ACES IV - An effective octane booster and anti-wear additive?

Brian... Great info. Thanks!  Here's a few things I'm concerned about:
Does ACES IV offer any help on the exhaust valve build up of deposits inherent to all GDI engines? What does ACES IV cost to use figuring a 100 octane equivalent mix (assuming continuing my current tune and mods, see my signature)... And how critical is the mix to performance and having the ECM advance timing? Could you comment on ACES IV as it relates to FMC advise that additives shorten turbo life...,I appreciate that we shorten it just by pushing the platform.  I really would like to find a meth injection alternative with near equivalent performance to preserve my remaining 50K miles of BTB warranty... My dealer is cool so far, but a meth system would void a bunch of that.  TIA.
 
glock-coma said:
Welcome Brian, I'm the guy (charlie) you spoke with that was local. Glad you made your way here.
Click to expand...

Hey Charley!

Great to talk to you yesterday on the phone.  Hopefully we can get your SHO running well using our ACES IV at some point. Look forward to working with you when you are ready!

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com
 
BiGMaC said:
Brian... Great info. Thanks!

Your welcome.  Very glad to be talking to people on this forum.  Learning how to use it.  Can't figure out how to get rid of the Max Headroom looking picture on my signature!


Here's a few things I'm concerned about:
Does ACES IV offer any help on the exhaust valve build up of deposits inherent to all GDI engines?

Yes, ACES IV contains a very effective detergent compound that is between 5 and 7 times more effective than your best top tier gasoline on the market for cleaning cylinders. In some cases where they are really dirty, we recommend using ACES IV-FIC to get it clean safely and then continue the cleanliness with regular ACES IV once it is finished.  This is effective for all the cylinder components and the injector tips as well. Having the lubricity produced every 4th stroke allows the lubricity to affix itself on the stems and valves and keep anything from adhering to them.  Get clean and keep clean.



What does ACES IV cost to use figuring a 100 octane equivalent mix (assuming continuing my current tune and mods, see my signature)

The ACES IV EFI Tier 2 Bin 8 GDI Gasoline Formula is $79.95 for 32 oz and treats 192 gallons of fuel.  The ACES IV EFI for the gallon is $269.95 and treats 770 gallons of fuel.  Both come with an 8 oz squeeze bottle that treats 48 gallons before it needs to be refilled.


... And how critical is the mix to performance and having the ECM advance timing?

There is a window on the ACES IV.  Initially a 1 oz per 6 gallons is typically sufficient.  Less concentration is virtually useless.  However, we have seen in some cases where a 1 oz per 5, 1 oz per 4 and even 1 oz per 3 are used for many very high performance applications.  Other times we go to the ACES IV-P that is for blending your own racing fuels.  That one starts out at 1 oz per gallon and progresses in 1/2 oz increments until the right mixture is attained.  Usually for professional racers but can also be used for extreme applications on the street also.

Bottom line here is finding the most efficient burn to produce the most power.  Since most tuners will throw fuel at the engine to use a portion of it to cool the heads, adding ACES IV just makes the fuel trim even fatter.  Many times we have to have the tuner back off the amount of fuel that is used because the "wet fuel" produced by ACES IV is different than the dry fuel tunes that they are used to.  We can get more power by backing off the fuel and letting the lubricity cool the engine down instead.  This also may be what you are talking about on the Methanol.  Not a fan of methanol frankly in these kinds of engines.  VERY CORROSIVE!!!


Could you comment on ACES IV as it relates to FMC advice that additives shorten turbo life...

I don't blame FMC for not recommending fuel additives.  Frankly they are ineffective at best and at worst damaging to many components in their fuel systems.....including turbos. They warn you for a reason.  One of the most common fuel additives....and I think the one the engineers over at Ford were thinking about is anything with MMT in it.  Methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl.  The one ingredient you want to look at is manganese.  This is a metal that doesn't burn but produces a manganese oxide.  This metal is hard and abrasive.  These additives...Torco Accelerator, Shogun, Outlaw, and 104+ Octane Boost are examples of this.  I have seen engines eroded by using MMT.  Also much more abrasive than typical wind wear and exhaust system wear on the turbine blades.  Makes the plugs impossible to read as they are a red oxide color.  This stuff is bad news and one of the main reasons FMC doesn't recommend additives.  Their take is whatever is in the gasoline including up to 10% alcohol is all you need.  They really don't want warranty repairs so they caution about all additives.

However, Ford really doesn't know much if anything about our technologies.  We are after all a small company.  However, when you see the plethora of information that has been posted on the internet about what we do and how the ACES IV works, there is much more credibility for our way of combustion control.  Over the last 15 years we have treated over 5 billion gallons of fuel from all our customers....includes gasoline and diesel, nitromethane, alcohol and 2 strokes.  I originally did this for my 1969 Dodge Charger 383 4bbl car in the mid to late 1980s.  Put this in every one of my 7 cars.  My 2005 Grand Caravan SXT has 237,000+ miles on it and has had ACES IV in it since 30 miles.  Change oil every 12,000 miles with our QB oils and QB Ultra HP Oil Filters too!  We are not in that "additive" group because we don't contain petroleum distillates, metals, polymers or alcohols.

We have been used in about 125 to 140 2003 Audi C5 Intercooled Bi-Turbo 4.2L V8 Quattro sedans.  They do tunes and performance mods supported by using ACES IV.  Similar situation as it comes from the factory with 450 hp V8s.

...,I appreciate that we shorten it just by pushing the platform. 

There are ways to lengthen the life of the components by designing proper compounds to support the increased power and torque.  The big problem in all platforms is that people modify the engines with more power, the driveline with more stress and then use OEM designed materials in it and wonder why they fail. 
We look at each and every component in a vehicle and design coolants, engine oils, transmission fluids, transfer case lubricants and differential fluids that are head and shoulders above anything you can buy off the shelf.  This greatly increases the life of each and every component we work with. 



  I really would like to find a meth injection alternative with near equivalent performance to preserve my remaining 50K miles of BTB warranty.

ACES IV or ACES IV-P should be able to supplant your need for Methanol.  Also a QB coolant and QB Lubricant can also support the ultimate goal you are after....along with many others as well.  We don't void any warranties so you would be in good shape in that regard as well!

.. My dealer is cool so far, but a meth system would void a bunch of that.  TIA.
Click to expand...

Hopefully this address what you are asking.  There is more to say but it at least starts the dialogue in the right direction to support and assist your performance goals here.

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com
 
Thanks Brian... You should get a call from me next week. Love your approach!

As I understand it the lubricity protects the intake valves, but cleaning effects are still noted also... Is this correct?
 
I will be calling again next week as well.

I may run stock for a bit just to see what happens. But I will still use premium gas until everything is cleaned out. Do you do any logging? If so, what do you log? I would like my experience and exposure to help others in a scientific way. The seat of the pants dyno is too subjective.

Can someone put them (BND) in touch with someone at LMS and Torrie? Because what BND says is the tuning may need to modified to compensate for a better fuel burn. LMS seemingly is very conservative and only go with tried and true to them. Torrie seems to be more willing to test and try. Just my opinion from what I have read of Torrie and dealings with LMS. But once ALL parties can speak openly with one another, we may have a real gem here.
 
Thought of one more question: With ACES IV, is the compressor side of the turbo cleaned/protected if a system is VTA and a lot of the CC blowby is not recompressed?
 
BiGMaC said:
Thanks Brian... You should get a call from me next week. Love your approach!

I look forward to talking to you and working with you to wring everything you can get from your SHO!

As I understand it the lubricity protects the intake valves, but cleaning effects are still noted also... Is this correct?
Click to expand...

That is a very astute question. Ok, the lubricity compounds that we produce have a 3 stage efficacy.  Low temp to lubricate the in tank pump.  If you have ever felt a pump when it is pumping something, it gets hot.  This is where the first stage lubricity is imparted.

The second stage is in the medium temperature area.  Injectors where they spray.  This is a combination of lubricity from heat and detergency for the GDI system.    This is where the stems and guides area along with valve seat and face on the intake side get protected.  Remember when Michael Waltrip got caught with something in his fuel at NASCAR?  It was our ACES IV mixed with their Sunoco Blue.  The combination made a pale blue intake lubricity that the inspectors caught.  That is the second stage medium lubricity phase.

The Third and HOT phase of the lubricity is produced when the engine burns the fuel.  This becomes copious lubricity that is blown up the intake and exhaust stems to protect the stem/guide interface.  I mentioned the 2005 Grand Caravan SXT with the 3.8L.  At 168,200 miles, I broke an intake spring and an exhaust spring....fortunately they didn't drop the valves.  So we took the front head off and reviewed the head.  The stem and guide spec'd brand new and when we did a water test on the heads, not a single valve leaked water and the edges of the valves were still sharp. 



So basically the product will get clean and keep clean the fuel system and cylinder area, produce more pressure wave expansion of combustion gasses, and then cool down and lubricate the entire  cylinder components without producing bore friction. 

Here is an article from the 2010 Chevy book on ACES IV:



Here too is an article I wrote on the Charger forums about lubricity.  I think it is relative here for a complete answer:

This is a question that we have been getting a lot continually.....enough so.....that I thought I would address it again for those who are new or don't really know that much about ACES IV.

Since the 1920's, tetra ethyl lead (TEL) (CH3CH2)4Pb was added to the fuels for two major reasons.



1) For every 1 gram per gallon of gasoline, TEL would raise the octane value of the fuel 10 octane points.

2) It was a dry lubricant that was left over during and after combustion that deposited a light coating on the rings, bores, valve stems/guides and cushioned the valve seats and valve faces. 

The lead compound was mixed with ethylene dibromide or 1,2-dibromoethane (CH2Br)2 which was used as an anti-knock additive in leaded fuels. It reacts with lead residues to generate volatile lead bromides which prevented fouling of the engine because it didn't let lead build up on the valves and stems.

The reason that lead was eliminated in the fuels was for the lead and lead bromide oxides that were emitted into the atmosphere which got into the environment where children would breath it causing all kinds of mental problems as well as the inability of the lead from evacuating the body.  We still don't know to this day all the damage that it causes physiologically.

So it was decided to make all gasolines unleaded.  This made it much harder to get an octane value high enough in the gasoline for the typical cars of the day......hence the reason for the drop in compression ratios after 1971.

Unleaded gasolines were introduced in 1974.  The response to this was the changing of the metalurgy in the ring area which was hardened for use without lead (but still depending on the sulfur content to give some boundry lubricity or scuff impact lubricity) along with hardened valves and valve seats.  Initially induction hardened and then later hardened stellite valve seats and either bimetal exhaust valves or like in the case of the SRT8 cars a sodium filled stainless steel valves.  The important thing to understand here is that in changing the metalurgy of the valves and valve seats make them brittle and prone to cracking and failure over time.  Pieces of valve seat have dropped into cylinders of our cars and really beat up the insides of our hemis!!

By 1996, the Clean Air Act of 1990 made sales of road gasoline with lead in it completely illegal.  While the Congress exempted leaded gasolines for sale to "racing" use only for off road competitions, it is gone practically in on road fuels.  $8.50 to $12.50 per gallon for leaded racing fuels are the norm now.

MTBE or Methyl tert-butyl ether (CH3)3COCH3 replaced lead as an anti-knock compund in the US as it has been used in gasoline at low levels since 1979 to replace tetraethyl lead and to increase its octane rating helping prevent engine knocking. It is an oxygenate (mandated by the clean air act of 1990).

Oxygenates help gasoline burn more completely, reducing tailpipe emissions from pre-1984 motor vehicles; dilutes or displaces gasoline components such as aromatics like benzene and sulfur while it optimizes the oxidation during combustion. Most refiners chose MTBE over other oxygenates primarily for its blending characteristics and low cost..

In 2000, the U.S. EPA drafted plans to phase out the use of MTBE nationwide over four years. However,as of the fall 2006, hundreds of lawsuits are still pending regarding MTBE contamination of public and private drinking water supplies.  It is a deadly poison!  Great job EPA!!!

The Energy Policy Act of 2005, passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, did not include a provision for shielding MTBE manufacturers from water contamination lawsuits.  A final bill was passed by both houses and signed into law by President Bush phasing out MTBE. The lack of MTBE liability protection from manufacturers that were contracted by the EPA for gasoline introduction is resulting in a switchover to the use of ethyl alcohol or ethanol CH3CH2OH as a gasoline additive.



It is surmised by some investment traders and consumer advocate groups that this is one of the reasons for an increase in gasoline prices.......pass it on to consumers.  Government mandates it, companies are invited to fill the need, it is found out to be as bad or worse than the original problem....government then sues companies that filled the need!
 
Since 2007, the EPA has phased out sulfur as a pollutant that has caused issues with the environment in both diesel fuel and gasolines.  While it is not directly a problem for either diesel at 4 ppm of sulfur nor gasoline at less than 30 ppm, it is the process that takes the oxygen and nitrogen compounds out.......along with the sulfur.... that are the specific problems for engines. 

What we find is that the lack of lubricity in the upper cylinders cause more bore friction.....robbing horsepower and torque, creating more heat that cooks the oils,  and then ultimately wear in that area causing the engines to start using more oil through the ring and oil control area.  This also wears off the moly coat that is applied at the factory allowing the pistons to rattle more in the bores as they contact the sides of the piston wall. 



On the valve side, since you have oil control seals on the valve stems that keep most of the oil from getting down the lower and middle part of the stem, the guide area tends to turn oval from constant pushing against the same side of the guide.



The other part of the head/valve area is the valve seat and valve face.  The biggest problem is that the valves are hitting up against the valve seat with no cushion between them at all.  This hammering of the intake and especially the exhaust side of the engine without any cushion or relief not only makes noise (the hemi tick) but can lead to the valve seat just delaminating and breaking apart.  The results of this are catastrophic!!



This is why when we constantly recommend ACES IV in the gasoline, it is with these pictures in mind that we try to pursuade people to add it to their fuels.

The upper cylinder lubricity was vetted by David Vizard on two engines running 250 hours straight at high rpm and load (that's 11 straight days....24 hours at a time) to see what the NET results would be. 

Both engines prepared the same and run on the same batch of fuel.  The first engine without ACES IV and the second one with the additized ACES IV catalyst.

After the 250 hours each, they were disassembled and measured with a 40 millionths micrometer to determine the differences.  His way of net measuring was to take the very best cylinder measurements from the non-additized engine and compare it to the worst cylinder measurements of the ACES IV engine.  The results were 6 times less ring and bore wear, 3.6 times less stem and guide wear and 5 times less valve recession (soft head engines pull up the valves into the head).



The hardened valves and seats on our hemi engines don't pull up into the heads, they just shatter the guides over time.  By the way, not one engine that is running ACES IV has dropped a valve guide.....from any manufacturer.

However, if you have cylinder lubricity, the rings slide on the bores, the valves get plentiful lubricity, and the valve seats are lubricated and cushioned.  Noise quiets down.

Here is the Turbo Z with 105,000 miles running ACES IV ( and QuantumBlue Lubricants)











Many people here are new and may have not really been involved in what we have put forth in the past so I thought it was good to go over it again for all the new members here and a reminder to the older members as well!:beerchug:

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC:driving:
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com
 
Neat history lesson and succinct technical discussion regarding the need for a product like ACES-IV.  Thanks, Brian!
 
Brian-

When I bought mine I went in at 150 miles to have the oil changed to Amsoil signature and the tech noticed the oil was "like the break in oil in the Shelbys".. when he called the Ford hotline they confirmed this and strongly suggested I leave it in for 4k miles which I am approaching quickly.

Any thoughts on what this "special break in" oil is and why they think it's so important?

Do you think I should've just drained it and added the Amsoil anyway?

I've left the car stock until I can get some good fluid in the car, but I'm about 200 miles away and getting excited about putting on the DP's, cutout, and giving Torrie at Unleashed Tuning a crack at the new one.

I'm ready to order Quantum Blue and ACES whenever you get the blend ready.



 
SHOdded said:
Neat history lesson and succinct technical discussion regarding the need for a product like ACES-IV.  Thanks, Brian!
Click to expand...

Your welcome.  It took me a while to compile that when I posted it originally and I thought that having it here would give a cogent background for cylinder lubricity.

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com
 
FoMoCoSHO said:
Brian-

When I bought mine I went in at 150 miles to have the oil changed to Amsoil signature and the tech noticed the oil was "like the break in oil in the Shelbys".. when he called the Ford hotline they confirmed this and strongly suggested I leave it in for 4k miles which I am approaching quickly.

Any thoughts on what this "special break in" oil is and why they think it's so important?

Typically a high performance vehicle from any of the performance divisions....PVO, SVT, SRT and the like have a reputation to uphold.  The break-in lubricants in these cars have a lot of viscosity compounds and anti-shear with surface treatment that is necessary to make the "settle in" break-in uneventful and consistent.  That is what I believe is in your SHO at present.  It is not a type of oil you would run on a regular basis as it is very expensive and not necessary after the break-in period. 

Amsoil signature series oil is a ILSAC GF-5 API SN Type oil that is lower on volatility with more molybdenum disulfide in it to supplant zinc and acidic phosphorous.  Every manufacturer is trying to meet the new standards coming for piston cleanliness and emissions specs. 

It is an ok oil as an off the shelf product but is not like the break-in lubricants that FORD does for their HP vehicles.  The break-in is a Group V ester base that is considered an exotic.  You can't even buy it again.  Special blend for these types of divisions.

Do you think I should've just drained it and added the Amsoil anyway?

No, I think you did the right thing in following the technician's advice and also Ford HP.

I've left the car stock until I can get some good fluid in the car, but I'm about 200 miles away and getting excited about putting on the DP's, cutout, and giving Torrie at Unleashed Tuning a crack at the new one.

I don't blame you in the least.  It is in our blood....an infection....hyper extension of the right foot!  LOL.

I'm ready to order Quantum Blue and ACES whenever you get the blend ready.
Click to expand...

Well and we can do that for you.  I have been reviewing the SHO Platform and comparing it to the 3.5L Ecoboost in the Ford F150 that Jack has. 

The SHO has to have an engine oil that meets Ford specification WSS-M2C946-A.  We want to exceed this spec as this spec is "resource conserving" at it's heart and is GF-5 so reduced zinc, phosphorous, almost no magnesium at all and Group IV based.  These oils have a 4,000 to 5,000 mile maximum and no reserve protection.  They want constant oil changes based on this spec.

We have done so much better by simply designing a better lubricant (7.5w32 HP Competition Formula 3.5L Twin Turbo Intercooled V6 Custom Blend) with a better filter and protecting the whole top end with ACES IV.  The combination of a larger molecule, real zinc, neutral phosphorous and diesel quality magnesium with the Quantum-A and Quantum-B compounds protect these twin turbo engines with oil analysis to prove it. 

Here is Jacks Ford F150 Ecoboost 3.5L Twin Turbo with 4 oil changes using the QuantumBlue 7.5w32 HP Competition Formula oil.



The initial oil was the Ford oil at 2,865.  Note the little amount of magnesium in the sample - 9 ppm but look at the amount of Moly and Boron - 49 ppm and 107 ppm.  Phosphorous at 596 and zinc at 692.  This is typical of off the shelf GF-5 API-SN oils.

Look at the 4 changes of QuantumBlue 7.5w32.  7,985, 10,926, 14,386 and 16,328 miles. 

Magnesium between 579 and 680.  579 ppm div by 9 ppm = 64 times as much detergent and dispersant with anti-foaming.  Needed in an augmented performance engine!

Phosphorous in the 799 to 2825 range.  2825 div by 596 is 4.74 times more phosphorous which is your anti-wear compound.  Ours is Neutral in design while theirs is acidic in nature.

Zinc in the 962 to 1125 range.  1032 div by 692 = 1.49 times more zinc which is your anti-rust and anti-scuff additive.  Ours is ZnDDP where theirs is ZDP.  Not as effective on surfaces.

Low on Moly and virtually no boron.  We don't like boron as it gets cakey in the oil passages. 

The wear is low on iron and chromium which is your bore and your rings.  No lead, typically low aluminum skirt wear and virtually no valve wear at 1 ppm.  Remember that the 16,328 is 3.27 times a 5,000 mile oil change.  This is empirical proof that we can produce a better oil that runs longer. 

Looking forward to working with you and getting our materials into your SHO so you can go the way you want to with confidence!

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com



 
Boggus said:
Has anyone tried it yet, where can it be purchased
Click to expand...

Several people are in the process of ordering our materials from this SHO forum but over 10,000 people use our ACES IV and our QuantumBlue materials every day. 

Purchasing is via telephone at 440-821-9040.  We spend a few minutes with each customer to verify we can assist them and then we take all the pertinent information from them, design what they need and then manufacture it...finally shipping it to your door via FedEx Ground or UPS.

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com
 
I look forward to seeing the results of ACES IV.
I'm curious if your lubricants would be beneficial in our PTU (Power Transfer Unit)? It seems the factory 'lifetime' fill turns to sludge and I'm hoping your QuantumBlue product would be a good alternative for an extended use lubricant. Do you have any info on how well your product handles the high heat and abuse of our PTU?
Any info I appreciated!
 
Brian, which filter was used in Jack's F150?  I see that the extended interval oil changes show a limit being reached somewhere around 15,000 miles, though  only 1 data point, as Si goes up to 50 ppm from 30+.  At all intervals, Fe goes up quite a bit as well, why? (though all the other metal wears look good).  I don't imagine your products contain ferrous compounds, so where is it coming from, in your experience?

Here is a link to sample reports from Blackstone (tho non-turbo), which probably everyone is familiar with:
http://www.blackstone-labs.com/report-explanation.php

The F150 3.5EB has a somewhat different construction than the SHO 3.5EB.  Supposedly it has forged crank & connecting rods, whereas the SHO's counterparts are powdered metal.  So I hope we can get a history over time with the SHO's 3.5EB results with your products as well.
 
92BlackGT said:
I look forward to seeing the results of ACES IV.

I am looking forward to hearing back from people here....although we have several 3.5L Ecoboost cars and trucks that have been running on ACES IV for a few years now. 

Here is an example from a 598 Chevy Big Block comparing $9.86 per gallon VP-110 racing fuel:



and 91 by itself:



91 + ACES IV.  11 to 1 compression ratio and 170 psi cold cranking cylinder pressure:




I'm curious if your lubricants would be beneficial in our PTU (Power Transfer Unit)? It seems the factory 'lifetime' fill turns to sludge and I'm hoping your QuantumBlue product would be a good alternative for an extended use lubricant. Do you have any info on how well your product handles the high heat and abuse of our PTU?

I reviewed the spec on the PTU and I come up with this:

Use SAE 75W-140 synthetic rear axle lubricant. Motorcraft P/N XY-75W140-QL; Ford specification WSL-M2C192-A

This viscosity is too wide and the typical synthethic lubricants are too thin.  We have had experience with all kinds of 4wd and all wheel drive vehicles.  We HAVE TO put very high temperature compounds in our fluids for these units because they really are not designed for durability.  Ford has had a history of burning up these PTUs.  We got involved in adjusting them since our first Explorer Sport Trak from 2001.  We have produced a lubricant that exceeds API GL-5, SAE J2360, MT-1, MIL-PRF-21050E and MACK GO-J specifications.  Ford engineers look at these units with a cost savings in mind just like GM and Chrysler.  We in the aftermarket have to reengineer as best we can to address these mindsets.  QB 85w125 HP Tackified RED Differential Fluid.  Similar to what we do in funny cars and rail dragsters with 8,000 hp.  Bulletproof engineering here.

Any info I appreciated!
Click to expand...

Looking forward to working with you when you are ready!

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com
 
SHOdded said:
Brian, which filter was used in Jack's F150?

The oil filter was a QuantumBlue Ultra HP Oil Filter of our own design. 

Here is a dissertation on our filters:



I see that the extended interval oil changes show a limit being reached somewhere around 15,000 miles, though  only 1 data point, as Si goes up to 50 ppm from 30+.

Jack has a performance filter on the truck and I have told him to use a regular air filter as he drives in dusty areas.  However, if you look at the 50 ppm and div it by 16.4 you get 3.048 ppm per 1000 miles.  When it was at 7,985 it was at 34 ppm.  34 div by 7.98 = 4.26 ppm per 1000 miles.  Granted, I don't like silicone and I have told him about it. 

At all intervals, Fe goes up quite a bit as well, why? (though all the other metal wears look good).  I don't imagine your products contain ferrous compounds, so where is it coming from, in your experience?

When you look at the iron content at 68 ppm...which is well within the limits for a 3,000 mile oil change.....you have to div it.  68 ppm div by 16.4 = 4.14 ppm per 1000 miles.  This is coming from the bore.  If you look at the 14,386 change and 46 you end up with 3.19 so it has gone up.  I generally like to see about 15k like you stated but he was towing and couldn't get back until this mileage. 

Here is an example of all the breakdown on an oil analysis:



Here is a link to sample reports from Blackstone (tho non-turbo), which probably everyone is familiar with:
http://www.blackstone-labs.com/report-explanation.php

Taking the example you posted from the 3,700 mile Motorcraft oil we have the following:

40 iron (bores) - 40 div by 3.7 = 10.81 ppm per 1000 and we were at 4.14 per 1000 @ 16,328 which is 4.41 times longer between oil changes!

Chromium (rings) was at 2 ppm at 3,700 miles or 54/100ths of 1 ppm per 1000 miles where the QB sample shows 2 ppm at 16,328 or 12/100ths of 1 ppm per 1000 miles and 4.41 times longer between oil changes.

Lead (bearings) was 2 ppm at 3,700 miles or 54/100ths of 1 ppm per 1000 miles.  The QuantumBlue had 0 ppm so no bearing wear at all with 4.41 times longer between oil changes.

Nickel (valves) was 1 ppm at 3,700 miles or 27/100ths of 1 ppm per 1000 miles and the QB sample also had 1 meaning that it had 6/100ths of 1 ppm per 1000 miles and 4.41 times longer between oil changes. 

These are the comparisons just off the surface but it does show how well our QB Custom Blends do in these engines. 

Aluminum (piston skirt) on the 3,700 mile sample was 11 ppm or 2.97 ppm per 1000 miles where the QB sample was 8 ppm or 49/100ths of 1 ppm per 1000 miles and 4.41 times longer between oil changes.

The F150 3.5EB has a somewhat different construction than the SHO 3.5EB.  Supposedly it has forged crank & connecting rods, whereas the SHO's counterparts are powdered metal.

The forged crank and connecting rods compared to a cast crank and powdered metal rods really don't matter here as it is surface wear and scuffing that we are concerned about.  The forgings are only relevant in the amount of power they can handle.  A cast crank and powdered metal rods can still handle a significant amount of power as the powdered metal rods are still pressed or forged to near net anyway and then the break off the caps on the bottom to set in the sleeve bearings.  We are more concerned about not causing surface wear and friction....although you do want a certain coefficient of friction between the metal parts with the lubricants so that the roller bearings spin and not slide.  When that happens you end up with flat spots on the components and eventually component failure. We want to guard against that for sure!


So I hope we can get a history over time with the SHO's 3.5EB results with your products as well.
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe we can do this on the different cars and compile fresh data on how these engines respond to our materials...both ACES IV and QuantumBlue Lubricants!

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Boostane octane booster
Replies
0
Views
7K
Dxlnt1
D
P
2016 Taurus Police Ecoboost problem
Replies
6
Views
3K
SHOdded
S
D
2011 SHO for sale
Replies
9
Views
215
SHOdded
S
C
my 2017 SHO w/PP
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
27K
SHOdded
S
jmarreroi
2017 explorer sport throttle body
Replies
2
Views
8K
jmarreroi
jmarreroi
Back
Top