First one for the F under my ownership. This was from its 2nd oil change since I've had it. Results likely typical for a car with only 22K miles, but I mostly just wanted to get a baseline reading. Used to have one of these done with every change on my BMW M-cars to keep watch for the looming (imminent?) threat of connecting rod bearing failure.

 

16 JAGUAR F TYPE-180309.pdf

 

If you search for 'Blackstone', you'll find a number of reports on here.

 

Your analysis looks good, but given the low presence of titanium, the old oil was not JLR spec.

 

Interesting. Are we talking an off-brand oil type or the weight? JLR of Columbia, SC performed the change.

 

The viscosity looks ok, but there is insufficient Titanium in the additive package to qualify for the JLR spec. It could well be the Castrol Edge, but it is definitely not the Castrol Professional Edge. Other oils will now meet the spec, but they too have high titanium content.

 

+1

 

This has always intrigued me, why exactly does the special Unobtainium brew have a high titanium content (ie what is it's purpose and what does it achieve), or put another way what if anything makes it better than the much more common molybdenum additive?
I have never used Unobtainium in either my XFR or F-Type instead I have always used Aussie brands Penrite or Nulon 5W20 which meet the Ford WSS M2C925-A and/or 945-A spec, they contain zero titanium but lots of molybdenum, and I have never had a single engine problem in either car over some 5 or 6 oil changes and 30,000 miles.

 

https://www.science20.com/news_relea...for_engine_oil

 

Very interesting.

 

Yes, interesting article.
But it's 11 years old, around the same time that Jaguar designed the AJ133 and it's got a lot of ifs buts and maybes, so I wonder if there is any real world evidence that the titanium does what it is supposed to do? If it was that good you would expect that many other car manufacturers would recommend the same oil and/or lots of other engine oil manufacturers would also add titanium, but that does not seem to be the case. And it still doesn't answer the molybdenum question - what if anything makes added titanium better than added moly, and why do lots of oils contain added moly but hardly any contain added titanium? Could it simply be a matter of cost (and that is a major reason why the Unobtainium is so damn expensive)?

 

I think the real question is whether the moly is as catalyst friendly as the titanium (one of the primary reasons for abandoning the phosphorous compounds). Yes...titanium is 6 times more expensive than molybdenum.

 

One flaw in this hypothesis....
In USA castrol edge professional is less money than comparable oils.
The better way to understand that equation is; all oils in this category Group 4 and 5 true synthetic with extra cleaning package (extended drain) cost as much or more without exception.

And some specialty oils, i.e. oils not worth stocking in the stores due to rarity of use, cost twice as much.

 

My latest report:

 

As Sgt Shultz used to say, "velly interesting"!
One thing sticks out like the proverbials to me, which is also very much on point with the previous few posts - your titanium level has gone down a fair bit, from 51 to 31, while your moly level has gone through the roof from 0 to 73. That tells me you changed the type of oil used last time, from high titanium and low or zero moly (ie the Unobtainium formula) although the report says "Castrol Edge Professional" to mid titanium and high moly. And maybe the titanium this time is wholly and solely due to the residue from the previous oil. I suspect either you used a version of Castrol Edge Professional which is not the Unobtainium high titanium brew (I believe it comes in more than one version) and/or the latest iteration of Castrol Edge Professional which meets STJLR 51.5122 no longer contains as much titanium and it now contains a lot of moly. Enquiring minds want to know!

 

That particular oil change was done at the dealer (no charge annual service). For all I know, they could have filled it with some dinosaur oil they picked up at Walmart (though they generally are a top notch shop). I'll send in a sample of a recent batch of the CE Pro E I have sitting on the shelf to see if the formulation has changed.

 

Thanks Lance.
I'm asking all these questions because I am still trying to determine once and for all whether the CE Pro with high titanium and low/nil moly really is necessary in the long run to prevent engine wear and/or damage (as JLR seem to be saying) and I will have problems down the track if I continue to use the Nulon oil that I use (full synthetic 5W-20 nil titanium and high moly meeting Ford WSS M2C-945A spec).
I really doubt it but I just want to make sure.
What will you do if the CE Pro sample comes back as nothing like the last report, ie high titanium and low moly, pretty much proving that the dealership did not use the specified CE Pro?
If it were me I would be hassling the dealership for an explanation of exactly what oil they used.
My bet is they will say they used oil which meets STJLR 51.5122 but it doesn't need to be high titanium (and it may not have been Castrol at all).

 

I'm not going to sweat it. A little bit of titanium or a lot of moly probably doesn't make much difference. I suspect the tradeoff is higher metal content that affects environmental disposal and/or recycling.

 

Since this thread is much more active than any others, I'm posting my first results from my 2012 XJL Supercharged.
I suppose trending Aluminum is what I'll begin to look at. Any other concerns anyone feels might be present?

 

Looks good to me. Even the aluminum isn't a concern unless you've been observing it creeping up over time. The only thing to watch is the flashpoint, which is borderline, but I wouldn't worry about it. I had a similar result 4 oil changes ago.