20 Grades - Oil Consumption - NOACK - Stuck Rings
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: 06VtecV6
Originally Posted By: Shipo
Hmmm, my 2001 Honda with the J30 V6 has been fed on a steady diet of 5W-20 (for its first 100,000 miles with 7,500 mile OCIs), then I bought the car from the original owner and have used 0W-20 since then with ~10,000 mile OCIs. To this point, the engine does not use a full quart during a 10,000 mile OCI.
Imo, in your driving portfolio, that's because vtec doesn't work in < 4500 rpm so your driving style and attributes are more attributed to those results. I also owned a J30A5 V6 Accord and I used 5w-20 Motorcraft and was CONSTANTLY in vtec and it was your prototypical 1/2 quart on 5k OCI using MC SEMI-synthetic oil. (starting off it's life using that Driveclean series from Mobil, first the 5k and then the reputed "Semi-syn 7500 mile guarantee)
Just exactly what is it you *think* you can determine about the driving environment of my engine based upon my profile (which I created almost 10 years ago and haven't updated since)?
Originally Posted By: Shipo
Hmmm, my 2001 Honda with the J30 V6 has been fed on a steady diet of 5W-20 (for its first 100,000 miles with 7,500 mile OCIs), then I bought the car from the original owner and have used 0W-20 since then with ~10,000 mile OCIs. To this point, the engine does not use a full quart during a 10,000 mile OCI.
Imo, in your driving portfolio, that's because vtec doesn't work in < 4500 rpm so your driving style and attributes are more attributed to those results. I also owned a J30A5 V6 Accord and I used 5w-20 Motorcraft and was CONSTANTLY in vtec and it was your prototypical 1/2 quart on 5k OCI using MC SEMI-synthetic oil. (starting off it's life using that Driveclean series from Mobil, first the 5k and then the reputed "Semi-syn 7500 mile guarantee)
Just exactly what is it you *think* you can determine about the driving environment of my engine based upon my profile (which I created almost 10 years ago and haven't updated since)?
If I were to purchase a new vehicle today that was spec'd for a 20 grade oil I would run the lowest NOAK 5W30 oil for the three coolest seasons and consider running the lowest NOAK 10W30 in dead heat of the summer. I live in New England and we only get a handful of days that exceed 90F. The additional .2 miles per gallon I might gain in fuel economy would not be a concern to me.
Here is a link to a high mileage 2.3L Ford run on 10W30 driven hard. Looks good to me.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4013629/1
Here is a link to a high mileage 2.3L Ford run on 10W30 driven hard. Looks good to me.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4013629/1
Originally Posted By: 06VtecV6
Random newsflash update: When you are using an oil notorious for cleaning, conSUMPtion isn't even a neg but a net positive.
You keep saying it. Yet, you don't explain it. And you word it in a slightly different fashion each time, with each not necessarily meaning the same thing. Then, you point out that the evidence is there. It doesn't work that way. You made the assertion, not anyone else; you get to provide the evidence. Let's have it.
Random newsflash update: When you are using an oil notorious for cleaning, conSUMPtion isn't even a neg but a net positive.
You keep saying it. Yet, you don't explain it. And you word it in a slightly different fashion each time, with each not necessarily meaning the same thing. Then, you point out that the evidence is there. It doesn't work that way. You made the assertion, not anyone else; you get to provide the evidence. Let's have it.
Noack is SUPPOSED to be about phosphorous transport to the exhaust gas aftertreatment devices.
It's held at 250C, as that's typical of ring belt temperatures and parts of the liner, and the oil entering the ring belt sits there for whole numbers of seconds, which is hundreds of piston strokes and firing events...virtually forever in a heat transfer sense.
Many posit that their sump temperature is only 100C or so, so the number is meaningless...I used 13% Noack oil and didn't lose any during an OCI as an example.
Many follow the line that it's important as the lights volitise of, and make the oil thicker (supported by a machinery lubes article among others).
I don't feel it's that simple.
Analysis of oil captured in the ring belt shows high levels of additives, quite a bit higher than the bulk oil...oil IS evaporating off...but UOAs don't show 10% higher additives than VOA with 10% NOACK oil in the bulk oil...even on burners we aren't seeing the additives concentrating.
On the power stroke, there's leakage (blowby) down around the pistons, through the ring gaps, and into the sump...that blowby will carry the evaporated components into an environment (crankcase), full of droplets of oil at a lot lower temperatures (150C maybe), giving a massive surface area to condense to...if it makes it past there (unlikely), it's got square feet of metal at 100C to condense on.
It might evaporate, but I'm pretty sure that most gets caught back into the bulk.
The oil (and phosphorous) on the walls is naturally lost to exhaust, and on to the catalyst.
Deposits ?
One of my undergrads did a thesis on varnish formation, and I'm pretty convinced that in the crankcase, the droplets (and vapour), are exposed to some pretty aggressive chemicals (NOx, CO, radicals etc.), and that's where varnish comes from.
It's sticky, reduces heat transfer, and catches junk....and off the top of my head, is where TEOST sort of simulates in a way.
(As an aside, I've got a couple papers floating around that indicate that moly as it breaks down becomes problematic in oxidation...will dig them up tonight)
It's held at 250C, as that's typical of ring belt temperatures and parts of the liner, and the oil entering the ring belt sits there for whole numbers of seconds, which is hundreds of piston strokes and firing events...virtually forever in a heat transfer sense.
Many posit that their sump temperature is only 100C or so, so the number is meaningless...I used 13% Noack oil and didn't lose any during an OCI as an example.
Many follow the line that it's important as the lights volitise of, and make the oil thicker (supported by a machinery lubes article among others).
I don't feel it's that simple.
Analysis of oil captured in the ring belt shows high levels of additives, quite a bit higher than the bulk oil...oil IS evaporating off...but UOAs don't show 10% higher additives than VOA with 10% NOACK oil in the bulk oil...even on burners we aren't seeing the additives concentrating.
On the power stroke, there's leakage (blowby) down around the pistons, through the ring gaps, and into the sump...that blowby will carry the evaporated components into an environment (crankcase), full of droplets of oil at a lot lower temperatures (150C maybe), giving a massive surface area to condense to...if it makes it past there (unlikely), it's got square feet of metal at 100C to condense on.
It might evaporate, but I'm pretty sure that most gets caught back into the bulk.
The oil (and phosphorous) on the walls is naturally lost to exhaust, and on to the catalyst.
Deposits ?
One of my undergrads did a thesis on varnish formation, and I'm pretty convinced that in the crankcase, the droplets (and vapour), are exposed to some pretty aggressive chemicals (NOx, CO, radicals etc.), and that's where varnish comes from.
It's sticky, reduces heat transfer, and catches junk....and off the top of my head, is where TEOST sort of simulates in a way.
(As an aside, I've got a couple papers floating around that indicate that moly as it breaks down becomes problematic in oxidation...will dig them up tonight)
So an engine that is a known oil burner such as the 2AZ-FE series of the Toyota 4cyl...... Will burn less with a low NOACK oil?
Originally Posted By: SumpChump
So an engine that is a known oil burner such as the 2AZ-FE series of the Toyota 4cyl...... Will burn less with a low NOACK oil?
Maybe, maybe not, it all depends on what is causing of the oil consumption. For example if the valve seals are shot, the valve guides are worn, the rings are worn, cylinders are scared, a low NOACK oil isn't going to help. Moving up a grade might for those examples.
So an engine that is a known oil burner such as the 2AZ-FE series of the Toyota 4cyl...... Will burn less with a low NOACK oil?
Maybe, maybe not, it all depends on what is causing of the oil consumption. For example if the valve seals are shot, the valve guides are worn, the rings are worn, cylinders are scared, a low NOACK oil isn't going to help. Moving up a grade might for those examples.
NOACK probably has more to do with the oil thickening than consumption and intake deposits. I doubt that engines are designed to run 20 wt oil . Look up the recommended viscosities in other countries. 20 wt oils are only for CAFE standards.
Originally Posted By: CT8
NOACK probably has more to do with the oil thickening than consumption and intake deposits. I doubt that engines are designed to run 20 wt oil . Look up the recommended viscosities in other countries. 20 wt oils are only for CAFE standards.
I used M1 5-20 in 1978 in a Dodge Slant 6 engine with great success in the cold temps of Maine. No CAFE then.
NOACK probably has more to do with the oil thickening than consumption and intake deposits. I doubt that engines are designed to run 20 wt oil . Look up the recommended viscosities in other countries. 20 wt oils are only for CAFE standards.
I used M1 5-20 in 1978 in a Dodge Slant 6 engine with great success in the cold temps of Maine. No CAFE then.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Noack is SUPPOSED to be about phosphorous transport to the exhaust gas aftertreatment devices.
It's held at 250C, as that's typical of ring belt temperatures and parts of the liner, and the oil entering the ring belt sits there for whole numbers of seconds, which is hundreds of piston strokes and firing events...virtually forever in a heat transfer sense.
Many posit that their sump temperature is only 100C or so, so the number is meaningless...I used 13% Noack oil and didn't lose any during an OCI as an example.
Many follow the line that it's important as the lights volitise of, and make the oil thicker (supported by a machinery lubes article among others).
I don't feel it's that simple.
Analysis of oil captured in the ring belt shows high levels of additives, quite a bit higher than the bulk oil...oil IS evaporating off...but UOAs don't show 10% higher additives than VOA with 10% NOACK oil in the bulk oil...even on burners we aren't seeing the additives concentrating.
On the power stroke, there's leakage (blowby) down around the pistons, through the ring gaps, and into the sump...that blowby will carry the evaporated components into an environment (crankcase), full of droplets of oil at a lot lower temperatures (150C maybe), giving a massive surface area to condense to...if it makes it past there (unlikely), it's got square feet of metal at 100C to condense on.
It might evaporate, but I'm pretty sure that most gets caught back into the bulk.
The oil (and phosphorous) on the walls is naturally lost to exhaust, and on to the catalyst.
Deposits ?
One of my undergrads did a thesis on varnish formation, and I'm pretty convinced that in the crankcase, the droplets (and vapour), are exposed to some pretty aggressive chemicals (NOx, CO, radicals etc.), and that's where varnish comes from.
It's sticky, reduces heat transfer, and catches junk....and off the top of my head, is where TEOST sort of simulates in a way.
(As an aside, I've got a couple papers floating around that indicate that moly as it breaks down becomes problematic in oxidation...will dig them up tonight)
Great info Shannow.
As someone pointed out too, noack may be a factor in blow by but then it depends on the base oil mix in the formulation. Depends on the base oil cut (heavy/light). Two oils with same NOACK but different base oil cuts. I think this is why HM oils are advertised as helping reducing burn off, despite having the same NOACK as their full syn counterparts.
Another HUGE important factor is the Detergents and dispersants. A low NOACK oil with a poor detergent/dispersant isn't going to help you. Polymer type and content too matters.
Noack is SUPPOSED to be about phosphorous transport to the exhaust gas aftertreatment devices.
It's held at 250C, as that's typical of ring belt temperatures and parts of the liner, and the oil entering the ring belt sits there for whole numbers of seconds, which is hundreds of piston strokes and firing events...virtually forever in a heat transfer sense.
Many posit that their sump temperature is only 100C or so, so the number is meaningless...I used 13% Noack oil and didn't lose any during an OCI as an example.
Many follow the line that it's important as the lights volitise of, and make the oil thicker (supported by a machinery lubes article among others).
I don't feel it's that simple.
Analysis of oil captured in the ring belt shows high levels of additives, quite a bit higher than the bulk oil...oil IS evaporating off...but UOAs don't show 10% higher additives than VOA with 10% NOACK oil in the bulk oil...even on burners we aren't seeing the additives concentrating.
On the power stroke, there's leakage (blowby) down around the pistons, through the ring gaps, and into the sump...that blowby will carry the evaporated components into an environment (crankcase), full of droplets of oil at a lot lower temperatures (150C maybe), giving a massive surface area to condense to...if it makes it past there (unlikely), it's got square feet of metal at 100C to condense on.
It might evaporate, but I'm pretty sure that most gets caught back into the bulk.
The oil (and phosphorous) on the walls is naturally lost to exhaust, and on to the catalyst.
Deposits ?
One of my undergrads did a thesis on varnish formation, and I'm pretty convinced that in the crankcase, the droplets (and vapour), are exposed to some pretty aggressive chemicals (NOx, CO, radicals etc.), and that's where varnish comes from.
It's sticky, reduces heat transfer, and catches junk....and off the top of my head, is where TEOST sort of simulates in a way.
(As an aside, I've got a couple papers floating around that indicate that moly as it breaks down becomes problematic in oxidation...will dig them up tonight)
Great info Shannow.
As someone pointed out too, noack may be a factor in blow by but then it depends on the base oil mix in the formulation. Depends on the base oil cut (heavy/light). Two oils with same NOACK but different base oil cuts. I think this is why HM oils are advertised as helping reducing burn off, despite having the same NOACK as their full syn counterparts.
Another HUGE important factor is the Detergents and dispersants. A low NOACK oil with a poor detergent/dispersant isn't going to help you. Polymer type and content too matters.
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: CT8
NOACK probably has more to do with the oil thickening than consumption and intake deposits. I doubt that engines are designed to run 20 wt oil . Look up the recommended viscosities in other countries. 20 wt oils are only for CAFE standards.
I used M1 5-20 in 1978 in a Dodge Slant 6 engine with great success in the cold temps of Maine. No CAFE then.
I used the 5w-20 M1 when it first came oil as well . It was a Far superior oil back then as compared to the conventional oil of that period. GP1 10w-40 oil was a thin oil with pour point depressants and lots of viscosity improves that probably had a film strength under load of a syn 20 wt at best. I used the oil in the cold of the SF Bay Area
and the heat of the central valley. Was the slant 6 designed for a 20wt?
Originally Posted By: CT8
NOACK probably has more to do with the oil thickening than consumption and intake deposits. I doubt that engines are designed to run 20 wt oil . Look up the recommended viscosities in other countries. 20 wt oils are only for CAFE standards.
I used M1 5-20 in 1978 in a Dodge Slant 6 engine with great success in the cold temps of Maine. No CAFE then.
I used the 5w-20 M1 when it first came oil as well . It was a Far superior oil back then as compared to the conventional oil of that period. GP1 10w-40 oil was a thin oil with pour point depressants and lots of viscosity improves that probably had a film strength under load of a syn 20 wt at best. I used the oil in the cold of the SF Bay Area
Originally Posted By: buster
Great info Shannow.
As someone pointed out too, noack may be a factor in blow by but then it depends on the base oil mix in the formulation. Depends on the base oil cut (heavy/light). Two oils with same NOACK but different base oil cuts. I think this is why HM oils are advertised as helping reducing burn off, despite having the same NOACK as their full syn counterparts.
Another HUGE important factor is the Detergents and dispersants. A low NOACK oil with a poor detergent/dispersant isn't going to help you. Polymer type and content too matters.
You talking about Joe90_guy's results in the (Peugeot?) test ?
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4017090/Re:_Ultra_0w40_burns_off_faste#Post4017090
If bulk oil temperatures are already 150C, that flying around from the big ends is going to be 180-190C, and the blowby considerable.
Condensation as I described would be virtually nil, and the "stripping" that's mentioned of the light ends from the blowby gasses probably very real.
Great info Shannow.
As someone pointed out too, noack may be a factor in blow by but then it depends on the base oil mix in the formulation. Depends on the base oil cut (heavy/light). Two oils with same NOACK but different base oil cuts. I think this is why HM oils are advertised as helping reducing burn off, despite having the same NOACK as their full syn counterparts.
Another HUGE important factor is the Detergents and dispersants. A low NOACK oil with a poor detergent/dispersant isn't going to help you. Polymer type and content too matters.
You talking about Joe90_guy's results in the (Peugeot?) test ?
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4017090/Re:_Ultra_0w40_burns_off_faste#Post4017090
If bulk oil temperatures are already 150C, that flying around from the big ends is going to be 180-190C, and the blowby considerable.
Condensation as I described would be virtually nil, and the "stripping" that's mentioned of the light ends from the blowby gasses probably very real.
Maybe we should shelve the posts about 20 grade oils and fast forward to 16 grade oils.
ILSAC GF-6The ILSAC GF-6 specification is currently in development and will probably be divided into two sub-specifications. ILSAC GF-6A will be fully backward compatible with ILSAC GF-5 but would offer better fuel economy, better engine protection and improved performance while maintaining durability. ILSAC GF-6B would deliver similar performance as ILSAC GF-5A but will allow lower viscosity oils like xW-16, taking advantage of the fuel economy benefits offered by the new SAE 16 viscosity grade. For more information check out gf-6.com.
ILSAC GF-6The ILSAC GF-6 specification is currently in development and will probably be divided into two sub-specifications. ILSAC GF-6A will be fully backward compatible with ILSAC GF-5 but would offer better fuel economy, better engine protection and improved performance while maintaining durability. ILSAC GF-6B would deliver similar performance as ILSAC GF-5A but will allow lower viscosity oils like xW-16, taking advantage of the fuel economy benefits offered by the new SAE 16 viscosity grade. For more information check out gf-6.com.
Originally Posted By: Shipo
Hmmm, my 2001 Honda with the J30 V6 has been fed on a steady diet of 5W-20 (for its first 100,000 miles with 7,500 mile OCIs), then I bought the car from the original owner and have used 0W-20 since then with ~10,000 mile OCIs. To this point, the engine does not use a full quart during a 10,000 mile OCI.
I have a similar story.
Mine is a '08 Civic SI and it has a high CR - high rpm engine compared to the other civics. I have used 0w30-5w30-0w40 with 6-6.5k miles (10k kms) OCIs. To this point, even with track racing and seeing 8200 rpm daily, it does not use even 0.1 quart during the oil change interval.
This is my 6th Honda (promised myself this one will be the last), bought 4 of them brand new, and none of them had oil consumption problem.
Whoever says "Hondas burn a lot of oil and it's normal", they are trying to justify the oil consumption but in fact, it is probably a result of bad engine break-in or bad oil rings etc.
Hmmm, my 2001 Honda with the J30 V6 has been fed on a steady diet of 5W-20 (for its first 100,000 miles with 7,500 mile OCIs), then I bought the car from the original owner and have used 0W-20 since then with ~10,000 mile OCIs. To this point, the engine does not use a full quart during a 10,000 mile OCI.
I have a similar story.
Mine is a '08 Civic SI and it has a high CR - high rpm engine compared to the other civics. I have used 0w30-5w30-0w40 with 6-6.5k miles (10k kms) OCIs. To this point, even with track racing and seeing 8200 rpm daily, it does not use even 0.1 quart during the oil change interval.
This is my 6th Honda (promised myself this one will be the last), bought 4 of them brand new, and none of them had oil consumption problem.
Whoever says "Hondas burn a lot of oil and it's normal", they are trying to justify the oil consumption but in fact, it is probably a result of bad engine break-in or bad oil rings etc.
Honda had problem oil control rings dating back to 2003 on their 2.0L and 2.4L engines in small numbers. Their response until 2011 to dissatisfied customers was 1L use of oil in 1000 miles was "normal".
In 2011 they had issued a technical service bulletin admitting to some 2008 engine oil control rings and covered some repairs with restrictions.
In 2011 they had issued a technical service bulletin admitting to some 2008 engine oil control rings and covered some repairs with restrictions.
Originally Posted By: deoxy4
Honda had problem oil control rings dating back to 2003 on their 2.0L and 2.4L engines in small numbers. Their response until 2011 to dissatisfied customers was 1L use of oil in 1000 miles was "normal".
In 2011 they had issued a technical service bulletin admitting to some 2008 engine oil control rings and covered some repairs with restrictions.
/sarcasm
but hey don't you know Subaru has the market on oil burners with the FB25
/endsarcasm
at least if you believe the internet echo chamber and no toyota or honda has ever burned oil.
Honda had problem oil control rings dating back to 2003 on their 2.0L and 2.4L engines in small numbers. Their response until 2011 to dissatisfied customers was 1L use of oil in 1000 miles was "normal".
In 2011 they had issued a technical service bulletin admitting to some 2008 engine oil control rings and covered some repairs with restrictions.
/sarcasm
but hey don't you know Subaru has the market on oil burners with the FB25
/endsarcasm
at least if you believe the internet echo chamber and no toyota or honda has ever burned oil.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
(As an aside, I've got a couple papers floating around that indicate that moly as it breaks down becomes problematic in oxidation...will dig them up tonight)
http://konyvtar.uni-pannon.hu/doktori/2005/Kis_Gabor_theses_en.pdf
Quote:
But the lower viscosity base oil requires the use of more efficient antiwear and friction modifier additives.
Use of molybdenum-dithiocarbamate type additives can be a way of reducing phosphorous content. As a result of the conditions prevailing at wearing surfaces (high temperature and pressure) it is proved that a MoS2 or MoSx containing tribofilm forms on metal surfaces. Due to the graphite-like octahedral crystalline structure of MoS2 it has excellent friction reducing capability. In the planar crystalline structure the layers are bounded to each other by weak Van der Waals forces and can slide to the directionof the constraining force and able to build up such a tribofilm, which is efficient in boundary lubrication. Their widespread application is constrained by the fact that the efficient operation of molybdenum-dithiocarbamate additives requires the appropriate, oxidizing reaction conditions. But the high level of oxidation can lead to the depletion of the additive content which results the premature deterioration of the friction modifying effect, since - due to their low thermal and oxidation stability - the molybdenum-dithiocarbamate additives degrade not only at the metal surfaces but also in the bulk of the oil. This kind of instability makes questionable the reality of efforts for prolongation of engine oil changing periods.
To eliminate the above mentioned drawbacks of molybdenum containing additives the purpose of our research work was to develop a new type of polyisobutene-polysuccinimide detergent-dispersant additive which has a significant additional friction reducing effect. According to our working hypothesis the prepared molybdenum complex compound will form a satisfactorily stable chemical bond with the reactive groups of polyisobutene-polysuccinimides, consequently it will be much less sensitive against oxidation and thermal effects than the molybdenum-dialkyl-dithiocarbamates. This increased stability can ensure that the molybdenum is released from the chemical structure of the dispersant only under the extreme conditions of the friction and wear processes and does not form solid sedimentdue to the oxidative degradation.
(As an aside, I've got a couple papers floating around that indicate that moly as it breaks down becomes problematic in oxidation...will dig them up tonight)
http://konyvtar.uni-pannon.hu/doktori/2005/Kis_Gabor_theses_en.pdf
Quote:
But the lower viscosity base oil requires the use of more efficient antiwear and friction modifier additives.
Use of molybdenum-dithiocarbamate type additives can be a way of reducing phosphorous content. As a result of the conditions prevailing at wearing surfaces (high temperature and pressure) it is proved that a MoS2 or MoSx containing tribofilm forms on metal surfaces. Due to the graphite-like octahedral crystalline structure of MoS2 it has excellent friction reducing capability. In the planar crystalline structure the layers are bounded to each other by weak Van der Waals forces and can slide to the directionof the constraining force and able to build up such a tribofilm, which is efficient in boundary lubrication. Their widespread application is constrained by the fact that the efficient operation of molybdenum-dithiocarbamate additives requires the appropriate, oxidizing reaction conditions. But the high level of oxidation can lead to the depletion of the additive content which results the premature deterioration of the friction modifying effect, since - due to their low thermal and oxidation stability - the molybdenum-dithiocarbamate additives degrade not only at the metal surfaces but also in the bulk of the oil. This kind of instability makes questionable the reality of efforts for prolongation of engine oil changing periods.
To eliminate the above mentioned drawbacks of molybdenum containing additives the purpose of our research work was to develop a new type of polyisobutene-polysuccinimide detergent-dispersant additive which has a significant additional friction reducing effect. According to our working hypothesis the prepared molybdenum complex compound will form a satisfactorily stable chemical bond with the reactive groups of polyisobutene-polysuccinimides, consequently it will be much less sensitive against oxidation and thermal effects than the molybdenum-dialkyl-dithiocarbamates. This increased stability can ensure that the molybdenum is released from the chemical structure of the dispersant only under the extreme conditions of the friction and wear processes and does not form solid sedimentdue to the oxidative degradation.
- Status
Similar threads
