04 TL Oil Analysis
07-30-2005, 10:51 PM
#1
Moderator
Thread Starter
04 TL Oil Analysis
2004 TL, mostly city driving with a few long trips.
For the 6500 mi. interval, 5 oz of LC was used initially as recommended, then 5 ounces was also added 3500 mi into the interval for curiosity's sake. FP was used at about every other fill-up.
Absolutely outstanding results. If the owner can use FP at every fill-up, insolubles could probably be dropped to 0.3. It seems possible that the wear is "this good" because the LC was able to clean, while the oil was allowed to lubricate. Undoubtedly, the LC helped stabilize the TBN helped maintain a high flashpoint, >400F.
Blackstone did the test with the excellent Terry Dyson interpretation. Cannot post Terry's comments since they're proprietary.
Will sample next time at 10K. Refilled with the last 5 quarts of Amsoil XL 5w-20 API SL/ILSAC GF-3. LC dosage has been upped to 2 oz/quart, then 1oz/1,000 miles.
Michael
For the 6500 mi. interval, 5 oz of LC was used initially as recommended, then 5 ounces was also added 3500 mi into the interval for curiosity's sake. FP was used at about every other fill-up.
Absolutely outstanding results. If the owner can use FP at every fill-up, insolubles could probably be dropped to 0.3. It seems possible that the wear is "this good" because the LC was able to clean, while the oil was allowed to lubricate. Undoubtedly, the LC helped stabilize the TBN helped maintain a high flashpoint, >400F.
Blackstone did the test with the excellent Terry Dyson interpretation. Cannot post Terry's comments since they're proprietary.
Will sample next time at 10K. Refilled with the last 5 quarts of Amsoil XL 5w-20 API SL/ILSAC GF-3. LC dosage has been upped to 2 oz/quart, then 1oz/1,000 miles.
Michael
07-30-2005, 11:51 PM
#2
Race Director
LC???? FP????
07-31-2005, 12:37 AM
#3
Safety Car
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nfnsquared
LC???? FP????
07-31-2005, 06:44 AM
#4
LC=Lube Control FP=Fuel Power or something like that. Ask Michael...he'll give you the story about this stuff. I'm considering using this stuff. It's not cheap but with oil analysis results like the one in this post, it might just be enough to get me started using the stuff.
07-31-2005, 07:38 AM
#5
Race Director
Originally Posted by JetJock
LC=Lube Control FP=Fuel Power or something like that. Ask Michael...he'll give you the story about this stuff. I'm considering using this stuff. It's not cheap but with oil analysis results like the one in this post, it might just be enough to get me started using the stuff.
Trending Topics
07-31-2005, 11:15 AM
#8
Moderator
Thread Starter
To everyone:
LC is Lube Control, and FP is Fuel Power. The correct abbreviations for them is supposed to be LC20 and FP60, for Lube Control and Fuel Power, respectively.
As you can see, the LC20 stabilized the TBN and allowed it to stay strong. It also helped clean while the oil was allowed to lubricate, which may have contributed to the low wear. Notice how the wear did not increase even though the oil was in use longer, but that is mainly due to break-in.
The FP60 helped keep the solids level down, and kept combustion efficiency up. The LC20 helped the flashpoint stay >400F, which is ideal for volatility control.
Without the LC20 and the FP60, the flashpoint would not have stayed as high, nor will the TBN be as strong. Solids levels may be slightly higher without the FP60. If FP60 had been used at every fill-up, the insolubles level would be at 0.3% or lower.
Southernboy, M1 probably would not have performed as well here. The Fe (Iron, valvetrain wear) would not have been as low with M1, which is M1's main weakness with its chemistry. In addition, I doubt that the TBN retention would be as good with M1, though that can be somewhat misleading as some oil will tend to show a higher TBN by design while it may not be neutralizing acids as well as another oil, for example, that may be showing a lower TBN. (Hint: Redline)
I'm interested in seeing how the most recent API SM version of this oil will do. With the reduction in Ca and P levels, I don't know if it'll provide the same service life.
You can only get LC20 and FP60 at their manufacturer's website, www.lubecontrol.com
Michael
LC is Lube Control, and FP is Fuel Power. The correct abbreviations for them is supposed to be LC20 and FP60, for Lube Control and Fuel Power, respectively.
As you can see, the LC20 stabilized the TBN and allowed it to stay strong. It also helped clean while the oil was allowed to lubricate, which may have contributed to the low wear. Notice how the wear did not increase even though the oil was in use longer, but that is mainly due to break-in.
The FP60 helped keep the solids level down, and kept combustion efficiency up. The LC20 helped the flashpoint stay >400F, which is ideal for volatility control.
Without the LC20 and the FP60, the flashpoint would not have stayed as high, nor will the TBN be as strong. Solids levels may be slightly higher without the FP60. If FP60 had been used at every fill-up, the insolubles level would be at 0.3% or lower.
Southernboy, M1 probably would not have performed as well here. The Fe (Iron, valvetrain wear) would not have been as low with M1, which is M1's main weakness with its chemistry. In addition, I doubt that the TBN retention would be as good with M1, though that can be somewhat misleading as some oil will tend to show a higher TBN by design while it may not be neutralizing acids as well as another oil, for example, that may be showing a lower TBN. (Hint: Redline)
I'm interested in seeing how the most recent API SM version of this oil will do. With the reduction in Ca and P levels, I don't know if it'll provide the same service life.
You can only get LC20 and FP60 at their manufacturer's website, www.lubecontrol.com
Michael
07-31-2005, 11:23 AM
#9
Race Director
Originally Posted by Michael Wan
To everyone:
LC is Lube Control, and FP is Fuel Power. The correct abbreviations for them is supposed to be LC20 and FP60, for Lube Control and Fuel Power, respectively.
As you can see, the LC20 stabilized the TBN and allowed it to stay strong. It also helped clean while the oil was allowed to lubricate, which may have contributed to the low wear. Notice how the wear did not increase even though the oil was in use longer, but that is mainly due to break-in.
The FP60 helped keep the solids level down, and kept combustion efficiency up. The LC20 helped the flashpoint stay >400F, which is ideal for volatility control.
Without the LC20 and the FP60, the flashpoint would not have stayed as high, nor will the TBN be as strong. Solids levels may be slightly higher without the FP60. If FP60 had been used at every fill-up, the insolubles level would be at 0.3% or lower.
Michael
LC is Lube Control, and FP is Fuel Power. The correct abbreviations for them is supposed to be LC20 and FP60, for Lube Control and Fuel Power, respectively.
As you can see, the LC20 stabilized the TBN and allowed it to stay strong. It also helped clean while the oil was allowed to lubricate, which may have contributed to the low wear. Notice how the wear did not increase even though the oil was in use longer, but that is mainly due to break-in.
The FP60 helped keep the solids level down, and kept combustion efficiency up. The LC20 helped the flashpoint stay >400F, which is ideal for volatility control.
Without the LC20 and the FP60, the flashpoint would not have stayed as high, nor will the TBN be as strong. Solids levels may be slightly higher without the FP60. If FP60 had been used at every fill-up, the insolubles level would be at 0.3% or lower.
Michael
All this would be more meaningful if it was compared to a control analysis done on an oil change from the same car without LC or FP additives.
07-31-2005, 06:00 PM
#13
Not a Blowhole
I like that Terry's comments are "proprietary". I need to start doing that with the RR Journals - this gratuitous sharing must stop now! 
Maybe if folks had to "pay for it", it would mean mroe?
Maybe if folks had to "pay for it", it would mean mroe?
08-01-2005, 04:51 AM
#14
HMFIC
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Columbia, MD
Age: 54
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Road Rage
I like that Terry's comments are "proprietary". I need to start doing that with the RR Journals - this gratuitous sharing must stop now!
Maybe if folks had to "pay for it", it would mean mroe?
Maybe if folks had to "pay for it", it would mean mroe?
08-01-2005, 02:16 PM
#16
Moderator
Thread Starter
RR, Jack, and Kilroy,
No offense to my pal RR here, but I think none of here can match Terry's knowledge nor his experience with lubricants in the field. His knowledge on this subject is outstanding.
No Jack, Terry is wise enough to use Dyson Analysis as his "side job," not his main source of income.
Michael
No offense to my pal RR here, but I think none of here can match Terry's knowledge nor his experience with lubricants in the field. His knowledge on this subject is outstanding.
No Jack, Terry is wise enough to use Dyson Analysis as his "side job," not his main source of income.
Michael
08-01-2005, 09:30 PM
#18
HMFIC
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Columbia, MD
Age: 54
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why pay for fantastic information when great information is free?
Where is that "beating a dead horse" smiley?
I'm down to 30% life on my Motorcraft 5W20 blend. When it get's down to 20%, I'll change it and have an analysis done to see if my driving and the maintenance computer are on the same page.
I'll post results so you guys can give me an idea of motor's condition. It better be good with only about 16,000 miles!
Cheers,
Don
Where is that "beating a dead horse" smiley?
I'm down to 30% life on my Motorcraft 5W20 blend. When it get's down to 20%, I'll change it and have an analysis done to see if my driving and the maintenance computer are on the same page.
I'll post results so you guys can give me an idea of motor's condition. It better be good with only about 16,000 miles!
Cheers,
Don
08-01-2005, 09:38 PM
#19
Licking Platters Clean
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 52
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KilroyR1
Why pay for fantastic information when great information is free?
And no offense to the Terry worshippers here (Michael) it's a good thing it's his second job because I certainly wouldn't pay the extra for his 20 second blurb that he THEN doesn't want you to post even though you already PAID FOR THE GODDAM THING. He knows oil, true, but that's a bit much for my taste.
08-08-2005, 09:22 PM
#20
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NJ
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Michael,
Based on my driving style, the Oil Life Indicator is reaching 15% at about 5500 miles since the last oil change. The ugly "Service Due Soon" message is a great motivator to get my butt under the car and do an oil change asap. So with 5500 miles on the oil, if a $2/qt oil (Motorcraft 5w-20 Synblend) and a $4.25 oil filter (Filtech) results in a Blackstone UOA with good results, is there any reason to spend $5/qt of oil and $10-$15 on a better oil filter?
I'm just about ready to do my 3rd oil change at 13,500 miles and am expecting that this UOA possibly showing a bit of elevated iron and copper that are still being flushed out from break-in. After the next oil change at 19,500 miles or so, I expect a "clean" UOA . I'll be sure to post a copy to see how it compares with the Amsoil report you recently posted. This should be in the mid-October time frame.
By the way, isn't a Copper level of 27 ppm a bit high for 16,000 miles? My 7,500 mile report shows the universal average for "this type of engine" to be 11ppm.
Thanks for all your advice and the time you take to help us out.
Based on my driving style, the Oil Life Indicator is reaching 15% at about 5500 miles since the last oil change. The ugly "Service Due Soon" message is a great motivator to get my butt under the car and do an oil change asap. So with 5500 miles on the oil, if a $2/qt oil (Motorcraft 5w-20 Synblend) and a $4.25 oil filter (Filtech) results in a Blackstone UOA with good results, is there any reason to spend $5/qt of oil and $10-$15 on a better oil filter?
I'm just about ready to do my 3rd oil change at 13,500 miles and am expecting that this UOA possibly showing a bit of elevated iron and copper that are still being flushed out from break-in. After the next oil change at 19,500 miles or so, I expect a "clean" UOA . I'll be sure to post a copy to see how it compares with the Amsoil report you recently posted. This should be in the mid-October time frame.
By the way, isn't a Copper level of 27 ppm a bit high for 16,000 miles? My 7,500 mile report shows the universal average for "this type of engine" to be 11ppm.
Thanks for all your advice and the time you take to help us out.
08-09-2005, 04:04 PM
#22
Normal or optimal range of values requested
Originally Posted by Michael Wan
I'll comment more later, but the Cu is normal for a Honda V6 engine. (20-30ppm is within specs)
Thanks for sharing this table with us.
I'm new at reading these results so I would like to suggest that you provide a normal or optimal range for each parameter line in the table.
08-10-2005, 03:48 PM
#23
Moderator
Thread Starter
Parker,
Al= Typically 1/3 of Iron (Fe) wear. 3-4ppm is a normal reading for most 3-7K drains.
Cr=Should be 1ppm, maybe 2 ppm
Fe= 1-2ppm/1,000 miles, may be elevated by Fuel, dirt ingestion, damaged bearing overlay, or reaction with the oil's additives. (Additive clash)
Cu=Normally in most cars, its supposed to be 1/3 of Iron wear. Honda V6 engines are an exception, and 20-30ppm is normal due to some parts in the engine.
Pb= Should be 1-2ppm in a well broken-in engine.
Additives vary by oil to an extent, so I won't comment on those.
Michael
Al= Typically 1/3 of Iron (Fe) wear. 3-4ppm is a normal reading for most 3-7K drains.
Cr=Should be 1ppm, maybe 2 ppm
Fe= 1-2ppm/1,000 miles, may be elevated by Fuel, dirt ingestion, damaged bearing overlay, or reaction with the oil's additives. (Additive clash)
Cu=Normally in most cars, its supposed to be 1/3 of Iron wear. Honda V6 engines are an exception, and 20-30ppm is normal due to some parts in the engine.
Pb= Should be 1-2ppm in a well broken-in engine.
Additives vary by oil to an extent, so I won't comment on those.
Michael
08-10-2005, 03:54 PM
#24
Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by ChuckDu
Michael,
Based on my driving style, the Oil Life Indicator is reaching 15% at about 5500 miles since the last oil change. The ugly "Service Due Soon" message is a great motivator to get my butt under the car and do an oil change asap. So with 5500 miles on the oil, if a $2/qt oil (Motorcraft 5w-20 Synblend) and a $4.25 oil filter (Filtech) results in a Blackstone UOA with good results, is there any reason to spend $5/qt of oil and $10-$15 on a better oil filter?
I'm just about ready to do my 3rd oil change at 13,500 miles and am expecting that this UOA possibly showing a bit of elevated iron and copper that are still being flushed out from break-in. After the next oil change at 19,500 miles or so, I expect a "clean" UOA . I'll be sure to post a copy to see how it compares with the Amsoil report you recently posted. This should be in the mid-October time frame.
By the way, isn't a Copper level of 27 ppm a bit high for 16,000 miles? My 7,500 mile report shows the universal average for "this type of engine" to be 11ppm.
Thanks for all your advice and the time you take to help us out.
Based on my driving style, the Oil Life Indicator is reaching 15% at about 5500 miles since the last oil change. The ugly "Service Due Soon" message is a great motivator to get my butt under the car and do an oil change asap. So with 5500 miles on the oil, if a $2/qt oil (Motorcraft 5w-20 Synblend) and a $4.25 oil filter (Filtech) results in a Blackstone UOA with good results, is there any reason to spend $5/qt of oil and $10-$15 on a better oil filter?
I'm just about ready to do my 3rd oil change at 13,500 miles and am expecting that this UOA possibly showing a bit of elevated iron and copper that are still being flushed out from break-in. After the next oil change at 19,500 miles or so, I expect a "clean" UOA . I'll be sure to post a copy to see how it compares with the Amsoil report you recently posted. This should be in the mid-October time frame.
By the way, isn't a Copper level of 27 ppm a bit high for 16,000 miles? My 7,500 mile report shows the universal average for "this type of engine" to be 11ppm.
Thanks for all your advice and the time you take to help us out.
The Cu level will drop to around 10-15ppm when the engine has >50,000 miles on it; even at its high levels, it is not affecting other values thus I wouldn't worry about it, it is normal for this engine.
IMO, Mobil 1 is actually one of my last choices for extended drains. It is lame in reducing valvetrain wear, and has very limited solvency. Schaeffer's #704 5w-20 would actually perform better than Mobil 1, at about 3/4 of the cost.
Michael
08-10-2005, 04:22 PM
#25
Racer
I just changed my oil for the first time, it was free by the dealer, i provided a Mobil 1 oil filter, since i could not find a PureOne at the local auto parts mart. Should that be good with standard Honda oil for first change?
08-10-2005, 04:35 PM
#26
Is it ok to mix oil of various viscosities? I have a quart of 5W20 and about 1 1/2 quarts 5W30, and I plan on going back to 10W30 which I think will be fine here in Florida.
If I mix them, will they just average themselves out and become something in between the lowest and highest numbers? They are all the same brand.
If I mix them, will they just average themselves out and become something in between the lowest and highest numbers? They are all the same brand.
08-10-2005, 05:52 PM
#27
Moderator
Thread Starter
Mixing? No problem. Use the viscosity index calculator to calculate the viscosity. I'd say that it'll come out to be a light 30wt, probably in the low 10cst range.
I'd use 5w-20, but then again, I'm not a big fan of Mobil 1 either.
Micahel
I'd use 5w-20, but then again, I'm not a big fan of Mobil 1 either.
Micahel
08-10-2005, 05:54 PM
#28
Moderator
Thread Starter
Hugh,
M1 Oil Filter with the Honda, Mobil Clean 5000 if its the SM version, is fine.
The oil filter isn't as important as some people think it is, and even I may have overemphasized it in the past. It just has to not interfere with flow, and not leak.
FFs have little to no effect on wear, anyway.
Michael
M1 Oil Filter with the Honda, Mobil Clean 5000 if its the SM version, is fine.
The oil filter isn't as important as some people think it is, and even I may have overemphasized it in the past. It just has to not interfere with flow, and not leak.
FFs have little to no effect on wear, anyway.
Michael
08-10-2005, 06:36 PM
#29
Thanks Michael. You probably figured out that I have all these leftovers because I can't decide what to use, and maybe I will use one of the other weights. It's Quaker State, by the way. I've been driving a long time, and started out with Valvoline, but then I couldn't find it after one of my many moves from being in the Air Force, so I switched to QS and it has always served me well.
08-11-2005, 06:49 AM
#30
Licking Platters Clean
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 52
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ron A
Is it ok to mix oil of various viscosities? I have a quart of 5W20 and about 1 1/2 quarts 5W30, and I plan on going back to 10W30 which I think will be fine here in Florida.
If I mix them, will they just average themselves out and become something in between the lowest and highest numbers? They are all the same brand.
If I mix them, will they just average themselves out and become something in between the lowest and highest numbers? They are all the same brand.
08-11-2005, 08:20 AM
#31
As I said I am still thinking about which weight to use. It's been a while since I asked, but RR said the 10W30 would be ok, and there are several other members who are using it in warmer locations, but I might go to the 5W30 as you suggest. I just don't think I need 5W20.
My other car is an 87 Olds 98 with 150,000+ miles on it, which runs as good as the day I got it and doesn't use any oil between changes, so it's not really a beater. And I would rather just give those odd quarts of oil away than mix them if I thought there would be a problem.
You're right, I am old school and kind of set in my ways, but not too old to take good advice.
My other car is an 87 Olds 98 with 150,000+ miles on it, which runs as good as the day I got it and doesn't use any oil between changes, so it's not really a beater. And I would rather just give those odd quarts of oil away than mix them if I thought there would be a problem.
You're right, I am old school and kind of set in my ways, but not too old to take good advice.
08-11-2005, 12:37 PM
#33
Do you mean 20W30 or 10W20?
How about the 5W30? Will that also be a 20 weight after 3,000 miles?
I'm not being wise with these questions, but you brought up a good point and I just want to expand on it so I and probably a few others will understand your meaning better.
How about the 5W30? Will that also be a 20 weight after 3,000 miles?
I'm not being wise with these questions, but you brought up a good point and I just want to expand on it so I and probably a few others will understand your meaning better.
08-11-2005, 01:50 PM
#34
Moderator
Thread Starter
Ron,
I mean 20wt as the 20 in 5w-20.
10w-20, if you want to put it that way. 5w-30 will not be any better, 10w-30 is already more resistant to shearing that a 5w-30 due to its smaller span, thus fewer Viscosity Improvers.
Michael
I mean 20wt as the 20 in 5w-20.
10w-20, if you want to put it that way. 5w-30 will not be any better, 10w-30 is already more resistant to shearing that a 5w-30 due to its smaller span, thus fewer Viscosity Improvers.
Michael
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
IBankMouse
1G TSX (2004-2008)
8
06-13-2020 12:53 PM
