UOA Oil Analysis - 6.3k mi Pennzoil non-synth

M

metroplex

New member
I changed the oil when the oil life monitor indicated it was needed, old oil was 6 qt of Pennzoil conventional 5W-30 with a Fram PH10575 (FL-500-S equivalent), the least expensive oil that met the Ford specification as per the owner's manual. The engine has less than 21k miles.

TBN looked good, viscosity was a bit thin probably from fuel dilution. I'll have to do another UOA to monitor aluminum and iron wear. Overall I'd say not too bad for non-synthetic engine oil.
 
What I see is the oil was shot and you have metal contamination.  Your next test will definitely be interesting.

I'm scared to test mine since the first owner neglected the car.

 
I guess if "not too bad" is the standard then you will never be disappointed...it sounds like cheap oil and 87 octane is the way to go for this platform...everything else is simply snake oil and wasted money...what fools we are
 
For what it is worth, Blackstone didn't seem to think the oil was shot based on their analysis. TBN was higher than what I've seen from most F-150 EcoBoost V6 UOAs running a synthetic 5W-30. The viscosity is a bit thinner (on the side of a mid to high xW-20) but probably due to fuel dilution. This seems to be common with the F-150's as well. Keep in mind early MKS/SHO's were running 5W-20 from the factory before the F-150 EcoBoost hit the market...

I've read that Blackstone doesn't measure fuel dilution properly, so the low percentage they reported isn't quite accurate. The aluminum and iron wear is a bit higher than their universal average, but Blackstone seemed to think it might be because it's the 3rd oil change (as per the manufacturer's recommendations) and the engine is still breaking in at under 21k miles. The general consensus for the F-150s was basically to run more frequent oil changes with inexpensive oil, so who really knows. I might try a Kendall UOA next time since some feel they report more accurate fuel dilution numbers which is more important with the EcoBoost GTDI engines.
 
The general consensus is to run more frequent oil changes with inexpensive oil???..they must have surveyed senior citizens....man would i kick myself and be full of regret if a few dollars ended up being the cause of an engine failure...but if money is tight i guess its better to use cheap oil....more important things in life than synthetic oil

Love your sig btw
 
Well, at least you had a UOA done. And hope you will keep doing so.  I obviously do not favor such tests of oil on a SHO,  but good luck to you.
 
Normally I'd use Mobil 1 5W-30 or a synthetic like Pennzoil Platinum 5W-30. The GM LNF in the Cobalt SS Turbo gets M1 5W-30 because that's what GM requires (GM 4718M Corvette spec), but I looked at a few other UOAs for the EcoBoost and one that had Mobil 1 5W-30 showed similar viscosity and wear metals as my conventional Pennzoil 5W-30.

As of yet, I am not seeing a strong argument to use synthetic in the EcoBoost 3.5 for daily driving (even one that is pushed hard), especially when even synthetics have similar TBNs, wear metals, and viscosity at 6000 miles as the least expensive Pennzoil 5W-30. They almost all go down to a mid-weight 5W-20 around this mileage.

What I'd be interested in testing is using a synthetic xW-40 or xW-50 in the EcoBoost 3.5 for the same change interval. After all, the Ford factory performance engines (like the 5.8L in the GT500 or the 5.4L in the GT) are using 5W-50 synthetic, not 5W-20 or 5W-30.
 
How long do you intend to keep the car?  Will you take corrective action as and when required?  The "experiments" have to (a) well designed and (b) have a sufficiently long timeline to be meaningful. 

So for example at least 4 to 5 oil changes before you make another change, with no other changes.  Do these UOAs after every oil change.
 
I would not hold Mobil 1 as the standard for synthetic oils.  I used to be a BIG supporter of Mobil 1 and used it for many years.  Until they changed formulas years back and are now no longer a PAO based synthetic.

They can call it a synthetic by law, but I do not consider something that does not use a synthetic base stock to be a synthetic.

If you want to compare your results with a synthetic oil, compare with Amsoil, Redline, or Royal Purple. 
 
Amsoil Signature, just to be clear, not the lower level lines.  And I find that companies are burying the technical data more & more these days.  They may call it reorganizing, but ...
 
SHOdded said:
Amsoil Signature, just to be clear, not the lower level lines.  And I find that companies are burying the technical data more & more these days.  They may call it reorganizing, but ...
Click to expand...

I completely agree.

I think the industry is also trying to bury the history of what happened, but I watched at the time when Mobil sued Castrol for calling their Syntec synthetic despite it not having a synthetic base stock.

Castrol, thanks to a misinformed judge, won the lawsuit.  Mobil and the rest of the industry took that as an opportunity to change their formulas and dumb down their "synthetic" offerings.

Every year it gets harder to find a true synthetic.  I lost respect for Amsoil when they brought out Signature and changed their other offerings as well. 

Castrol had Syntec Titanium for a while and it was PAO based.  They then changed the name to Edge and it's now not PAO.

These companies are playing games at an alarming rate and it's hard to keep track if you want a real synthetic.

Best I can tell, Redline and Royal Purple are the only two that have not changed or tried playing the games.  Not that they are necessarily the best oils, but I respect them for not changing.

I think I will start a thread for true PAO based synthetics and see what we come up with for options.
 
The UOA I posted doesn't seem to indicate a real problem. Blackstone doesn't seem to think there is a major issue either and they didn't report that the oil was "shot" as someone interjected in this thread. The other EcoBoost 3.5 UOAs I've seen have a tendency to have slightly lower Al and Fe wear levels, but there were a few that had similar numbers (with similar engine mileage) and the Blackstone analysts weren't too alarmed based on their comments. Again, viscosity levels are about comparable (the numbers in my UOA are actually slightly better than some of the others I've seen, and it points to a mid to heavy weight 20 oil).

About 10-13 years ago, I would have been very AR regarding Group IV vs Group III basetock synthetics, but today I don't really care if it is "real" synthetic or not as long as it meets/exceeds the OEM specifications and how expensive it is to purchase. For my GM LNF (and all of the Corvettes out there), that's GM4718M which is basically any "synthetic" 5W-30 out on the shelf. I don't plan to spend the extra money on Amsoil or any of the Extended Performance synthetics unless it is for my Ducati which has genuinely special oil requirements. Given the reported tendency for GTDI engines to have excessive fuel dilution (versus normal shearing) requiring more frequent oil changes, you can use the best $20/qt Group V basestock 5W-30 synthetic oil on the market but it won't protect your engine any better than a $3/qt 5W-30 non-synthetic oil if fuel has diluted your $20/qt oil to a 5W-20, same as the $3/qt oil. I think the more important factor for our EcoBoost 3.5L V6 is to find something that can handle the fuel dilution and still protect the engine at regular or longer intervals.

Looking at Ford's real performance engines in the US on their street cars (where the intended usage is on the track), they use 5W-50 synthetic, not 5W-20 or 5W-30 (e.g. 5.8L in 13-14 GT500, and the 5.4L V8 in the GT). I saw an ad in Top Gear magazine where the 2017 Ford GT is supposed to use Castrol Edge Supercar, which is a 10W-60 synthetic, in its EcoBoost 3.5L V6. I'd be more curious to see how these heavier synthetics hold up in viscosity and TBN under normal intervals.

For gear and manual trans oil, I usually go with Redline since the price isn't too bad and it's not something I change as frequently as engine oil.
 
I agree to some extent with the above.

The major part I feel you are leaving out is the best solution to fuel dilution.  Shorter change intervals.  Running a thicker oil just to combat fuel dilution is a horrible solution.  They are exposing the motor to drastically changing viscosities by starting with a thick oil and then running it till it's thin due to dilution.

OEM's have no other option as the public demands 5,000+ mile change intervals.

The real solution is to just change the oil more frequently.  Maybe running less expensive oil and changing often is not a bad plan if you're on a budget or are cost conscious regarding your oil choices.  What is not a good idea is to run low quality oil for long periods.
 
Just because the manufacturer recommends a particular oil doesn't mean it's the best option.

You can tell which oils are PAO based by price...But actually they aren't more expensive to run if you follow the change interval, which most people don't.

I own a mustang GT with track package that I've twin turboed and it requires 5w-50...It's not a good idea to blindly change viscosity...Oil viscosity should be selected to achieve the proper oil pressure...If you don't drive the car hard, increased viscosity is not good.

Ford does this because the motorcraft oil shears so badly that the 50 weight oil quickly is reduced to the 30's...So it's basically headroom to compensate for crappy oil.

 
I didn't realize the engineering on the GT is identical to the SHO.  Heck, I don't even know all the changes Ford has made year to year on the SHO!  We find out certain things by trial & error, but would we say we KNOW what is really going on?  I think you should talk to LME and let them fill you in.

In any case, the point is if you want to do it, do it.  We are not here to force you to do anything, just provide our perspectives.  But at the same time, people reading the content on our forum should be clear that they bear the risk of such experimentation.  Of course, we are interested to hear/see what happens from your tests.  But it helps to provide concrete facts/evidence for the user coummunity to evaluate.
 
midnightSun said:
sholxgt said:
I lost respect for Amsoil when they brought out Signature and changed their other offerings as well. 
Click to expand...

Why is this?
Click to expand...

I lost respect because it appears they performed a bait and switch.  Much like Mobil and Castrol did.

When Amsoil only had one offering it was a true synthetic.  It seems to me that they then brought out Signature to make the public think that they have engineered an even better oil.  But, what they actually did was change the formula in their standard offering to a non synthetic base stock and rename their standard offering Signature.

At least that's what it seems to me happened.  I know years ago they only had true synthetic and it wasn't called Signature.  The standard Amsoil is now petroleum base stock and you have to step up to Signature to get what I, and other countries, call synthetic oil.
 
Agree completely.  I guess they wanted a bigger share of the market?  Signature would be the only engine oil I'd use though.  Can easily get quality non-true-synthetic oil just about anywhere for cheaper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
PTU and Engine Oil Change...
Replies
8
Views
12K
Macgyver
M
T
Used oil analysis - 2015 Expedition
Replies
4
Views
10K
SHOdded
S
S
Articles on Gear Oil
Replies
3
Views
11K
SHOdded
S
A
  • Locked
What oil does everyone use?
2
Replies
37
Views
17K
Auggie
A
M
Multi-Oil Analysis
2
Replies
28
Views
23K
MiWiAu
M
Back
Top