2001 Dodge 2500, 338k miles, 16k on oil.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
8,361
Location
Michigan
I took a sample to follow up on the previous analysis that was showing a spike in Lead.
Yes, I put 16k miles on the truck in about 6 weeks.
This oil fill is all new-bottle RT6 CK-4.

From Polaris:
Truck Odometer: 338500 mi
Miles on oil: 16000
4 quarts of makeup oil added.
Fleetguart Stratapore filter.

Wear Metals:
(Element (ppm); 235k, 322k, 338k)
Iron; 42, 52, 30
Chromium; 3, 3, 1
Al; 4, 5, 3
Cu; 3, 4, 1
Lead; 9, 31, 4

Contaminants:
Silicon; 6, 13, 7
Sodium; 8, 6, 5
Potassium; 62, 0, 1

Multi-source metals:
Moly; 75, 76, 5*
Boron; 83, 38, 112*

Additive metals:
Mag; 1333, 1198, 179*
Calcium; 960, 1111, 2174
Phos; 1138, 1104, 1012
Zinc; 1439, 1471, 1277

Fuel Dilution; Soot; Water;
KV100 (cSt); 15.1, 15.1, 15.3
TBN; 6.54, 6.99, 5.69
Oxidation; 15, 16, 14
Nitration; 10, 10, 9

Polaris Comments:
Flagged data does not indicate an immediate need for maintenance action. Continue to observe the trend and monitor equipment and fluid conditions. Flagged additive levels are different than what should be present for the lubricant identified for this component. This does not imply that the lubricant does not meet proper API, SAE, or ISO classifications.

*Polaris flagged the Moly, Boron, and Magnesium, contents because they didn't agree with the RT6 values in Polaris' database.

But the good news is the Lead spike seen in the previous analysis is gone, and the wear metals are all low.
ZDDP content is down about 10%.
Moly is essentially gone.
Boron is up, as a replacement for the Moly, perhaps?
Magnesium is down about 85%.
Calcium is almost double.

TBN is already lower at 16k miles than the previous sample was at 37k miles. But that being said, the new sample still has a lot of life left in it.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: andyd
I noticed that the middle column had higher numbers. especially silicon. Did you fix a wonky air intake?


No, I didn't do anything to the air intake system in the last few months.
 
A_Harman, any difference in oil consumption with the new CK-4 stuff? Any idea how much fuel was used in any of these reports that you've posted?

Thanks for both the UOA and VOA of the new T6.
 
Originally Posted By: dustyroads
A_Harman, any difference in oil consumption with the new CK-4 stuff? Any idea how much fuel was used in any of these reports that you've posted?

Thanks for both the UOA and VOA of the new T6.


Oil consumption seems about the same in my engine between CJ4 and CK4 RT6.

I am averaging ~15 mpg with my truck doing 50% towing / 50% deadheading.
 
Thanks for the reply. That's not bad fuel economy for an engine cranking out monster power such as yours. I was asking about fuel use for the sake of the TBN drop off. The more fuel burned, the more the TBN drops and I thought maybe you were using more fuel in the last oci. As it turns out, it looks like the CK-4 starts with a lower base number anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top