Ford 6.9L, 15W40 R-T, 5300 miles, 1 year

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
4,563
Location
NW Ohio
1986 Ford F-250HD 4x4, 6.9L diesel (Banks Turbo Kit since '87)
Current Miles: 134,502
OCI: 6,000/1-yr
Actual OCI: 5,302/1-yr
Oil Used: 15W40 Rotella-T CJ-4
Oil Filter: Wix 51734 (Powerstroke oversize)
(Universal averages for 3250 mile OCI in parenthesis)

TBN: 9.9
Alum: 4 (5)
Chrom: 4 (3)
Iron: 46 (42)
Copper: 2 (6)
Lead: 4 (1)
Moly: 4 (55)
Potassium: 3 (5)
Boron: 2 (60)
Silicon: 5 (7) (Note- Has K&N Filter)
Sodium: 5 (18)
Calcium: 4059 (2945)
Magnesium: 11 (211)
Phosphorus: 1121 (1126)
Zinc: 1378 (1369)
SUS @ 210: 86.8 (69-78)
Flash: 405 (>415)
Fuel: 1.0 ( Insol: 0.4 (
Comments from Blackstone: "The 6.9L that powers your 1986 Ford is looking good at 134,502 miles after it's annual oil change. The universal averages for typical wear metals in oil from this type of IH diesel are based on a 3250 OCI. You engine's wear metals match up quite well to those in the universal files indicating normal wearing parts and careful operation of this F250HD truck. 1.0% of this sample was fuel but it didn't hurt anything. The TBN was 9.9, plenty of active additive left in the oil. The viscosity was high due to soot."

My Comments: The only thing that jumps out to me is the viscosity and soot. It was near to a 50 weight! Blackstone seems unconcerned. I had analysis done elsewhere some years back, and the oil also thickened up, but not this much. But then I was doing 4K changes. Comments?
 
I have a 84 6.9 and it's still running original everything but 4 injector pumps. Your engine is doing great and I would not change a thing. It seems with these engines they just like a 40w or higher viscosity....its hard to believe it still has almost 10TBN and I would have them check that figure.
 
Quote:


I have a 84 6.9 and it's still running original everything but 4 injector pumps. Your engine is doing great and I would not change a thing. It seems with these engines they just like a 40w or higher viscosity....its hard to believe it still has almost 10TBN and I would have them check that figure.



he only has 5300 miles on the oil and rotella should keep a good TBN number for a good amount of time in these engines.
mine had 40,000 miles on this sample back a few months ago.
Iron 56
Chromium 5
Lead 37
Copper 32
Tin 0
Aluminum 4
Nickel 0
Silver 0
Silicon 15
Boron 2
Sodium 19
Magnesium 35
Calcium 3422
Barium 0
Phosphorus 1228
Zinc 1563
Molybdenum 4
Titanium 0
Vanadum 0
Potassium 0

Fuel VIS @ 100 C 12.90
Water 0
Soot/Solids 0.9
Coolant NO

TBN: 6.36
OXID: 1.0
NITR: 1.0
F-SOOT: 0.98
Analysis recommendations
oil is suitable for continued use resample at next regular interval.

I was wondering why the iron in the rotella sample seemed to be high compared to mine with 7x the amout of milage on the oil
coffeetime.gif
 
Large: The CJ-4 starts out at 10.1, however the two quarts of added oil (which I neglected to list) were CI-4+. The CI-4+ is 11.5 TBN. As to TBN retention, my IH D358 tractor engine was 11.1 TBN on CI-4+ after 75 hours. Soot filter? Maybe. I've gone 20 years and 135K without. This truck could grenade tomorrow and wouldn't owe me a cent. I haven't looked into them much. Any you think I should look at?

Lazaro: No clue on the iron but is within the Blackstone norm for this engine and oil, so I won't sweat it. It was in the high 30s the last test about 5 years and 35K ago. Could just be the differences in age and the type of engine. Plus, you are using bypass filtration, (as I recall) which could account for some of it.
 
Quote:


The viscosity was high due to soot."



How much soot? Why state that if theres no measurement of soot? Thats what Oilguard do - don't messure soot - it's why I stopped using them and if Blackstone don't measure it - then I wouldn't use them either!

Soots one of the things wears diesel engines out faster than needs be and thats one of the prime reasons why people like me put bypass & centrifuge type filters in, - to remove the soot so wear rates will drop - whats the point if the labs don't measure it so you can keep tabs on if these filters are doing thier job of removing soot or not?
bop.gif


I can't even get the labs not to mix up my samples and report results of samples for the wrong vehocle - totally screwing up the whole point of UOA's and looking for trends etc!

The results are all over the place if they mix up the samples - thats just plain stoopid, and again an exampl eof paying for a service and getting half azzed results!
When you ring anod point out the obvious (which the supposed analysist who made the comments never even picked up on) they then suggest that the lids musta comeoff the sample jars in the mail and the mailman replaced the inner containers of oil in the wrong jars with the wrong paperwork vehicle identifier!
They had the hode to send me results thati sent in for different sample dates 3 months apart - all the results come back with sample date the day they recieved them in the post, not the sample dates I recorded on the paperwork?
Why ask the questions if they are too dammned lazy to read what you wrote and transfer that info to your online report so you can identify one result from another?
smirk.gif


Imagine you have 2 diesel vehicles runnng the same oil!
Both have continuous sampling recioords every oil change.

One has bypass filtration, rare earth magnets on the bypass filter cannister and full flow filter cannnister to collect any ferrous wear metals and keep the count low.
It does 3000 miles before its sampled.
You'd expect low soot - & low wear metals high TBN no oxides etc

The other does 10,000 miles on it's oil, has no bypass filter and no magnets on the full flow cannister.
You'd expect much higher soot, lower TBN, higher wear metals etc etc due to the longer oil change period and less effective filtering.

So you send the samples away - all identified and correctly labbeled (you marked the inner bottle lids so you'd know and not mix em up!)

You get your results back...and the first vehicle has - increased high soot levels and hogher wear metals levels, low TBN hogh oxidation levels and the second vehicle that went 10,000 miles with no extra filtration no magnets & it has the opposite - low wear metals, low soot, low oxides, high TBN.

You would think the analyist who does both reports consecultively - might question the results?

It shouldnt take a rocket scientist to work out - someone in the lab stuffed up!

And it wasn't the postman mixed em up because I boxed all my samples - and posted them in as a sealed parcell, the containers wouldn't have been removed - until the parcell was delivered and the wrapping removed from the box - & samples containers taken out. Hence the mixup was definitely at the lab not in the post!

What twigs me that the lab screwed up?

Becaise I had suspicions from past sampling that they are a binch a half wits @ Oilguard - so I sent an identical sample collected at the same time to a local lab for comparison!

None of the results match up!

I sent 3 samples to Oilguard and they posted 4 results!

Goodness knows who the fourth one belongs too - because it toto is different results - even if they repeated one samples tests twice - then they got it wrong both times!

I wouldn't let them loose with fish and chip oil in the kitchen let alone used oil analysis!

Sometimes - I wouldn't place too muchfaith in the analysists report - some of them aren't the sharpest tools in the shed if you know what I mean! Even the "obvious" doesn't ring a bell with them sometimes!

I'd be interested to know why UOA analysis folks think those sending smaples in wouldn't want to know soot levels?

Anyone?

Cheers!
 
Flywest: Feel better now? Sounds like you were holding all that in a little too long. It sounds like a nightmare, having gone to all that trouble and then have it all wasted by the so-called "lab."

crushedcar.gif


Blackstone doesn't measure soot. I knew that going in, so I don't feel hosed. I've seen their operation in person and don't have any trust issues nagging at me.

cheers.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top