First Blackstone Oil Report Test Results In for My 2.0 Bronco Sport!

[gatornek]

Attached is my first Blackstone report. Nothing out of the ordinary EXCEPT the viscosity and fuel percentage is a little eye brow raising for oil that was only in there for 1000 miles. I imagine if I go a full 5K miles, thats gonna make for a lot of fuel in that oil. There's a Ford Escape 2.0 addict on youtube that publishes a lot of content on the new Escape 2.0's and he said the engine puts A LOT of fuel into the oil.

My oil test report: https://www.broncosportforum.com/forum/attachments/23-bronco-blackstone-pdf.39074/

Sponsored

 

[davidg4781]

Maybe that's why I'm getting 22.5 mpg.

But I'm on the 1.5.

Interesting on the high amount of Molys. I came from a Honda and, if I remember correctly, they added extra molybdenum to help during the break in period. The suggestion was to keep that oil in as long as possible. But this was on a 2006 that didn't have dilution issues.

 

[Bucko]

The 1.5 Dragon ecoboost has a dual variable valve timing system:

(https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/technical-stuff/191686-close-look-fords-new-1-5l-3-cylinder-dragon-petrol-engine.html)

Not sure if the 2.0 does. I'd concentrate on how the fuel is getting into the oil, rather than risk running a higher viscosity oil to band aid the issue because the oil is getting diluted from it.

Running a higher viscosity oil in an engine equipped with variable valve timing warnings:

(https://motorweek.org/goss_garage/oil-viscosity/)

"Suppose you put a thicker oil in a modern engine. One of the things that’s going to do is increase oil pressure. Variable valve timing works off oil pressure so you might wind up with a check engine light and a code for the variable valve timing, which could lead to some expensive repairs".

Ford engineers spent quite a bit of testing on this. I for one will not question their recommendations, and stick with their oil requirements.

 

[Mark S.]

Attached is my first Blackstone report.

The operative word here is "first." As a trend monitoring tool, oil analysis is excellent. As a snapshot troubleshooting tool, not so much. This is especially true for an engine barely out of break-in.

@Bucko has the right of it. One of oil's primary jobs is to hold contaminants in suspension without affecting lubricity (oil's other primary job). Among those contaminants is fuel. Given all the testing it does for new engine designs, it's inconceivable to me that Ford's engineers unaware of this issue when determining proper service intervals.

My guess is this is likely one of the factors that prompted the increase in sump size. A greater quantity of oil can hold a greater quantity of contaminants without sacrificing performance.

 

[halpeters]

Why are you thinking fuel dilution? The flash point is the best indicator of fuel dilution, and with the flashpoint at 390 degrees, I wouldn't suspect fuel in the oil.

Also, as long as you are getting up to operating temps, any fuel that ends up in the oil is cooked off, so it doesn't "build up" over an oil change interval.

I didn't see any wear metals that made me concerned. Moly, and the other high numbers are all part of the original oil additives, and of no concern.

The measured viscosity is on the low side - it would be interesting to see what the original viscosity was, as a comparison.

 

[gatornek]

I wouldn't suspect fuel in the oil.

I don't have to suspect it. The analysis report says its there. It's "MORE THAN LIKELY" (gotta be careful with my words around these parts.....yeeeesh) that is what caused the lowered viscosity (assuming the factory put 5w/30).

There's a guy that I watched on Youtube that is a fan of Escapes (for whatever reason...idk), but he talks about fuel dilution in the engine a lot. I reposted it. That's all this is.

I'm not changing anything over a first blackstone report. Just sharing.

 

[gatornek]

it's inconceivable to me that Ford's engineers unaware of this issue when determining proper service intervals

FWIW, I'm not always so sure the decision is completely "engineers" on what to come up with for service intervals. Ford is a conglomerate. Albeit, the engineer's input is probably, BY FAR, the greatest (one would hope).

 

[gatornek]

The 1.5 Dragon ecoboost has a dual variable valve timing system:

(https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/technical-stuff/191686-close-look-fords-new-1-5l-3-cylinder-dragon-petrol-engine.html)

Not sure if the 2.0 does. I'd concentrate on how the fuel is getting into the oil, rather than risk running a higher viscosity oil to band aid the issue because the oil is getting diluted from it.

Running a higher viscosity oil in an engine equipped with variable valve timing warnings:

(https://motorweek.org/goss_garage/oil-viscosity/)

"Suppose you put a thicker oil in a modern engine. One of the things that’s going to do is increase oil pressure. Variable valve timing works off oil pressure so you might wind up with a check engine light and a code for the variable valve timing, which could lead to some expensive repairs".

Ford engineers spent quite a bit of testing on this. I for one will not question their recommendations, and stick with their oil requirements.

Completely understand.

The point was that the engine is currently "under viscosity", after 1000K miles. I found that a tad strange.

 

[gatornek]

At no point during the OP, did I ask if I should be running a higher viscosity oil, out of manufacturer requirement, and risk killing my warranty. My hope was to hopefully compare notes with someone else who has also gotten Blackstone reports and have had similar results with Fuel%. I can't be the only one. Found it interesting, because I don't even get these fuel dilution percentages in my 2.3

 

[hellb0y]

The operative word here is "first." As a trend monitoring tool, oil analysis is excellent. As a snapshot troubleshooting tool, not so much. This is especially true for an engine barely out of break-in.

@Bucko has the right of it. One of oil's primary jobs is to hold contaminants in suspension without affecting lubricity (oil's other primary job). Among those contaminants is fuel. Given all the testing it does for new engine designs, it's inconceivable to me that Ford's engineers unaware of this issue when determining proper service intervals.

My guess is this is likely one of the factors that prompted the increase in sump size. A greater quantity of oil can hold a greater quantity of contaminants without sacrificing performance.

Nothing abnormal here - the 2.0 Ecoboost has a myriad of problems that show up long term…don’t expect anything different from the same engine with slight tweaks.

Hopefully Ford will make a decision to fully redesign it and make a Dragon 2.0T

 

[Glamdring70]

My hope was to hopefully compare notes with someone else who has also gotten Blackstone reports and have had similar results with Fuel%.

Good luck with that. The percentage of owners that change the break-in oil at 1,000 miles is probably 1% and the percentage of those that get a Blackstone report is probably 1%.

I don't know why you're so worked up. The analysis doesn't say what you think it says. You've convinced yourself of that. What it does say is "The viscosity is in the 5W/20 range, which is fine, and the TBN is plenty strong at 5.1. Try ~6K miles and check back to monitor wear-in progress."

 

[gatornek]

Good luck with that. The percentage of owners that change the break-in oil at 1,000 miles is probably 1% and the percentage of those that get a Blackstone report is probably 1%.

I don't know why you're so worked up. The analysis doesn't say what you think it says. You've convinced yourself of that. What it does say is "The viscosity is in the 5W/20 range, which is fine, and the TBN is plenty strong at 5.1. Try ~6K miles and check back to monitor wear-in progress."

My God man. Blocked. ?

 

[halpeters]

I don't have to suspect it. The analysis report says its there. It's "MORE THAN LIKELY" (gotta be careful with my words around these parts.....yeeeesh) that is what caused the lowered viscosity (assuming the factory put 5w/30).

I didn't see where your Blackstone report stated "fuel dilution". The numbers quoted in the report, show the opposite - fuel dilution >.5%, and a flash point of 390 degrees. The flash point of the new oil is 402 degrees, per Ford / Motorcraft. The flashpoint of gasoline is -45 degrees. For the lab test, the "percent fuel dilution" is a linear relationship of the measured 390 flash points, between -45, and 402 degrees.

I don't have an answer for the low measured viscosity, but based on the Blackstone report, I doubt it is caused by fuel dilution. Without a sample of the original oil to compare, there really isn't any way to know for sure.

 

[Glamdring70]

My God man. Blocked. ?

Thanks. You ought to just go ahead and do that to everyone. I'd also consider getting your own chemical balances analyzed.

 

[gatornek]

I didn't see where your Blackstone report stated "fuel dilution". The numbers quoted in the report, show the opposite - fuel dilution >.5%, and a flash point of 390 degrees. The flash point of the new oil is 402 degrees, per Ford / Motorcraft. The flashpoint of gasoline is -45 degrees. For the lab test, the "percent fuel dilution" is a linear relationship of the measured 390 flash points, between -45, and 402 degrees.

I don't have an answer for the low measured viscosity, but based on the Blackstone report, I doubt it is caused by fuel dilution. Without a sample of the original oil to compare, there really isn't any way to know for sure.

You know what? On second read...I gotta admit....I think my mind must have glossed over the 'less than' Operator and just took it as .5% I think that plus the lowered viscosities....plus some information fed to me from multiple sources....got me on a confirmation bias. So I was basically extrapolating that .5 out to the expected 5k miles vs the 1K here. I appreciate the reasoning out.

Sponsored