP
Thread starter
Originally Posted By: KL31
I thought viscosity and film thickness went hand in hand?
Correct, sorry if I made that point confusing. My point was that we don't know what the required film thickness is for the engine so there is no way to say that sheared used oil is below these requirements. And it is very likely it is okay due to the predictability of seeing the shearing in testing and modeling.
I thought viscosity and film thickness went hand in hand?
Correct, sorry if I made that point confusing. My point was that we don't know what the required film thickness is for the engine so there is no way to say that sheared used oil is below these requirements. And it is very likely it is okay due to the predictability of seeing the shearing in testing and modeling.
Report does not appear that bad to me. The lead is the puzzler, but could have come in from some rogue fuel. We have seen high lead spikes before on this board before with no apparent explanation other than a fuel source.
OP, I suggest you check your air filter if you haven't already. Less boost on this run and less silicon showing up. Ford stock air filters are fairly shallow with lower filter area than you might think. Many filters need changing around 20k miles. On my 5.0 F-150, the air filter was actually clogged and affecting engine performance by 27k miles. Lots of others on the F-150 board have seen the same. I replaced it with Wix/Napa gold with almost twice the filter area. A new air filter could improve some of these numbers.
Check out the difference in filter depth
OP, I suggest you check your air filter if you haven't already. Less boost on this run and less silicon showing up. Ford stock air filters are fairly shallow with lower filter area than you might think. Many filters need changing around 20k miles. On my 5.0 F-150, the air filter was actually clogged and affecting engine performance by 27k miles. Lots of others on the F-150 board have seen the same. I replaced it with Wix/Napa gold with almost twice the filter area. A new air filter could improve some of these numbers.
Check out the difference in filter depth
Last edited:
Also see this thread:
Here is a thread on the air filter issue
Here is a thread on the air filter issue
Last edited:
09_GXP
Thread starter
Originally Posted By: Tones
Report does not appear that bad to me. The lead is the puzzler, but could have come in from some rogue fuel. We have seen high lead spikes before on this board before with no apparent explanation other than a fuel source.
OP, I suggest you check your air filter if you haven't already. Less boost on this run and less silicon showing up. Ford stock air filters are fairly shallow with lower filter area than you might think. Many filters need changing around 20k miles. On my 5.0 F-150, the air filter was actually clogged and affecting engine performance by 27k miles. Lots of others on the F-150 board have seen the same. I replaced it with Wix/Napa gold with almost twice the filter area. A new air filter could improve some of these numbers.
Check out the difference in filter depth
Good thought. I actually put in a AEM dry flow filter at 19,624. The old air filter was dirty but didn't look like it was to the point of creating excess restriction. The piping behind the air filter was spotless with no sign of even the slightest amount of dust making it through. I'll be curious to see what happens on the next runs. Of course with the nature of the engine I think a lot more RTV is used than we typically see so the high silicone numbers may just be part of that.
Follow up on some other comments: I've contacted Ford and they we are trying to figure out how to get the truck into the shop. The dealer is balking at giving me a loaner even though they say it will likely be a lengthy testing process. I'm sending a coolant sample from my truck to Blackstone this week so that I'll have that baseline data and the community will have it for the future.
Report does not appear that bad to me. The lead is the puzzler, but could have come in from some rogue fuel. We have seen high lead spikes before on this board before with no apparent explanation other than a fuel source.
OP, I suggest you check your air filter if you haven't already. Less boost on this run and less silicon showing up. Ford stock air filters are fairly shallow with lower filter area than you might think. Many filters need changing around 20k miles. On my 5.0 F-150, the air filter was actually clogged and affecting engine performance by 27k miles. Lots of others on the F-150 board have seen the same. I replaced it with Wix/Napa gold with almost twice the filter area. A new air filter could improve some of these numbers.
Check out the difference in filter depth
Good thought. I actually put in a AEM dry flow filter at 19,624. The old air filter was dirty but didn't look like it was to the point of creating excess restriction. The piping behind the air filter was spotless with no sign of even the slightest amount of dust making it through. I'll be curious to see what happens on the next runs. Of course with the nature of the engine I think a lot more RTV is used than we typically see so the high silicone numbers may just be part of that.
Follow up on some other comments: I've contacted Ford and they we are trying to figure out how to get the truck into the shop. The dealer is balking at giving me a loaner even though they say it will likely be a lengthy testing process. I'm sending a coolant sample from my truck to Blackstone this week so that I'll have that baseline data and the community will have it for the future.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 20
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 35
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 17
- Views
- 954
- Replies
- 21
- Views
- 3K