Oil Analysis - PB 15W-40 & Stratopore

[NVR FNSH]

I've been remiss in posting the results from my oil analysis that I had done for my 'bet' with Gary-KJ6Q.



Analysis done by Oil Analyzers on Valvoline PB 15W-40 with a Fleetguard Stratopore filter on my '00 2500 with 38316 miles on the truck.



Oil Service - 7149 miles, installed 8/12/01 drained 2/10/02



PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

Glycol - NEG

% water - <0. 05

% fuel - <1. 0

Viscosity - 40*C - NA, 100*C 12. 9

% solids - NA



OIL DEGRADATION

Soot - <1. 0

% OXD - 6. 7

% NOX - 2. 9

TBN - 9. 1

TAN - NA



SPECTROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS (PPM)

Fe - 40

Cr - 2

Pb - 8

Cu -11

Sn - 1

Al - 9

Ni - 0

Ag - 0

Mn - 1

Si - 5

B - 25

Na - 2

Mg - 9

Ca - 2357

Ba - 0

P - 1275

Zn - 1322

Mo - 0

Ti - 0

V - 0

Cd - 0



Results of tests performed indicate:

No corrective action required

Oil is suitable for continued use

Resample at next regular interval





Brian

 

[Sled Puller]

Nothing wrong with that oil!

Not a whole lot of miles in that time period.

7000 was enough, eh?

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

Thanks for the update Brian...



TO refresh memories of those interested, the "bet" was related to effectiveness of bypass filtering - I use a Frantz Toilet paper filter, and my Blackstone Labs 5000 mile results using Rotella was:



Aluminum = 2 ppm

Chromium = 1 ppm

Iron = 8 ppm

Copper = 1 ppm

Lead = 1 ppm

Tin = 0 ppm

Silicon = 3 ppm

fuel = <0. 5

Antifreeze = 0

Water = 0

Insolubles = 0. 4



All other readings were either zero or negligible...



Yup, pretty happy with my readings, AND with the effectiveness of bypass filtering!

 

[amsoilman]

As Sledpuller said, "Nothing wrong with that oil"!



Here is a report on my Dodge using the Amsoil AME 15W-40 and the by-pass oil filteration system. CTC Analytical Service Inc. did the oil analysis.



This oil was installed in Nov 94 and changed in Nov 99 with 105,000 on truck and 94,000 on oil. I now have the Amsoil HDD 5W-30 series 3000 oil in the engine.







PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

Glycol - NEG

% water - <0

% fuel - <1

Viscosity - 40*C - NA, 100*C 12. 95

% solids - 0. 3



OIL DEGRADATION



TBN - 7. 46

TAN - 3. 91



SPECTROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS (PPM)

Fe - 77

Cr - 0

Pb - 7

Cu -13

Sn - 0

Al - 8

Ni - 0

Ag - 0

Mn - 0

Si - 14

B - 1

Na - 3

Mg - 662

Ca - 2429

Ba - 1159

P - 900

Zn - 1142

Mo - 0

Ti - 0

V - 0

Cd - 0



Results of tests performed indicate:

No corrective action required Oil is suitable for continued use Resample at next regular interval



I didn't think there was anything wrong with this oil either, but I wanted to try the series 3000 oil and the single remote by-pass system.



Wayne

amsoilman

 

[NVR FNSH]

Gary,

I still think your good results are due to the STP you pour in at each change:d



I'm happy enough with Premium Blue & Stratapore. I used Delo 400 on the last fill-up and will have it analyzed when I drain it just for comparison sake. I can get Delo at Wal-Mart instead of having to all the way to Kragen



Brian

 

[PRout]

Heres with 2 frantz filters in series. (Blackstone Labs report)



Amsoil 15/40 HDD Syn at about 13k miles (double the miles compared to their averages).



Had K&N RE-0880 at the time.



Material / Measured (13k) / Average (5-6k miles).

Aluminum ... ... ... 2 4

Chromium ... ..... 1 2

Iron ... ... ... ... ..... 31 28

Copper ... ... ... ... 3 11

Lead ... ... ... ... ... . 7 4

Tin ... ... ... ... ... ..... 0 1

Molybdenum ... . 1 11

Nickel ... ... ... ... ... 0 0

Manganese ... ... 1 1

Silver ... ... ... ... ... . 0 0

Titanium ... ... ..... 0 0

Vanadium ... ... ... 0 0

Boron ... ... ... ... ... 9 128

Silicone ... ... ... ... . 4 10

Sodium ... ... ... ... . 2 10

Calcium ... ... ... ... 4519 2434

Magnesium ... ... 11 372

Phosphrs ... ... ... 1056 1055

Zinc ... ... ... ... ... ... 1236 1215

Barium ... ... ... ... . 1 1



Visc@210* ... ... . 70. 5 68-80

Flashpt* ... ... ..... 420 >410

Fuel% ... ... ... ..... <0. 5 <2. 0

Antifreeze% ..... 0 0

Water% ... ... ..... 0 <. 05

Insolubles ... ... . . 1 <. 8



I specifically asked if they could determine if any paper is leaving the frantz & getting in the oil.



Their remarks were that they took a close look at the insolubles (particles in the oil), which came out to be very low (. 1%), no paper found in the oil. Said that this indicates good filtration.



Paper used in frantz, was the scott 1000 sheet rolls, pretty tightly packed in the canister. Note: the oil was pretty dark colored.

 

[amsoilman]

One can not tell if oil is clean by the color of it. In the days before the manufacturers were mandated to clean up the Diesel engines, (prior to 1990) Diesel engine oil would get extremely black in a matter of a few minutes!



Wayne

amsoilman

 

[Jeff Knight]

Brian, You can get Premium Blue at Wal Mart now. It's $1. 68 a qt. Bought mine there the other day. Jeff

 

[HC]

Wayne,

I think many of us would be interested in hearing comparisons from you on 15W-40 vs 5W-30 as soon as you have enough data. I've been running 5W-30, but already have some 15W-40 on order. I know either can provide "very good" protection, but I'm beginning to think maybe the 5W-30 provides better protection for those with lots of cold starts, while 15W-40 is still the better choice for anyone with more highway miles.

By way of comparison, at 94k your 15W-40 had less Cr, Pb and Al than my 5W-30 did at 14. 3k. My numbers were (dual bypass):

Fe 44

Cr 3

Pb 8

Al 20

Si 11

(Truck had 85k at time of last sample)

 

[amsoilman]

HC,

I don't have that many miles on the 5W-30 yet. I installed the 5W-30 at 105,000, and the last analysis was at 137,000. The truck now has 141,000, but I have not done an analysis since the 137,000 mark.



Wayne

amsoilman

 

[Frantz Filters]

Hi, I wanted to say "Thank You" to those who posted the results of their oil analysis tests on their bypass oil filters. I do believe the proof is in the numbers!

 

[pwknapp]

I just sent in a sample for my first analysis and I've been thinking on the bypass/no bypass, synthetic/dino debate. The biggest benefit seems to be in the added protection of the bypass filtration sytem keeping the oil clean therefore not reintroducing those particles back into the lube system. My question is does the use of smaller particle filtration sytems give the owner a sense of false security when reading oil analysis reports. Is the oil really doing it's job in protecting/preventing the wear associated with use or is the filtration system catching the particles and consequently not showing the true amount of wear metals in the sample??

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

"Conventional wisdom" - and opinions of at least 2 different oil analyzers *I* asked, is that analysis is a PERCENTAGE game, NOT a "size" game - the PERCENTAGES of various contaminents revealed by analysis stays pretty much the same, even if their individual size is reduced.



Add to that that the greatest value of analysis is as a TRACKING tool to spotlight any significany CHANGES in various wear/contaminent areas over a period of time and subsequent tests - and that even if ALL the bypass filters did was eliminate the larger, potentially damaging particles, THAT in itself is reason enough to use one!

 

[pwknapp]

Just so happened to get back first analysis. Rotella 15/40, 1qt makeup,4737mi use,400,681mi on unit. BHAF and single Fleetguard.



Alum 3

Chrom 3

Iron 34

Copper 1

Lead 2

Tin 0

Moly 1

Ni,mang,silv,titan,vana,boron, 0

Silicon 5

Sodium 3

Calc 3057

Magnes 8

Phos 1123

Zinc 1206

Barium 0



Viscosity@210/72. 4

Flashpoint 420

Fuel % <0. 5

Antifreeze/Water 0. 0

Insolubles 0. 5



Also said bearings doing better than upper end parts. ???

Can't find a TBN or TAN, Geuss I nedd to find out if Blackstone offers these #'s

 

[Don M]

Paul,



yeah the FE is showing higher numbers than the typical bearing metals, but the numbers are super low. Its hard to tell from a single sample with numbers that good. They are better than many I have seen on here.



Don~

 

[HC]

Just got some interesting analysis results back; updating / adding to this previous thread seemed like the better way to share them.



At the 14. 3k sample I reported above, I felt like Fe, Pb, Al, and Si were all a bit higher than I would like to see with "only" 14. 3 k on the oil. So I changed both the full flow and bypass filters, and topped up with 3. 5 quarts more of the Amsoil 5W-30. Now, my 20. 1k results are in, and show that wear metals dropped by 1/2 to 2/3 of the previous sample, as did Si. So, the numbers look like this:



... ... ... . 5. 1k... ... . 9. 2k... ... 14. 3k... ... 20. 1k



Fe... ... . 11... ... ... . 30... ... ... . 44... ... ..... 19

Cr... ..... 0... ... ... ... 1... ... ... ... . 3... ... ... ... . 0

Pb... ..... 2... ... ... ... 6... ... ... ... . 8... ... ... ... . 3

Al... ... ... 8... ... ..... 18... ... ..... 20... ... ... ... 6

Si... ... ... 3... ... ... ... . 7... ... ..... 11... ... ... ... 4



Notes:

5. 1k - No filter change, no make-up

9. 2k - Change full-flow, 3. 5 quarts make-up

14. 3k - Change full flow and bypass, 3. 5 quarts make-up



Technically, it shouldn't even be possible for the numbers to have dropped as much as they did with only 3. 5 quarts of make up oil. I'll probably never know for sure exactly what happened (yes, too much data can make you crazy). The 14. 3 sample may have been contaminated; on that sample only I had a sample tube which was too big and I had to force it down the dipstick tube, so I may have scraped some sludge and gotten "false high" readings on that sample. But the numbers "seemed" right because they all showed the expected gradual trend upward when compared to the 9. 2k sample on the same oil. Maybe the lab mixed or contaminated my sample, but that seems unlikely. And I have to wonder, could a new bypass filter "clean up" the oil that much? If it did, then this trend analysis is even trickier than I thought.

 

[Vaughn MacKenzie]

HC, I would agree with your those numbers look odd. I haven't heard of bypass filtration actually reducing wear metal counts. Did you get a good sample on your second reading?



Like a lot of folks I am experimenting with different oils to see what numbers I find. I'm sticking with stock filtering so I get a better idea how well the oil is working, then I'll add a single bypass when I settle on either Amsoil 15W40 or Delvac 5W40.



For fun here's some Iron count numbers I've seen since I started sampling on my truck's second oil change (first change was at 525 miles!)



Oil mi. Iron Oil type

4083 36 Delo 400 4608 total miles on truck

7757 38 Super Tech 15W40

8140 66 Amsoil 15W40

8500 28 Amsoil 15W40 did not change

19654 41 Amsoil 15W40

10003 36 Amsoil 5W30 did not change

19500 88 Amsoil 5W30



All filters were Stratapore except I used a Napa and Baldwin once.



Observations: Iron count shot up when changing from Dino to Amsoil 15W40 but then really dropped on the next change.



5W30 got off to a good start but then shot up quite a bit over the next 10k miles



Super Tech oil from Wal-Mart gave good numbers, I think it would be a good choice if running standard oil.



Vaughn

 

[HC]

Did you get a good sample on your second reading?

Easy question, long answer:



I try to be very careful, and I think I got good samples (but something's fishy). All samples were drawn through the dipstick, using Amsoil's sample pump, and of course a new piece of tubing. In each case, the truck was driven until the oil was hot, shut down, and the sample drawn immediately. The only sample that I had any difficulty with was the third one (fat tube, possible sludge scraper?), but it seemed to be trending well with the first two. The bypass shouldn't have been able to reduce wear counts, unless the first bypass was leaking by and only the second one removed the particles. And if that was the case, why were the Fe counts so low on the first sample, but with Aluminum high? (I assumed some Al contamination could have come from installation of the bypass housing and adapters. ) Other parameters were doing weird stuff too. OXD ran 28. 9, then 26. 7, then 21. 1, then 33. 3. How could OXD have gone down between #1 and #2? There were no filter changes, no make-up oil, nothing to explain this. And then OXD dropped even lower for #3. Why did Mg run 9. . 24. . 23. . 8? Or TBN 12. 2, 12. 4, 11. 4, 11. 0? The last three make sense, but it shouldn't have gone UP for that second sample. This data almost points to both Sample 2 and 3 having problems. If that's the case, then all the folks who use valves to "flush" the sample line and take their samples only from a running engine are really on to something. I had the wrong tube for #3 so I'll take that hit, but if sample #2 was also bad then I have to question the general accuracy of the "sample pump" method for anything other than gross observations like glycol or fuel leakage.



At this point, I'm scratching my head, questioning my sample method, and even considering trying a different lab for future samples.

 

[Deezul1]

Blackstone offers TBN for $10. 00 extra.

 

[amsoilman]

HC,

I really don't think you have a problem at all. Think about PPM/Mille.

Your first sample was at 5. 1 K and the Fe count was 11 ppm. Assuming the oil had only 5K miles on it, the ppm/Mile would be:

11 ppm divided by 5,000 miles=0. 0022 ppm/Mile.



On your next analysis the oil had 9K miles and PPM Fe was 30 PPM. 30 PPM divided by 9K would be 3. 33 PPM/mile. Then on the next analysis the oil had roughly 14K on it. ppm/Mile at this point would be 3. 14 ppm/Mile. In this last case, your wear rate per mile actually went down.

This is a more accurate way to measure wear rates when extended oil drains are used. Cummins , I believe allows 50 ppm Fe(Iron) at "Normal" drain intervals.



If you want further opinions on this, call the lab @ 1-715-395-0222.



My . 02 worth,



Wayne

amsoilman