2018 Q50 Red Sport 400 Red Line 0w-40 6,300 miles; ongoing UOAs

[nighamreuki]

I made my share of mistakes and wrong assumptions. My interest in lubricants stems from wanting to do better maintenance on our vehicles so they last longer. Given the past and current economic situation, I want to get everything I can out of them. The only way to learn was to read past threads that longtime, established members of this forum participated in over the years.

I think it's becoming a recurring theme that someone posts a UOA and expects the members of this community to validate their conclusions. That won't happen.

Though I can't fault the OP 100% for his conclusions because Blackstone themselves and other oil analysis labs push this narrative that somehow you can conclude the wear that's going on in any of your powertrain components based on a $38 oil analysis. Or in his case, it was $58 since he asked for TBN if the price didn't go up, like with everything these days. At the end of the day, they are a business making money off people and businesses who want their oil samples analyzed, so they're incentivized to market themselves to everyone, even if it means practicing a bit of guerilla marketing.

I concluded that Castrol EDGE 0W-40 held its viscosity better than other motor oils in this UOA series. Even my conclusion could be 100% wrong because we don't know how each sample was taken under what conditions. Was the engine briefly started, the vehicle moved into a garage, stoped, and lifted? That right there could skew the flashpoint, fuel dilution, and viscosity numbers.


Sir, you may want to re-read my comments again. I posted that screenshot straight from the 2018 Q50 owner's manual, along with a shortlist of excellent and highly available lubricants. The GTR VR38 specifies Mobil 1 FS 0W-40 for street use and Motul NISMO Competition type 2193E 5W40 for track use. Mobil 1 FS 0W-40 and 5W-40 would be excellent choices. Once again, the manufacturer recommends only 0W-20 for your engine, with a wider range of options for the Daimler-Benz sourced 2.0T engine.

Bellow are the specs for the Schaeffer 9000 0W-40 lube. Please look very closely what they say. Once again, it is your engine, so of course you will do as you see fit.

View attachment 84796

i don't disagree with anything that you're saying except that Nissan does not mention JASO anywhere in the manual for VR30, - "only engine oils that meet the American Petroleum Institute (API) certification or International Lubricant Standardization and Approval Committee (ILSAC) certification and SAE viscosity standard"

cliffnotes from manual about VR30 engine oil:
0w-20 recommended -"in order to improve Fuel Economy"
meet API service NS and ILSAC with viscosity range, from the screenshot.

and i 100% agree that Castrol held up the best looking at the UOA

 

[Deleted member 89374]

Nissan does not mention JASO anywhere in the manual for VR30

My mistake, I was thinking of MB approvals since I know for a fact that the Schaeffer 9000 is not in that class. That was a mistake, it actually refers to motorcycle lubes.

i have owned TGDI vehicles before and 0W oils don't fate well in them TBH. If you want something that holds up, go for something that starts with 5W. If you like boutique lubes, give RedLine 5W-30 a shot. It has very low VI content. Mobil 1 FS 5W-40 is another good option.

 

[travis8352]

Manual gives few options for Oil, 0-30. through 5w-40. if was driving like my mom id stick with 0w-20 because that weight prioritizes fuel econ. you can see that Iron and Copper were the highest with that oil with shortest interval.
I'll Run Schaeffer's for 5K and see how it wears, i had pretty good results with it on my VQ37(i know NA vs turbo). all 4 latest were same same oil. trade the car in with 133K miles, and it ran like the first day

I cant wait to see the schaeffers uoa. Dont see to many bad showings for schaeffers

 

[Deleted member 89374]

I cant wait to see the schaeffers uoa. Dont see to many bad showings for schaeffers

Schaeffer 9000 0W-40 is formulated for HEMIs. It even carries the so-called "MS" approvals. If you go on Lubrizol 360, you can find all significantly recognized industry approvals and what they entail, except for Chrysler MS approvals. Anyway, I doubt it'll fare well in a twin-turbo engine that loves to fry the VI out of the lube until it shears at least one grade below.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Going back to Castrol for at least a few interval @6K miles
would be nice for Iron and Silver to drop

View attachment 84382

Differences between the 0w40's are statistically insignificant. The LM 5w40 did slightly better due to the shorter OCI and by virtue it's a 5w-X so it probably contains less VII's compared to the 0w-40s..

 

[dnewton3]

The LM 5w40 did slightly better due to the shorter OCI and by virtue it's a 5w-X so it probably contains less VII's compared to the 0w-40s..

Do PAO-based lubes have VIIs? I thought the multi-vis PAOs were blends of mono-vis base stocks that each peak their capability at different temps? For example, a 5w-40 may be a combination of three base grades (each a PAO); something akin to a 5w + 20w + 40w. I know PAO-based lubes use a small amount of group II or III to carry the additive elements as well, but the primary "grade" characteristics are achieved by using mono-grade PAO of diff viscosities. Am I misinformed?

 

[Deleted member 89374]

Do PAO-based lubes have VIIs? I thought the multi-vis PAOs were blends of mono-vis base stocks that each peak their capability at different temps? For example, a 5w-40 may be a combination of three base grades (each a PAO); something akin to a 5w + 20w + 40w. I know PAO-based lubes use a small amount of group II or III to carry the additive elements as well, but the primary "grade" characteristics are achieved by using mono-grade PAO of diff viscosities. Am I misinformed?

Would this apply to a 0W-40 as well?

 

[OVERKILL]

Do PAO-based lubes have VIIs? I thought the multi-vis PAOs were blends of mono-vis base stocks that each peak their capability at different temps? For example, a 5w-40 may be a combination of three base grades (each a PAO); something akin to a 5w + 20w + 40w. I know PAO-based lubes use a small amount of group II or III to carry the additive elements as well, but the primary "grade" characteristics are achieved by using mono-grade PAO of diff viscosities. Am I misinformed?

Yes, absolutely they do, just like any other oil. But, they can often be blended with slightly heavier base stocks due to the superior cold temperature performance attributes of PAO. They also require very little, if any, in the way of PPD's because they lack the wax necessary to form crystals. This is why their cold temperature performance is so predictable.

Here are some example blends from XOM using PAO with a bit of ester to provide additive solubility. You can see the VII dose (Infineum VM) concentrations as well:

 

[dnewton3]

Thanks for the info.
Q ... do the PAO based finished products have less VII than other choices (such as group II+, III)? If so, to what degree?

 

[OVERKILL]

Thanks for the info.
Q ... do the PAO based finished products have less VII than other choices (such as group II+, III)? If so, to what degree?

If all else is equal, typically, yes. Because you can start with a heavier base oil blend, you need less VII to hit your target hot viscosity. Now, that's not always the case though because sometimes oils are blended with other things in mind (like a target VI) that can impact how the product is formulated, but, as a general rule of thumb, yes, with using PAO, you have the ability to use less VII in the finished product than with lower group (waxy) bases that will require PPD's and be of a certain visc to meet the target Winter rating.

Here are some Group III (Yubase) blending examples:

Which we can compare to the PAO and AN based 5w-40 shown here, which has a lower VII content:

Here are a few more:

Which you can compare to the first chart I posted. You can see that VII load is also considerably lower. Look at the 0w-20, 6.2% VII with Group III vs 2.6% with PAO.

 

[zigziggy]

Going back to Castrol for at least a few interval @6K miles

Hey OP! Have you done another OC/analysis since last post? I'm getting ready to do my annual OC on my 19 q50 (VR) and I am curious which oil I should go with this time. I don't drive the Q all that often due to working from home but last time I did my annual OC was on 8/21/21 right at 26,800 mi using Valvoline Advanced Full Synthetic 5W-30 w/bigger Nissan oil filter 15208-9E01A. Currently, I am at 28,123 mi and from keeping up with your posts, something tells me I should consider different/better oil for my VR. This may be irrelevant, but I am using the same oil on our daily beater 2016 Kia Soul and from the analysis there, that oil thinned out a bit within 6mo/
BTW - this is our Kia's analysis - https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...lvoline-5w30-advanced-fs-2-784-mi-6mo.355998/

 

[nighamreuki]

looks like Castrol is the one to beat in this Engine
Current fill is Dealer Mobil1 0w-40

 

[nighamreuki]

Hey OP! Have you done another OC/analysis since last post? I'm getting ready to do my annual OC on my 19 q50 (VR) and I am curious which oil I should go with this time. I don't drive the Q all that often due to working from home but last time I did my annual OC was on 8/21/21 right at 26,800 mi using Valvoline Advanced Full Synthetic 5W-30 w/bigger Nissan oil filter 15208-9E01A. Currently, I am at 28,123 mi and from keeping up with your posts, something tells me I should consider different/better oil for my VR. This may be irrelevant, but I am using the same oil on our daily beater 2016 Kia Soul and from the analysis there, that oil thinned out a bit within 6mo/
BTW - this is our Kia's analysis - https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...lvoline-5w30-advanced-fs-2-784-mi-6mo.355998/

yup, check post above

 

[zigziggy]

yup, check post above

What happened with your turbos? You didn't seem to have any coolant in your previous reports or did you just change them just because before warranty ran out?

 

[dnewton3]

looks like Castrol is the one to beat in this Engine

I disagree ...
What it looks like is anecdotal points of data which show moderate variation in Fe wear rates. (All the other metals are low enough to be considered noise). There is way too little data to make any sound conclusion as to brand/grade of oil; nowhere enough info to make any kind of a statistical analysis with any manner of credibility.

What you can say is that all these oils tried seem to be "good enough" to produce similar results.

 

[nighamreuki]

What happened with your turbos? You didn't seem to have any coolant in your previous reports or did you just change them just because before warranty ran out?

Rattle off boost

 

[nighamreuki]

I disagree ...
What it looks like is anecdotal points of data which show moderate variation in Fe wear rates. (All the other metals are low enough to be considered noise). There is way too little data to make any sound conclusion as to brand/grade of oil; nowhere enough info to make any kind of a statistical analysis with any manner of credibility.

What you can say is that all these oils tried seem to be "good enough" to produce similar results.

Considering Castrol is at half the price of others and has at least as good wear numbers..... Redline might be slightly better, very big maybe.
LiquidMolly was the only outlier, as complete failure, and carried some wear into the next Castrol runs

 

[OVERKILL]

Considering Castrol is at half the price of others and has at least as good wear numbers..... Redline might be slightly better, very big maybe.
LiquidMolly was the only outlier, as complete failure, and carried some wear into the next Castrol runs

As Dave mentioned, you are reading FAR too much into these UOA's, they are not a tool to contrast oils to each other.

 

[kschachn]

As Dave mentioned, you are reading FAR too much into these UOA's, they are not a tool to contrast oils to each other.

Almost an understatement but I think it is falling on deaf ears.

 

[dnewton3]

Just to Clarify ...

My point is that there's far, far, far too little data in this series of UOAs to make any solid conclusions. This UOA series is a micro-data effort, and it's woefully short in data.

UOAs most certainly can be used to make comparisons/contrasts of lubes, but it takes WAY MORE TIME AND MONEY than any BITOGer is going to put into the effort. It would take a MINIMUM of 30 samples for EACH lube considered.

There are 5 different lubes in this UOA series. Those lubes should have 30 samples EACH. The OCIs could be set at 5k miles.
- each lube should have 150k miles of "testing" to show the true average and standard deviation with enough data to be credible
- this "experiement" would take 750k miles to test all 5 lubes. It would take 300k miles just to test any two of them.
- each full lube test would also take 30 UOAs worth of monetary investment (if using Blackstone, it would take nearly $1000 for each lube tested)
- if you drove 30k miles a year, it would take FIVE YEARS worth of testing just complete full test for one lube; it would take TEN years to compare/contrast any two.

It's not that UOAs can't be used to determine the relative performance of one product to another (micro-data study); they most certainly can. It's that people are WAY too lazy and cheap to do it correctly. And therefore any UOAs we see here on BITOG are pretty much worthless for making any determination as to what's "better" or "best" because they lack the amount of data to make such a conclusion.

UOAs can also be used to understand macro-data conditions. This is where BITOGers at least can glean some info. There is NO ability to say which lube is better or best in a macro-data study. But these type studies have value in that you can see how your individual choices (equipment and lubes) compare/contrast to those in use everywhere else. You can see if your experience is "normal" or not, given the variability of inputs from typical life experiences. But IN NO WAY can macro-data be used to say this lube is better or worse than that lube in this type study.


It's not that UOAs cannot be used to determine some important things; they can. The real problem is that people here use them as toys. Rather, they are tools and need to be used within the confines of their capability, and more importantly, the proper processing and use of the data is paramount to revealing a credible result. This is the downfall that permeates BITOG; far too little data and far too little understanding of what can/cannot be done with that data.


I believe that Overkill and Kschachn both understand this; just wanted to clarify for the masses.