- :
- '16.5 CX-5 Touring AWD
first oil change cx5 2.5NA. mazda oil w/ moly 0w20 from factory. 2724 miles on the car.
Pretty typical for the break-in period. Thanks for sharing.
first oil change cx5 2.5NA. mazda oil w/ moly 0w20 from factory. 2724 miles on the car.
Here's my 6th and final UOA. This winter was a brutally cold one for us. I think the colder temps, combined with higher idle times, more stop/go and short trips is what caused the increase in Iron. Typically we don't idle as much and we take longer weekend trips, we've cut down considerably on these trips which is what has kept the mileage down. Also, just before changing, the wife went on a 6 mile trip which I think contributed to the fuel dilution as well. Unlike the other OCIs, this one didn't require a top off of any kind. Technically the others didn't require one either as I was only down 1/2 quart or less, but with Maxlife in the sump, I didn't lose any noticeable amount from the dipstick.
0 - 1,169 - Factory Fill
1,169 - 10,120 - Mag1 0w20
10,120 - 19,949 - Mobil Super Syn 0w20
19,949 - 30,031 - Mobil 1 EP 0w20
30,031 - 39,486 - SynPower 0w20
39,486 - 47,714 - SynPower 0w20
47,714 - 54,782 - Synthetic MaxLife 0w20
54,782 - Present - Citgo Supergard Synthetic 5w30
View attachment 220717
Was the TBN your only option added to the Standard Test? Did you have an idea as to where TBN should have started out?
Yes, TBN is all I added to the analysis.
According to PQIA, a SynPower VOA on 3/6/17 showed a virgin TBN of 8.88. SynPower isn't the exact same as the MaxLife variant I used, but is be quite similar so the TBN shouldn't be far off if at all.
Interesting that the TBN looks consistently strong.
Ironically enough, PQIA just published new results yesterday. One of them was Valvoline Synthetic MaxLife, virgin TBN is 9.16. The formulation has changed a bit compared to what I used, but I think it's a safe bet that the virgin TBN of what I used was around 9.
I find it interesting that the Base is consumed quickly, then levels off, and then decays slowly. Makes one wonder exactly what is going on in there...chemically speaking. I wonder if there's a consistent amount of Base consumed over running time, such that those oils with a higher starting number could be used longer before approaching a level of 1.
What makes up the TBN is equally important as the TBN itself. Even 8 or so years ago you'd see some of the top tier synthetics pushing TBNs of 12. Now, they're almost always in the 8-10 range, typically on the lower end. As base oils improve and additive technology improves, I think we'll see a lower starting TBN because TBN retention is stronger.
For instance, I was looking at the correlation between Fuel%, Flashpoint and Viscosity (assuming they are all affected by Dilution). No conclusions, just looking at it and wondering if some oils might be less susceptible to dilution, or if the timing of topping off the oil affects it (1/2 quart soon before the next oil change could bump the numbers.)
I also noticed that the Values Should Be column for properties only apply to the then-current sample. Have they changed for you from report to report? They're obviously not driven by past data/averages (no viscosity samples came anywhere near the high end of their "Should Be" ranges). And they are the same on your 55,000 mile report as they are on the 2,700 report CZ5GT posted.
I looked into this and got some good information from Blackstone. While I don't agree with their methodology, they were open and honest about how they come up with these values. Essentially, they use information from the PDS for the particular oil being analyzed. More information and a small discussion can be found here.
got a not very promising analysis: https://www.mazdas247.com/forum/sho...ution-Issues&p=6647360&viewfull=1#post6647360
Got an analysis for my 2.5T from oil analyzers... aaaand 5% fuel in 3350 miles.. ouch! (nailbyt)
The oil happened to be a cheap Castrol GTX magnatec. If I understand correctly, it should not affect fuel levels? Better oil should have just maintained the viscosity better.
Possibly more relevant fact was that I ran only 87 gas this time, as a low interval experiment
Switching to 91 and AmsoilOE, will check again in 3500.
At the same time got a report for a q5 with 70+k miles. Only 1.6% over 9500 miles. Most of the mileage was rough due to carbon buildup.
PHP:
Based on Mazda's official power curve, the horsepower and torque are exactly the same under 4,000 rpm between 87 and 93 octane. Retarding of timing may happen more frequently on 87-ocatna gas when engine is encountering heavy load, hence there's some advantage here with 93-octane gas. For everyday driving 93-octane gas won't give you any better performance under 4,000 rpm. If you don't use manual shift or Sport Mode on your 6-speed automatic, you can hardly make your engine revving over 4,000 rpm, hence Mazda published both power curves for 87 and 93-octane gas to "prevent unnecessary spending on premium fuel".That's not good.
I saw your comments over there that using 87 octane should have no effect on oil dilution. Weren't there other comments here stating that 93 should help with dilution because of how the timing changes in response to it?
I gotta go out and smell my dipstick tomorrow morning...
One can always tell from a UOA report that if the Molybdenum content is very high at ~650+, it must be from Mazda moly oil.Just got my first UOA after the last oil change at ~90K miles, with about ~6K on the last fill of Mazda Moly oil. Looks like a pretty excellent report, and they suggest going 8K miles next time!