A more confusing oil analysis |  |  |
|
Buying through this link, gets PB a donation. |
Products for your Boxster, Cayman and Carrera. |
 | |
| A more confusing oil analysis grant - 9 years ago |
My Audi S6's oil reports continue to look terrific.
My Base 986's reports looked very similar up to my last report (performed while i was still tracking it).
I now have my 2nd UOA on the 986S track car (bruce's old car with a replacement motor).
A little history: the motor was an ebay buy, with 27k miles on it, unknown history, crashed car, ran smoothly when i listened to it (via youtube).
Installed, did a lot of stuff, runs great. Uses very little oil. Smooth, no funny noises.
The report ( below) shows high Al and Fe however - typically signs of ring/wall wear. But i wonder how much Al you would get from a Nikisil coated wall....?
Good news is wear is going down, but is still hgih compared to "universal" data for M96 3.2s. Dilution and all that stuff looks excellent, as expected for a car that sits at WOT and 6k rpm for extended periods.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out...
... is it breaking in to a new pattern after 14 years of putting around?
... will it go boom?
... will the high Fe/Al continue? trend down?
and, of course, why? Clearly its history plays a big role here. Used mystery motors are a gamble (but at <$5k vs > $12k i can buy two....)
I'll post my follow up results later this summer - after a few more events.
Grant
[i61.tinypic.com]
Grant
gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com
My Base 986's reports looked very similar up to my last report (performed while i was still tracking it).
I now have my 2nd UOA on the 986S track car (bruce's old car with a replacement motor).
A little history: the motor was an ebay buy, with 27k miles on it, unknown history, crashed car, ran smoothly when i listened to it (via youtube).
Installed, did a lot of stuff, runs great. Uses very little oil. Smooth, no funny noises.
The report ( below) shows high Al and Fe however - typically signs of ring/wall wear. But i wonder how much Al you would get from a Nikisil coated wall....?
Good news is wear is going down, but is still hgih compared to "universal" data for M96 3.2s. Dilution and all that stuff looks excellent, as expected for a car that sits at WOT and 6k rpm for extended periods.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out...
... is it breaking in to a new pattern after 14 years of putting around?
... will it go boom?
... will the high Fe/Al continue? trend down?
and, of course, why? Clearly its history plays a big role here. Used mystery motors are a gamble (but at <$5k vs > $12k i can buy two....)
I'll post my follow up results later this summer - after a few more events.
Grant
[i61.tinypic.com]
Grant
gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com
here's the new link
[i58.tinypic.com]
Easier to read and less personal info. Thanks Marc.
Grant
gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com
[i58.tinypic.com]
Easier to read and less personal info. Thanks Marc.
Grant
gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com
| Re: New link mikefocke, '01S Sanford, NC - 9 years ago |
I just happened to read your post after reading another UOA thread on Renntech. Your Aluminum is ~3x the 3 tests there, your iron is ~2.5x. Neither owner mentions the use the car gets though one is a low miles but 17 months between changes car from the dates and miles differences between his two tests.
| Mike - some context ( in the first post BTW) grant - 9 years ago |
Yes, that's exactly the concern. Its also 3x higher than my other boxster when it was seeing track use. Sometimes with the same oil on the same tracks ( admittedly a faster driver 18 months later). Its also an unknown motor bought over ebay fairly cheaply with low miles - but those low miles were 27k in 13 years - not ideal really.
So in some ways it concerns me, yes. On the other hand, even at 3X the wear, wear is almost never what kills an M96 motor. They run for 300k if the timing chain, IMS-B etc stay in place. So if this goes 100k track miles? No biggie.
That said i'd like to understand what;s going on.
Thanks for the reference point. Consistent with mine historically.
Grant
Grant
gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com
So in some ways it concerns me, yes. On the other hand, even at 3X the wear, wear is almost never what kills an M96 motor. They run for 300k if the timing chain, IMS-B etc stay in place. So if this goes 100k track miles? No biggie.
That said i'd like to understand what;s going on.
Thanks for the reference point. Consistent with mine historically.
Grant
Grant
gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com
MikenOH - 9 years ago |
| Not sure I can agree the analysis is confusing…. MarcW - 9 years ago |
You admit the engine sees lots of WOT and 6K RPMs for extended periods. What did you expect?
I have to point out you are using 10w-40 oil which is not an approved oil. Perhaps the high FE and AL content is because the oil is not as good as you believe it to be? The oil could be breaking down at the ring/cylinder interface at high RPMs.
(I recall reporting not too long ago mentioning this was a problem with high levels of ZDDP that at 6K RPMs the ZDDP proves to be to good a detergent and leads to oil breakdown at the ring/cylinder interface. High levels of ZDDP are ok for diesel engines which require the extra detergent action to deal with the high levels of soot a diesel engine puts into its oil and yet do not experience RPMs anywhere near 6K.)
If you insist on sticking with 10w-40 oil perhaps you should consider having the analysis done at fewer miles to see if the levels of FE/AL are linear with miles or if perhaps they are spiking up at the oil gains miles which if this is the case would suggest the oil needs to be changed sooner?
Oh, the cylinder wall material is not Nikasil, but Lokasil, probably Lokasil II which uses silicon in the cylinder wall liner which is infiltrated with molten aluminum during the block casting process. (Lokasil I used ceramic/silicon.)
After casting, during block finishing cylinder wall finishing brings the cylinders to the desired final geometric shape and position, proper size, and finish. The finishing removes the infiltrated aluminum just enough that the silicon grains are exposed. The rings/pistons essentially run on these silicon grains.
The pistons while mainly aluminum are coated with iron.
My WAG is the high FE/AL numbers are coming from piston wall degradation occurring at high load/RPM and high temperature operation due to probably an inadequacy of the oil.
If I'm right the trend will continue, probably accelerate as more of the iron wears away and exposes more piston aluminum to contact with the cylinder walls and the aluminum present as the grains of silicon are ripped away from the oil breaking down at the cylinder wall/piston/ring interface.
I have to point out you are using 10w-40 oil which is not an approved oil. Perhaps the high FE and AL content is because the oil is not as good as you believe it to be? The oil could be breaking down at the ring/cylinder interface at high RPMs.
(I recall reporting not too long ago mentioning this was a problem with high levels of ZDDP that at 6K RPMs the ZDDP proves to be to good a detergent and leads to oil breakdown at the ring/cylinder interface. High levels of ZDDP are ok for diesel engines which require the extra detergent action to deal with the high levels of soot a diesel engine puts into its oil and yet do not experience RPMs anywhere near 6K.)
If you insist on sticking with 10w-40 oil perhaps you should consider having the analysis done at fewer miles to see if the levels of FE/AL are linear with miles or if perhaps they are spiking up at the oil gains miles which if this is the case would suggest the oil needs to be changed sooner?
Oh, the cylinder wall material is not Nikasil, but Lokasil, probably Lokasil II which uses silicon in the cylinder wall liner which is infiltrated with molten aluminum during the block casting process. (Lokasil I used ceramic/silicon.)
After casting, during block finishing cylinder wall finishing brings the cylinders to the desired final geometric shape and position, proper size, and finish. The finishing removes the infiltrated aluminum just enough that the silicon grains are exposed. The rings/pistons essentially run on these silicon grains.
The pistons while mainly aluminum are coated with iron.
My WAG is the high FE/AL numbers are coming from piston wall degradation occurring at high load/RPM and high temperature operation due to probably an inadequacy of the oil.
If I'm right the trend will continue, probably accelerate as more of the iron wears away and exposes more piston aluminum to contact with the cylinder walls and the aluminum present as the grains of silicon are ripped away from the oil breaking down at the cylinder wall/piston/ring interface.
| No. See below grant - 9 years ago |
You admit the engine sees lots of WOT and 6K RPMs for extended periods. What did you expect?
I have to point out you are using 10w-40 oil which is not an approved oil.
Nope. Same oil, same track use, other car, perfect results (repeated). So when the same oil and use result in totally different results, and the results are consistent within vehicles but not between vehicles, blaming the oil is logically flawed. And let's not get into the silliness of the "not approved" stuff.
The rest of your email I won't copy since it all derives from the same flawed thesis. same answer - doesn't align with the facts.
That's why its confusing.
I expected more thought and help, not a rant. frankly. You are, and have proven yourself, better than this drivel. My biggest gripe is that this takes a legitimate discussion off in an argumentative, pointless, rat-hole - making your post worse than useless - it has a net negative value to me.
Grant
Grant
gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2014 07:19PM by grant. (view changes)
I have to point out you are using 10w-40 oil which is not an approved oil.
Nope. Same oil, same track use, other car, perfect results (repeated). So when the same oil and use result in totally different results, and the results are consistent within vehicles but not between vehicles, blaming the oil is logically flawed. And let's not get into the silliness of the "not approved" stuff.
The rest of your email I won't copy since it all derives from the same flawed thesis. same answer - doesn't align with the facts.
That's why its confusing.
I expected more thought and help, not a rant. frankly. You are, and have proven yourself, better than this drivel. My biggest gripe is that this takes a legitimate discussion off in an argumentative, pointless, rat-hole - making your post worse than useless - it has a net negative value to me.
Grant
Grant
gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2014 07:19PM by grant. (view changes)
| The UOA has "Mobil 1 High Mileage 10w-40" as the oil... MarcW - 9 years ago |
If the UOA is in error and the same oil is being used, it would appear the oil is OK in the Audi engine but it is not up to the demands of the Porsche engine.
While you claim the oil is the same, and the track use is the same, the engines -- to state the obvious -- are not the same.
You call non-approved oil silly. But you are the one apparently using a non-approved oil and posting UOA's that show cylinder/piston wear metals in the oil and asking what's up. Who's being silly? Or more accurately, who has his head buried in the sand?
And you are remaining true to form by dismissing research by experts -- they wrote the books on engine oil additives -- as flawed in that it flies into the face of your delusional ideas about what constitutes a suitable oil.
Furthermore, your confrontational attitude is enlightening. No doubt it arises from the fact it is slowly sinking in that your oil selection is what is flawed in this case.
However, since you know more than the experts, and are far better qualified to pick an oil, why not just keep doing what you've been doing? The analysis results are obviously not to be believed as they are at odds with what you expected to see.
Last but not least, I did suggest that you consider analyzing the oil at fewer miles to see if the levels of FE/AL are linear with miles or if they are spiking up as the oil accumulates miles.
I would modify this suggestion to analyze early and often. You are in some ways faced with doing what any oil selection process would entail. Run the oil in a real engine under real conditions and monitor the performance of the oil over time and miles.
From this analysis then you can derive a chart that shows miles vs. wear metals and arrive at a suitable change interval based on your usage of the car and the performance capabilities of the oil.
While you claim the oil is the same, and the track use is the same, the engines -- to state the obvious -- are not the same.
You call non-approved oil silly. But you are the one apparently using a non-approved oil and posting UOA's that show cylinder/piston wear metals in the oil and asking what's up. Who's being silly? Or more accurately, who has his head buried in the sand?
And you are remaining true to form by dismissing research by experts -- they wrote the books on engine oil additives -- as flawed in that it flies into the face of your delusional ideas about what constitutes a suitable oil.
Furthermore, your confrontational attitude is enlightening. No doubt it arises from the fact it is slowly sinking in that your oil selection is what is flawed in this case.
However, since you know more than the experts, and are far better qualified to pick an oil, why not just keep doing what you've been doing? The analysis results are obviously not to be believed as they are at odds with what you expected to see.
Last but not least, I did suggest that you consider analyzing the oil at fewer miles to see if the levels of FE/AL are linear with miles or if they are spiking up as the oil accumulates miles.
I would modify this suggestion to analyze early and often. You are in some ways faced with doing what any oil selection process would entail. Run the oil in a real engine under real conditions and monitor the performance of the oil over time and miles.
From this analysis then you can derive a chart that shows miles vs. wear metals and arrive at a suitable change interval based on your usage of the car and the performance capabilities of the oil.
| First, let me apologise for the tone of my reply. Now, to the oil, there appears to be confusion. grant - 9 years ago |
While i was a bit annoyed and felt your comment was dismissive, i also recognize that you have been knowledgeable and generous with your time and information for many years. And have helped me several times. So i should bite my tongue. But then, you should read the facts too - not just the ones that align with your opinion. Corrections below.
On to the oil .....yes, for this UOA the oil was M1 HM 10w40.
And, as i wrote, M1 HM 10w40 was also the oil in my other boxster, some time back, track use, blah blah, metals around 1/3 the level. Twice.
And the earlier UOA on this car, with even higher (but essentially similar) Fe and Al was not M1 HM 10w40.
The oil in my audi when i was used on the track a few times was a cocktail of thick, high-ZDDP oils. Same brand, different viscosity blend. But thick.
And no its not in error, it does not say on the sheet - it only shows the oil for THIS UOA.
This is becoming painful, as if you are a lawyer trying to find the conflicting testimony - but how about simply taking my word that there is no consistent evidence that the oil makes any difference here. Let's just start with that and move on, ok?
So begin with we have samples with M1 HM that are ~8ppm and others that are ~25. and we have two samples at ~25, one of which is an A40 rated oil. For laughs the A40 oil was the worse one, but so close as to be statistically insignificant.
Time will tell, and i will experiment with different lubricants, but i honestly don't expect much difference unless i do something known stupid like use an oil with marginal HTHS viscosity (like some wide viscosity oils). We know how they perform at 300 deg+, no debate required.
The question is now what is going on. Is it a crap motor i bought? Is it a different wear pattern? Might it be higher G-loads causing oil starvation ( a known issue > 1G and these sames are both before i installed the techno-sump)?
A few other incorrect assumptions you are making: the oil in the Audi, and i said so, is a lab-sourced 5w40, not any commercial oil and certainly not M1 01w40. So references to how it performed in the Audi are simply misleading. let's get the basic facts straight.
As to knowing more than the experts. Sigh. Many formulators do not agree with your assessments. But there are some that do. Its clearly - and my tests demonstrate it - not consistently deterimental, or the other M1 HM 10w40 tests (and many of Pedro's customers) would have shown the same results. Again - there is zero correlation between the oil and the results, but 100% correlation between the unit (car) and the results, even as the oil is changed. You seem to keep missing this simple point - i really dont understand why.
I will update as i get more data. But that takes time. And, of course, variables vary - such as the techno-sump.
Grant
Grant
gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com
On to the oil .....yes, for this UOA the oil was M1 HM 10w40.
And, as i wrote, M1 HM 10w40 was also the oil in my other boxster, some time back, track use, blah blah, metals around 1/3 the level. Twice.
And the earlier UOA on this car, with even higher (but essentially similar) Fe and Al was not M1 HM 10w40.
The oil in my audi when i was used on the track a few times was a cocktail of thick, high-ZDDP oils. Same brand, different viscosity blend. But thick.
And no its not in error, it does not say on the sheet - it only shows the oil for THIS UOA.
This is becoming painful, as if you are a lawyer trying to find the conflicting testimony - but how about simply taking my word that there is no consistent evidence that the oil makes any difference here. Let's just start with that and move on, ok?
So begin with we have samples with M1 HM that are ~8ppm and others that are ~25. and we have two samples at ~25, one of which is an A40 rated oil. For laughs the A40 oil was the worse one, but so close as to be statistically insignificant.
Time will tell, and i will experiment with different lubricants, but i honestly don't expect much difference unless i do something known stupid like use an oil with marginal HTHS viscosity (like some wide viscosity oils). We know how they perform at 300 deg+, no debate required.
The question is now what is going on. Is it a crap motor i bought? Is it a different wear pattern? Might it be higher G-loads causing oil starvation ( a known issue > 1G and these sames are both before i installed the techno-sump)?
A few other incorrect assumptions you are making: the oil in the Audi, and i said so, is a lab-sourced 5w40, not any commercial oil and certainly not M1 01w40. So references to how it performed in the Audi are simply misleading. let's get the basic facts straight.
As to knowing more than the experts. Sigh. Many formulators do not agree with your assessments. But there are some that do. Its clearly - and my tests demonstrate it - not consistently deterimental, or the other M1 HM 10w40 tests (and many of Pedro's customers) would have shown the same results. Again - there is zero correlation between the oil and the results, but 100% correlation between the unit (car) and the results, even as the oil is changed. You seem to keep missing this simple point - i really dont understand why.
I will update as i get more data. But that takes time. And, of course, variables vary - such as the techno-sump.
Grant
Grant
gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com
| Re: A more confusing oil analysis San Rensho - 9 years ago |
| Thanks. I am not all that concerned. But i am curious. grant - 9 years ago |
Maybe there is something i can do, maybe not, maybe it will work itself out.
I have added a sump for > 1G corners; and i can;t help but wonder whether a motor broken in via putting around will in effect do so again when driven hard. It certainly affects the forces on the piston and may in fact need to wear differently.
It could also be a lubrication issue, but i've never had a pressure issue, they noted that the oil looked good, and i have had the pan off twice and all looks nice inside the crank-case ( to the degree one can see).
Grant
Grant
gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com
I have added a sump for > 1G corners; and i can;t help but wonder whether a motor broken in via putting around will in effect do so again when driven hard. It certainly affects the forces on the piston and may in fact need to wear differently.
It could also be a lubrication issue, but i've never had a pressure issue, they noted that the oil looked good, and i have had the pan off twice and all looks nice inside the crank-case ( to the degree one can see).
Grant
Grant
gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.