20 Grades - Oil Consumption - NOACK - Stuck Rings
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Surprise, surprise, I found some bona fide engine test results on the internet. Here they are...
http://www.sh-bd.net/english/products_read.asp?id=97
You might want to copy this quickly because I suspect when Lz realise this data is on the net, they will probably go seriously mental and insist the Chinese supplier take it down.
However while it's there, can I draw your attention to the two Sequence IIIF tests. The Seq IIIF gets a 5.5 litre initial fill of oil. As I recall there's a bit of topping-up that goes on during the 80 hour test but this is minimal. Both tests were run on 15W40s. There's no oil Noack data provided but 15W40's tend to have lowish Noacks.
In the first test, 1.99 litres of oil is consumed and the Weighted Piston Demerits (basically how clean the piston is after the test) is 5.39 (out of 10). This a deemed a test pass but it's still a very dirty piston.
In the second test 2.85 litres of oil is consumed (ie about half of the initial fill) and the WPD is 6.62.
Notwithstanding that the Seq IIIF is an extreme test, it is worth asking by what mechanism does half a low Noack 15W40 oil disappear in the course of 80 hours and might this possibly have something to do with the appalling state of the pistons???
Shame there is no TU5 data to look at. I suppose someone somewhere might do a quick trawl on Google. Never know what you might turn up...
http://www.sh-bd.net/english/products_read.asp?id=97
You might want to copy this quickly because I suspect when Lz realise this data is on the net, they will probably go seriously mental and insist the Chinese supplier take it down.
However while it's there, can I draw your attention to the two Sequence IIIF tests. The Seq IIIF gets a 5.5 litre initial fill of oil. As I recall there's a bit of topping-up that goes on during the 80 hour test but this is minimal. Both tests were run on 15W40s. There's no oil Noack data provided but 15W40's tend to have lowish Noacks.
In the first test, 1.99 litres of oil is consumed and the Weighted Piston Demerits (basically how clean the piston is after the test) is 5.39 (out of 10). This a deemed a test pass but it's still a very dirty piston.
In the second test 2.85 litres of oil is consumed (ie about half of the initial fill) and the WPD is 6.62.
Notwithstanding that the Seq IIIF is an extreme test, it is worth asking by what mechanism does half a low Noack 15W40 oil disappear in the course of 80 hours and might this possibly have something to do with the appalling state of the pistons???
Shame there is no TU5 data to look at. I suppose someone somewhere might do a quick trawl on Google. Never know what you might turn up...
Anything over 6 is pretty clean in the IIIF to be fair.
Also , the oil with the higher consumption also has the cleanest pistons. So I'm not really sure what evidence this is.
Also , the oil with the higher consumption also has the cleanest pistons. So I'm not really sure what evidence this is.
I have a fairly low mileage '03 Honda CR-V that eats oil! It doesn't smoke at all and doesn't leak but it was using 1qt/500 miles until I did a piston soak. Its averaging about 1qt/1200 miles now. It runs like a dream and has plenty of power.
It does seem to do better on a thicker oil like the Rotella 10W30 that is in it now. When I first got it and ran the suggested 5W20 it ate oil as fast as it drank gas!
It does seem to do better on a thicker oil like the Rotella 10W30 that is in it now. When I first got it and ran the suggested 5W20 it ate oil as fast as it drank gas!
Agreed. For the Seq IIIF this is ok-ish, passing data but remember that this is a VM-lite, ashless rich, 13% DI HDDO 15W40. These pistons should be pristine and clearly they are not. The reason to me is obvious. Oil is going 'over-the-top' and being burnt and it's the residue from the burnt oil that's fouling the pistons. The results show no stuck rings so the oil clearly isn't getting into the combustion chamber from underneath bypassing the oil control rings.
Also bear in mind that this is just an 80 hour IIIF and not a 100 hour Seq IIIG which you might expect to be far worse.
Without the specific details of the two blends Lz tested, I'd hesitate to conclude anything from just two results.
Shame that we don't have any TU5 data..
Also bear in mind that this is just an 80 hour IIIF and not a 100 hour Seq IIIG which you might expect to be far worse.
Without the specific details of the two blends Lz tested, I'd hesitate to conclude anything from just two results.
Shame that we don't have any TU5 data..
They say a picture is worth a thousand words.
The PDF below shows a passing & failing set of Sequence IIIG pistons. The ones to look at are the passing set. You can't tell the WPD rating by eye but I'd guess for illustrative purposes, SwRI would make sure the passing pistons were a decent pass (ie not bordeline vs the spec). Pretty black aren't they? Would you say this was acceptable? And the clue is in that word 'black'...as in black as soot..
www.swri.org/brochure/pdf/SequenceIIIGTest.pdf
Hmmm...such a shame we don't have any TU5 data to look at...
The PDF below shows a passing & failing set of Sequence IIIG pistons. The ones to look at are the passing set. You can't tell the WPD rating by eye but I'd guess for illustrative purposes, SwRI would make sure the passing pistons were a decent pass (ie not bordeline vs the spec). Pretty black aren't they? Would you say this was acceptable? And the clue is in that word 'black'...as in black as soot..
www.swri.org/brochure/pdf/SequenceIIIGTest.pdf
Hmmm...such a shame we don't have any TU5 data to look at...
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
They say a picture is worth a thousand words.
www.swri.org/brochure/pdf/SequenceIIIGTest.pdf
Or at least 404...
They say a picture is worth a thousand words.
www.swri.org/brochure/pdf/SequenceIIIGTest.pdf
Or at least 404...
Sorry. I was having problems importing the PDF file...
Getting back to NOACK, it seems many oils that are in the 7-12% range can pass the Seq IIIG very easily. Take a look at Pennzoil's Seq IIIG results on their 5w30, which has a NOACK of 11.5%. Amsoil is advertising their results of the IIIG, but Amsoil is old school and using 3,500-4,000 ppm of Ca which i would not use in a GDI engine.
http://www.pennzoil.com/technology-of-clean/
See photo below, Amsoil double length IIIG
http://www.amsoil.com/shop/by-product/mo.../?code=ASMQT-EA
http://www.pennzoil.com/technology-of-clean/
See photo below, Amsoil double length IIIG
http://www.amsoil.com/shop/by-product/mo.../?code=ASMQT-EA
Originally Posted By: buster
Getting back to NOACK, it seems many oils that are in the 7-12% range can pass the Seq IIIG very easily. Take a look at Pennzoil's Seq IIIG results on their 5w30, which has a NOACK of 11.5%. Amsoil is advertising their results of the IIIG, but Amsoil is old school and using 3,500-4,000 ppm of Ca which i would not use in a GDI engine.
what's the deal with Calcium. Is it good ingredient for spirited driving or more for cleaning?
Getting back to NOACK, it seems many oils that are in the 7-12% range can pass the Seq IIIG very easily. Take a look at Pennzoil's Seq IIIG results on their 5w30, which has a NOACK of 11.5%. Amsoil is advertising their results of the IIIG, but Amsoil is old school and using 3,500-4,000 ppm of Ca which i would not use in a GDI engine.
what's the deal with Calcium. Is it good ingredient for spirited driving or more for cleaning?
Originally Posted By: buster
Getting back to NOACK, it seems many oils that are in the 7-12% range can pass the Seq IIIG very easily. Take a look at Pennzoil's Seq IIIG results on their 5w30, which has a NOACK of 11.5%. Amsoil is advertising their results of the IIIG, but Amsoil is old school and using 3,500-4,000 ppm of Ca which i would not use in a GDI engine.
http://www.pennzoil.com/technology-of-clean/
See photo below, Amsoil double length IIIG
http://www.amsoil.com/shop/by-product/mo.../?code=ASMQT-EA
Of course you can pass the Seq IIIG with oils with a Noack of 7 to 12%. If you're clever or lucky, you can it with a 14.99% Noack oil. But just take another look at the Lz Seq IIIF data. You do not fail this test on oil loss until you have consumed 5.2 litres of oil; that's almost 95% of the initial test fill!!! Some might think that's a tad generous. And also remember with piston cleaniless, you do not set the clock back to zero every time you do an oil change. Piston deposits, especially if they originate from burnt oil, are cumulative with time.
Getting back to NOACK, it seems many oils that are in the 7-12% range can pass the Seq IIIG very easily. Take a look at Pennzoil's Seq IIIG results on their 5w30, which has a NOACK of 11.5%. Amsoil is advertising their results of the IIIG, but Amsoil is old school and using 3,500-4,000 ppm of Ca which i would not use in a GDI engine.
http://www.pennzoil.com/technology-of-clean/
See photo below, Amsoil double length IIIG
http://www.amsoil.com/shop/by-product/mo.../?code=ASMQT-EA
Of course you can pass the Seq IIIG with oils with a Noack of 7 to 12%. If you're clever or lucky, you can it with a 14.99% Noack oil. But just take another look at the Lz Seq IIIF data. You do not fail this test on oil loss until you have consumed 5.2 litres of oil; that's almost 95% of the initial test fill!!! Some might think that's a tad generous. And also remember with piston cleaniless, you do not set the clock back to zero every time you do an oil change. Piston deposits, especially if they originate from burnt oil, are cumulative with time.
Originally Posted By: KingCake
1. Throw you consumer reports in the garbage.
2. Hondas use oil off the lot. Nothing to do with oil.
3. Most of the 'deposit issues' are with direct injection engines.
Your 2. is news to me and the eight Hondas we've owned.
You might be well advised to avoid posting when you don't know what you're talking about.
Any decently maintained Honda doesn't require any adds during the course of an OCI, or that has at least been my experience in more than a million miles with these engines in our personal use.
1. Throw you consumer reports in the garbage.
2. Hondas use oil off the lot. Nothing to do with oil.
3. Most of the 'deposit issues' are with direct injection engines.
Your 2. is news to me and the eight Hondas we've owned.
You might be well advised to avoid posting when you don't know what you're talking about.
Any decently maintained Honda doesn't require any adds during the course of an OCI, or that has at least been my experience in more than a million miles with these engines in our personal use.
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
Originally Posted By: buster
Getting back to NOACK, it seems many oils that are in the 7-12% range can pass the Seq IIIG very easily. Take a look at Pennzoil's Seq IIIG results on their 5w30, which has a NOACK of 11.5%. Amsoil is advertising their results of the IIIG, but Amsoil is old school and using 3,500-4,000 ppm of Ca which i would not use in a GDI engine.
http://www.pennzoil.com/technology-of-clean/
See photo below, Amsoil double length IIIG
http://www.amsoil.com/shop/by-product/mo.../?code=ASMQT-EA
Of course you can pass the Seq IIIG with oils with a Noack of 7 to 12%. If you're clever or lucky, you can it with a 14.99% Noack oil. But just take another look at the Lz Seq IIIF data. You do not fail this test on oil loss until you have consumed 5.2 litres of oil; that's almost 95% of the initial test fill!!! Some might think that's a tad generous. And also remember with piston cleaniless, you do not set the clock back to zero every time you do an oil change. Piston deposits, especially if they originate from burnt oil, are cumulative with time.
From memory. 5.2 is the max allowed for the valid test. Any more is pointing at an issue with the engine making the test invalid. The test is a piston cleanliness and oxidation test. Not an oil consumption test.
Originally Posted By: buster
Getting back to NOACK, it seems many oils that are in the 7-12% range can pass the Seq IIIG very easily. Take a look at Pennzoil's Seq IIIG results on their 5w30, which has a NOACK of 11.5%. Amsoil is advertising their results of the IIIG, but Amsoil is old school and using 3,500-4,000 ppm of Ca which i would not use in a GDI engine.
http://www.pennzoil.com/technology-of-clean/
See photo below, Amsoil double length IIIG
http://www.amsoil.com/shop/by-product/mo.../?code=ASMQT-EA
Of course you can pass the Seq IIIG with oils with a Noack of 7 to 12%. If you're clever or lucky, you can it with a 14.99% Noack oil. But just take another look at the Lz Seq IIIF data. You do not fail this test on oil loss until you have consumed 5.2 litres of oil; that's almost 95% of the initial test fill!!! Some might think that's a tad generous. And also remember with piston cleaniless, you do not set the clock back to zero every time you do an oil change. Piston deposits, especially if they originate from burnt oil, are cumulative with time.
From memory. 5.2 is the max allowed for the valid test. Any more is pointing at an issue with the engine making the test invalid. The test is a piston cleanliness and oxidation test. Not an oil consumption test.
So 5.19 litres of oil loss would be deemed a valid test but 5.21 litres might give rise to concerns regarding test validity? Have you any idea how ridiculous that statement sounds?
As regards the IIIF/IIIG not being an oil consumption test, this is surely just playing with words. Of course it's an oil consumption test! Oil consumption is a measured, quoted and specifically limited test parameter. The plain fact is that the industry just wants to shut it's eyes to the issue of oil consumption as evidenced by the excessively lax 5.2 litre limit. It does this by forever switching the focus to viscosity increase even though viscosity increase hasn't been a field issue for donkey's years. Read BITOG. Oil consumption is a concern. Viscosity increase isn't!
It's unfair of me to pick on an API test because the Europeans are just as bad. The TU5 has from its inception been officially described as a High Temperature Deposits Test but I don't think I've ever seen a TU5 ever fail on deposits primarily because any oil laden blow-by is NOT routed back to the intake system. But wow, just look at how fast this test empties the sump of oil! But are we bothered about oil consumption? Nooooooo...
Talking of the TU5, it's a shame we don't have any TU5 data to look at (come on guys, take the hint!)...
As regards the IIIF/IIIG not being an oil consumption test, this is surely just playing with words. Of course it's an oil consumption test! Oil consumption is a measured, quoted and specifically limited test parameter. The plain fact is that the industry just wants to shut it's eyes to the issue of oil consumption as evidenced by the excessively lax 5.2 litre limit. It does this by forever switching the focus to viscosity increase even though viscosity increase hasn't been a field issue for donkey's years. Read BITOG. Oil consumption is a concern. Viscosity increase isn't!
It's unfair of me to pick on an API test because the Europeans are just as bad. The TU5 has from its inception been officially described as a High Temperature Deposits Test but I don't think I've ever seen a TU5 ever fail on deposits primarily because any oil laden blow-by is NOT routed back to the intake system. But wow, just look at how fast this test empties the sump of oil! But are we bothered about oil consumption? Nooooooo...
Talking of the TU5, it's a shame we don't have any TU5 data to look at (come on guys, take the hint!)...
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
So 5.19 litres of oil loss would be deemed a valid test but 5.21 litres might give rise to concerns regarding test validity? Have you any idea how ridiculous that statement sounds?
As regards the IIIF/IIIG not being an oil consumption test, this is surely just playing with words. Of course it's an oil consumption test! Oil consumption is a measured, quoted and specifically limited test parameter. The plain fact is that the industry just wants to shut it's eyes to the issue of oil consumption as evidenced by the excessively lax 5.2 litre limit. It does this by forever switching the focus to viscosity increase even though viscosity increase hasn't been a field issue for donkey's years. Read BITOG. Oil consumption is a concern. Viscosity increase isn't!
It's unfair of me to pick on an API test because the Europeans are just as bad. The TU5 has from its inception been officially described as a High Temperature Deposits Test but I don't think I've ever seen a TU5 ever fail on deposits primarily because any oil laden blow-by is NOT routed back to the intake system. But wow, just look at how fast this test empties the sump of oil! But are we bothered about oil consumption? Nooooooo...
Talking of the TU5, it's a shame we don't have any TU5 data to look at (come on guys, take the hint!)...
Oil consumption has been proven may times to have more factors than the oil. The engine build and driving style are much bigger factors.
The IIIG test isn't an oil consumption test at all. It is a high temperature oxidation (hence kv40 increase is a limit), piston cleanliness test (Deposit and hot rings) with pass fail results.
The oil consumption data is just an additional result.
The method of oil consumption obviously has an effect on Kv40...
So 5.19 litres of oil loss would be deemed a valid test but 5.21 litres might give rise to concerns regarding test validity? Have you any idea how ridiculous that statement sounds?
As regards the IIIF/IIIG not being an oil consumption test, this is surely just playing with words. Of course it's an oil consumption test! Oil consumption is a measured, quoted and specifically limited test parameter. The plain fact is that the industry just wants to shut it's eyes to the issue of oil consumption as evidenced by the excessively lax 5.2 litre limit. It does this by forever switching the focus to viscosity increase even though viscosity increase hasn't been a field issue for donkey's years. Read BITOG. Oil consumption is a concern. Viscosity increase isn't!
It's unfair of me to pick on an API test because the Europeans are just as bad. The TU5 has from its inception been officially described as a High Temperature Deposits Test but I don't think I've ever seen a TU5 ever fail on deposits primarily because any oil laden blow-by is NOT routed back to the intake system. But wow, just look at how fast this test empties the sump of oil! But are we bothered about oil consumption? Nooooooo...
Talking of the TU5, it's a shame we don't have any TU5 data to look at (come on guys, take the hint!)...
Oil consumption has been proven may times to have more factors than the oil. The engine build and driving style are much bigger factors.
The IIIG test isn't an oil consumption test at all. It is a high temperature oxidation (hence kv40 increase is a limit), piston cleanliness test (Deposit and hot rings) with pass fail results.
The oil consumption data is just an additional result.
The method of oil consumption obviously has an effect on Kv40...
Quote:
Oil consumption has been proven may times to have more factors than the oil. The engine build and driving style are much bigger factors.
Very true. ring type/engine design. Some cars consume oil regardless of viscosity/NOACK. My 05 Accord consumed 1qt every 5k miles since new. It also ran like new when I got rid of it with 180k miles. Same with a Toyota I had before that.
Oil consumption has been proven may times to have more factors than the oil. The engine build and driving style are much bigger factors.
Very true. ring type/engine design. Some cars consume oil regardless of viscosity/NOACK. My 05 Accord consumed 1qt every 5k miles since new. It also ran like new when I got rid of it with 180k miles. Same with a Toyota I had before that.
Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
So 5.19 litres of oil loss would be deemed a valid test but 5.21 litres might give rise to concerns regarding test validity? Have you any idea how ridiculous that statement sounds?
As regards the IIIF/IIIG not being an oil consumption test, this is surely just playing with words. Of course it's an oil consumption test! Oil consumption is a measured, quoted and specifically limited test parameter. The plain fact is that the industry just wants to shut it's eyes to the issue of oil consumption as evidenced by the excessively lax 5.2 litre limit. It does this by forever switching the focus to viscosity increase even though viscosity increase hasn't been a field issue for donkey's years. Read BITOG. Oil consumption is a concern. Viscosity increase isn't!
It's unfair of me to pick on an API test because the Europeans are just as bad. The TU5 has from its inception been officially described as a High Temperature Deposits Test but I don't think I've ever seen a TU5 ever fail on deposits primarily because any oil laden blow-by is NOT routed back to the intake system. But wow, just look at how fast this test empties the sump of oil! But are we bothered about oil consumption? Nooooooo...
Talking of the TU5, it's a shame we don't have any TU5 data to look at (come on guys, take the hint!)...
Oil consumption has been proven may times to have more factors than the oil. The engine build and driving style are much bigger factors.
The IIIG test isn't an oil consumption test at all. It is a high temperature oxidation (hence kv40 increase is a limit), piston cleanliness test (Deposit and hot rings) with pass fail results.
The oil consumption data is just an additional result.
The method of oil consumption obviously has an effect on Kv40...
Groan...why is it that so many formulators cannot see what's right under their nose???
Unless you're running a Group I oil, or a Group II under treated with DI, the Sequence IIIF, Sequence IIIG and TU5 are ABSOLUTELY NOT high temperature oxidation tests! The mechanism for viscosity increase is not classic chemical oxidation but vapour-liquid equilibrium based phase separation. Just pull a few test reports. It's all pretty obvious and logical if you know what to look for and can do basic maths. Once you suss what's happening and why, you realise that these tests are oil consumption tests both in terms of viscometrics and piston cleanliness.
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
So 5.19 litres of oil loss would be deemed a valid test but 5.21 litres might give rise to concerns regarding test validity? Have you any idea how ridiculous that statement sounds?
As regards the IIIF/IIIG not being an oil consumption test, this is surely just playing with words. Of course it's an oil consumption test! Oil consumption is a measured, quoted and specifically limited test parameter. The plain fact is that the industry just wants to shut it's eyes to the issue of oil consumption as evidenced by the excessively lax 5.2 litre limit. It does this by forever switching the focus to viscosity increase even though viscosity increase hasn't been a field issue for donkey's years. Read BITOG. Oil consumption is a concern. Viscosity increase isn't!
It's unfair of me to pick on an API test because the Europeans are just as bad. The TU5 has from its inception been officially described as a High Temperature Deposits Test but I don't think I've ever seen a TU5 ever fail on deposits primarily because any oil laden blow-by is NOT routed back to the intake system. But wow, just look at how fast this test empties the sump of oil! But are we bothered about oil consumption? Nooooooo...
Talking of the TU5, it's a shame we don't have any TU5 data to look at (come on guys, take the hint!)...
Oil consumption has been proven may times to have more factors than the oil. The engine build and driving style are much bigger factors.
The IIIG test isn't an oil consumption test at all. It is a high temperature oxidation (hence kv40 increase is a limit), piston cleanliness test (Deposit and hot rings) with pass fail results.
The oil consumption data is just an additional result.
The method of oil consumption obviously has an effect on Kv40...
Groan...why is it that so many formulators cannot see what's right under their nose???
Unless you're running a Group I oil, or a Group II under treated with DI, the Sequence IIIF, Sequence IIIG and TU5 are ABSOLUTELY NOT high temperature oxidation tests! The mechanism for viscosity increase is not classic chemical oxidation but vapour-liquid equilibrium based phase separation. Just pull a few test reports. It's all pretty obvious and logical if you know what to look for and can do basic maths. Once you suss what's happening and why, you realise that these tests are oil consumption tests both in terms of viscometrics and piston cleanliness.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: KingCake
1. Throw you consumer reports in the garbage.
2. Hondas use oil off the lot. Nothing to do with oil.
3. Most of the 'deposit issues' are with direct injection engines.
Your 2. is news to me and the eight Hondas we've owned.
You might be well advised to avoid posting when you don't know what you're talking about.
Any decently maintained Honda doesn't require any adds during the course of an OCI, or that has at least been my experience in more than a million miles with these engines in our personal use.
There are 3 Hondas that have been under my car since new (or very low mileage). 2 out of the 3 vehicles require top-offs between services once they passed the 50-60k mark.
The 2012 Civic requires a quart every 8,000 miles. It has received Mobil 1 or Mobil 1 Extended Performance 0w20 since new at 6,000 mile intervals. The consumption did not start until about 50k.
The 2011 Accord I4 needs a quart every 6,000 miles. It has always received 0w20 synthetic or Honda 0w20 synthetic blend per the Maint Minder, which is about every 10,000 miles. The consumption started at about 60k on this car.
Originally Posted By: KingCake
1. Throw you consumer reports in the garbage.
2. Hondas use oil off the lot. Nothing to do with oil.
3. Most of the 'deposit issues' are with direct injection engines.
Your 2. is news to me and the eight Hondas we've owned.
You might be well advised to avoid posting when you don't know what you're talking about.
Any decently maintained Honda doesn't require any adds during the course of an OCI, or that has at least been my experience in more than a million miles with these engines in our personal use.
There are 3 Hondas that have been under my car since new (or very low mileage). 2 out of the 3 vehicles require top-offs between services once they passed the 50-60k mark.
The 2012 Civic requires a quart every 8,000 miles. It has received Mobil 1 or Mobil 1 Extended Performance 0w20 since new at 6,000 mile intervals. The consumption did not start until about 50k.
The 2011 Accord I4 needs a quart every 6,000 miles. It has always received 0w20 synthetic or Honda 0w20 synthetic blend per the Maint Minder, which is about every 10,000 miles. The consumption started at about 60k on this car.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked