First things first: here is a link to thread(s) so anyone interested can see the history of my UOA and experiences:
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/s...hlight=briana+

Now, where I am today....
I had been using Chevron Supreme conventional 10W30 for a good long time, until Wally World quit carrying it. I weighed the options and went with Havoline 10W30 conventional oil.

I just got my most recent UOA numbers back in the mail today. Of particular interest to me, and I am guessing maybe others as well (Rusty comes to mind), is the fact that it was 4820 miles on conventional 10W30 with a K&N AIR FILTER. With 4 or 5 previous sets of data to compare to, I was anxious to see how the wear metals, and in particular the silicon numbers, compared. Actually the air filter is a MAC, but it appears it may be a rebadged K&N. Either way, it looks the same and I care for it with K&N cleaner and oil.
ONE THING TO NOTE: I sometimes hear that K&N filters (and other oiled media filters) let too much dust/dirt by, particularly so after just being washed and oiled. Supposedly, their filtering ability improves as they get more dirty.
In the case of the oil data provided here, the air filter was washed and oiled at the time I changed the oil which was later sent off ofr this UOA. In other words, the air filter should have been at its worst while the oil tested was in the crankcase.
This was summertime Alabama, with ample dust available! Several trips to the county landfill (I believe they invented dust there!). Numerous trips to baseball parks and associated dirt parking lots. One trip to the beach. A good bit of city stop-and-go driving. You get the picture: a good mix of driving variations.

Nutshell summary:
2000 F150 4.2 V6
Havoline 10W30 conventional
Motorcraft oil filter (FL400s)
Drain interval: 4820 miles
Truck mileage at time of oil drain: 134,400 miles

I will not post compariosn data, you can refer to previous threads if you want to see it.
DATA:
Viscosity (cSt) @100 deg C = 10.7
Fuel/Soot/water/etc = all Zero

Wear metals
Iron = 4
Chromium = 0
Aluminum = 2
Copper = 3
Lead = 4
Tin = 0
Nickle = 1
Silver = 0


Additive package
Moly = 59
Mg = 38
Sodium = 2
Titanium = 0
Boron = 69
Potassium = 2
Calcium = 1802
Zinc = 1181
Barium = 0
Phosphorus = 1005

And now for the interesting thing to me.....

All previous UOA showed silicon numbers between 14 and 17 ppm. All these numbers were returned with standard paper element air filters (I believe all were either Fram or Purolator)
The silicon number for this UOA was 12 - the LOWEST silicon number I have ever gotten.

I realize one set of data does not make it law - but I'd have a hard time being convinced the oiled media filter let dust/dirt pass. ESPECIALLY when I consider that the wear metals are ALSO THE LOWEST I HAVE EVER GOTTEN!

I find this - at the risk of using too strong a word - fascinating. I DO respect others preferences for air filters, oil filters, synthetic or conventional, but numbers, in my opinion tell a big story. I am - again - left to ask:
Why would I ever run synthetic oil ??

I am anxious to hear what others have to say. I suspect that I will continue with the oil, oil filter and air filter choices I have made. I remain a big fan of Chevron Supreme - I consider it a great conventional oil. But I won't sweat not being able to find it at WW. It appears the Havoline does a bang up job - as does the oil media filter!..

Thanks guys.

 

Is it an air filter or a complete intake? Ford's air intakes are notorious for not sealing well. The silicon numbers people have posted with the Tymar (Donaldson paper filter) have been as low as 2-3. One of the long-term issues I've heard from former K&N users is the pinholing after repeated cleanings.

 

Lookin' good! I always suspected there was nothing at all wrong with oiled cotton filters, now I know. Still another 3000 miles to go before I get mine analyzed. Already have 2000 on the oil change interval. Like you brian, I cleaned my air filter at the same time, at the request of others on here. Normally I would have just left it alone.

The only possible criticism I can think of with the K&N type air filters left is the MAF oil fowling issue. I haven't experienced this one, but I think I'll go pop the tubing apart and check for oil.

 

If there's nothing wrong with the cotton filters how do you explain the silicon levels of the Tymar intake (paper filter) compared to the K&N? Those numbers are also with a turbo diesel, so it's also moving a lot more air.

 

Hrm that's a puzzle. Maybe the fact that the diesels are like running on WOT all the time, and moving as much air, has something to do with it? Maybe the test you looked at was a fluke? I dont know. Maybe diesels just dont like 'em. Please post a link to the tests with the Tymar intake and the K&N filter, I'd like to see 'em.

I will know if my '92 explorer likes 'em in 3000 miles though.

I did check the tubing today. It looks like the oil wicked up to the cardboard gasket between the air box and the MAF. None was anywhere else though. The tube was bone dry, as was the top of the airbox, as were all parts of the MAF not in contact with the absolute bottom of the gasket.

 

The numbers I posted were from a couple of folks that posted their oil analyses last year over at The Diesel Stop. If I can find the link I'll post it. I still think a paper filter is better than cotton, but I also believe that the stock airboxes are junk. I think that's why a lot of people who go to a K&N intake see numbers close to the stock air intake. The filter is not as good, but the intake seals better.

Anyway, I'm glad it's working well for you.

 

John,
(It is a complete MAC intake kit.)

How can I say this without it sounding offensive???? I don't feel like I have to explain the better numbers with the Tymar on a diesel engine.
Here's why - I am comfortable with the Si numbers I have been seeing. I have the benefit of a control in my test and that control is: my truck.
All UOAs have come from my truck with me driving. The numbers you refer to, while I am sure the are legitimate, come from an all together different animal than what I have.
I have heard of problems with intake sealing on, I believe, the 6.3 diesel. But, have not heard of any known issues with the 4.2/4.6/5.4 family.

A better question(s) to ask would be: Why did the oiled media filter return lower Si numbers? Would the same be the case in a controled test with the diesel engine?

I wonder if I took the time to go thru all the UOAs posted here for gass engines with paper filters, what would the average Si level be? Or, perhaps more specific: what would the average SI level be in ppm / thousand miles driven?

Again, I refer back to some basic, noteworthy facts in my case:
135,500 miles and the engine runs as good as the day I bought it.
Burns no oil in 5K miles.
All UOAs continue to look good.

If there is a negative to a Si level of 12-17 ppm, when or where or how will it show up?
Perhaps chronic 15 ppm Si levels could be a problem with a turbo diesel, I don't know.
In my case, the numbers appear to be telling a good story: lower (although only slightly lower) Si levels and along with that, slightly lower wear metal numbers. Coincidence? Perhaps. To be realisitic we are talking about 1 or 2 parts per million. Nobody will ever convince me a diff of 1 or 2 ppm in any data matters for an engine pushing 136,000 miles. It has made it this far, with no ill effects seen, on numbers essentially the same as what I have here.

Do you know of similar data to mine for a diesel? That is: one truck with several UOAs with a paper filter for a base line, then a UOA with an oiled media filter for comparision?

As far as the problem with pinholing after repeated cleanings. I expect my filter will get cleaned about every 25 - 30,000 miles. That's 3 or 4 times in 100,000 miles. Not sure what qualifies as "repeated cleanings" but my standards would put "repeated cleanings" at about 1/2 million miles worth for me.

Thanks for the input!

 

Brian, I'm sorry if my original post sounded offensive. I was just curious as to the different results. I think I answered my own question anyway. A complete intake, K&N or other, will outperform the Ford intake. They simply don't seal well. Anyway, it's your truck so enjoy. I'm glad it's working for you. If I find the oil analysis data I will post it.

No hard feelings.

 

ABSOLUTELY NONE !!
Thank you much John.

 

Do you know who makes the Motorcraft oil filter for your truck? I know the one for mine is made by Purolator, but I don't think all Motorcraft filters are made by the same company.

 

In case you did not know already the Hyperuetectic pistons used in the new engines will permiate Si for the life of the engine . Just a FWIW .

Some of the Si is ingested , some from the pistons and the lab cannot distinguish .

 

I think this is related to the question I have... what is the average silicone count for a '00 4.2 V6 @ 5000 miles?

 

Told ya!

 

Im just GLAD to know that oil/cotton air filters do at least as good as paper ones.I have always said it ,Now just a little prove.Thanks Brian for the test.

Jeff

 

In part it would depend on the actual type anti.-foam additive used in the oil and how much is used as it can vary from 5ppm to 20ppm depending who's oil it is/batch ect ..

Some oils have moved away from Si as a defoamant .

I would think fuel dillution could bring on higher Si if the aluminum was also elavated over a previous sample w/o dillution from gas . IE winter warm-up / short trips ect .

These modulars wear so similar with most oils anaylsis seems a waste for the most part if the oil is changed regular