Any harm from Motul 300v?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I mean, if we have to go to Porsche's best engines to find examples, I feel like that kind of proves the point.

...But don't those engines have relatively short rebuild intervals, too?

I was thinking S2000. Not sure how well those engines hold up.



Ignoring Porsche's IMS problem, of course.
eek.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Hujan
It sounds like both of you actually like the Castrol TWS in this car. If so, I'm curious what you think might be behind the widespread premature bearing wear in these engines (taking as true that it exists).


I've got no dog in the fight really, I just think that BMW specified it to mask an inherent problem. Thus I wouldn't really want to stray too far from what they recommend as a bandaid.

Checked the link that doodfood provided, and didn't like the shiny "bearing surfaces" on the sides of the big end. Clearly there is touching when running...and that's a no-no.

DSC04273.JPG


The oil has to escape this area and not be trapped. By trapping it, the oil that's escaping the high pressure areas (the areas of that are wiped) will be more likely to be recirculated back to the unloaded side where the fresh oil comes in.

End result is that the bearing thinks it's getting a higher supply oil temperature.

Here's what supply temperature and RPM do in a big end...popular misconception is that the oil "carries away heat", but it's actually largely generated within the bearing through viscous drag.

big%20end%20temperature.jpg


The number on the right axis is the big end oil supply temperature, the number on the left is bearing temperature...the oil exit temperature is higher. If the bearing was rained properly (adequate side clearance, the bearing temperature is the average of the supply and exit temperatures.

The "150C supply" temperature is missing the "full load" piece at the top end because it failed, and failed repeatedly in the paper (title at the top of the pic)...They survived at light/medium loads, even at high RPM...couldn't cut it when the full load was applied.

I think that the failures are a perfect storm of radial clearance, side clearance, and piston/bore alignment, causing overheating and failure of the oil film...

The oil with high HTHS is there to bandaid that if possible, but depending on the car, the day, and maybe a transition from light load high revs (I can see 135 oil temperatures just holding 100km/hr at 4,000RPM in my 3.8L V-6), and sudden application of power, the stars line up and bearings fail.

The pics aren't sudden failure, they are repeated minor rubs causing wear.


Thanks for your response.

It does appear that most if not all of the bearings pulled from these motors have shown wear particularly on the uppermost of the two bearing shells (what you call the "big side"). When you compare the photos to the photos of different types of bearing wear in, for example, Mahle/Clevite literature, the wear patterns are pretty consistent with what they term "insufficient lubrication" (as opposed to, for example, contaminants in the oil).

It does make sense that the oil for this car would want to maximize HTHS. Finding an oil that can "do it all" in the sense of having good cold flow and yet still offer high HTHS is what initially led me to ester-based oils and specifically Redline. Their 5w40 reports HTHS of 4.4, which is a tick below the stable 4.5 of the Castrol TWS, but with significantly better cold flow (97 cSt at 40 C instead of 160). Again, though, I am a touch skeptical of Redline's published data, though I'll allow that that's mostly based on a gut sense and not any hard data.

In the long term, I plan to do a dedicated engine build on this car. It will entail a slight increase in displacement (from 4.0L to 4.2L), but the primary goal will be to get the rod side clearance and bearing clearances (both rod and main) exactly where they need to be. In the meantime, I replaced the OE bearings with bearings that have a dry-film coating on them. The bearing thicknesses were adjusted to account for the coating. My hope is this combined with a good oil choice and proper maintenance will keep the engine intact until I'm read to do the build.
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Where did you see that TWS has a "stable" HTHS of 4.5?


bpbbydavro mentioned "around" 5.1...and I'm betting that he would know .
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow

I'd make the pick based on HTHS, and picking one at the upper end for this engine.

You could go nuts with Mobil 1 V-Twin, which is in the 6 range, nearly all base oil effect and little action from the VIIs...not my recommendation, but a possibility...buckets of additive in that one too...

Mobil's 15W50 is advertised at 4.5cP, sort of where I'd consider starting personally.





Yep, and the evidence seems to be that the OEM Castrol TWS 10w60 thins out to an HTHSV of about 4.5 in operation. Plenty of 5w40s are right around there, so choosing something for a motor that loves to be wound out shouldn't be too hard.

Just don't forget about the variable displacement oil pump in the M3's motor.
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Where did you see that TWS has a "stable" HTHS of 4.5?



Based on the UOAs, that seems to be the consensus. It starts around 5.4 and quickly thins out to around 4.5, then holds steady.
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Where did you see that TWS has a "stable" HTHS of 4.5?


Edit: Nevermind, "dparm" beat me to it.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Where did you see that TWS has a "stable" HTHS of 4.5?



Based on the UOAs, that seems to be the consensus. It starts around 5.4 and quickly thins out to around 4.5, then holds steady.


Never seen a UOA that contains HTHS, and beleive that would be difficult, as insolubles (and who knows what else) would mess up the test.

A reasonable rule of thumb is that HTHS loss is around 50% if KV100 loss, so the UOAs must be showing a 23+% loss in KV100 (22.7 down to 17.4)...
 
Amazing people are running used oil HTHS. It's not something people normally run as any fuel dilution can have a big impact.

Some OEMs ask for post KO30 HTHS but this is minimal.

Has anyone got any UOA to suppose these claims. I'm not sure why people think a 10W-60 shears so much. They don't have much more polymer than a 0W-40

A 5W-40 is typically 3.6-3.8 cP. anything more than that is likely a very thick 40 grade and using too much polymer
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Leonardo629
Hujan, since you are willing to consider 300V and its price point, have you considered Mobil 1 racing 0W50?


Mobil's data sheet for that oil shows an HTHS of 3.8...if true, I wouldn't touch it with a stick.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Leonardo629
Hujan, since you are willing to consider 300V and its price point, have you considered Mobil 1 racing 0W50?


Mobil's data sheet for that oil shows an HTHS of 3.8...if true, I wouldn't touch it with a stick.


That's my exact concern about M1 0w40; HTHS of 3.8 in this engine has me concerned.
 
Originally Posted By: BobFout
Have you considered Mobil 1 5w50 or 15w50?


I hadn't considered those, but I will take a look. Everything I'd read seemed to suggest that M1 0w-40 was their halo product and that the quality of the other grades of M1 was not necessarily the same, though I'm not sure whether there is any merit to that or not. But the 5w-50 looks pretty good, actually. An HTHS of 4.4 and 108 cSt at 40 C. Not bad.
 
Hujan,
given your concerns, as I mentioned previously, the 15W50 would be a good option too...

What's your concern with KV40 ?

It (and 15W) won't be an issue in San Diego.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Hujan,
given your concerns, as I mentioned previously, the 15W50 would be a good option too...

What's your concern with KV40 ?

It (and 15W) won't be an issue in San Diego.


Thanks for your post.

Regarding KV40, I (perhaps wrongly) regarded the kinematic viscosity at 40 C to be an indication of cold flow (i.e., viscosity of the oil during "cold start" when the engine and fluids are at ambient temp from non-use).

There is little question in my mind that there is excessive bearing-on-crank contact in the S65, causing excessive wear. But the unresolved question is whether that wear is being caused on startup or when the car is under high RPM stress. If the former, you'd want a thinner oil with better cold flow; if the latter, you'd want a thicker oil with as much HTHS as possible.

My concern with KV40 as a perceived indication into cold flow is because I have largely been operating under the assumption it was the former (wear on startup), but as I was unsure, I was trying to hedge my bet by finding an oil that maximized HTHS but with better cold flow than the Castrol TWS. I hope this makes sense.

Is there a better way to determine an oil's cold flow than its kinematic viscosity at 40 C?

All that said, you are starting to turn my thinking around and, frankly, I don't mind experimenting with some 15w50s, provided the cold flow is no worse than the 10w60. I am looking into some now and agree they don't look bad. You might be on to something with 15w50:

Castrol Edge Pro 10w60: HTHS 5.2*; KV40 160

Motul 15w50: HTHS 5.3; KV40 122

Redline 15w50: HTHS 5.8; KV40 138

Mobil 1 15w50: HTHS 4.5; KV40 125

*5.2 is the highest I've seen the HTHS reported for Castrol Edge Pro 10w60. This is in line with the earlier estimate in this thread and errs on the safe side.
 
Last edited:
Hujan,
your engine is lubricated with a postive displacement pump, which means that each revolution of the crankshaft, the same volume of oil is pumped. This is on the proviso that the oil is "pumpable".

If you started any of the above oils at 40C, the time to get oil to the big end/cams would be virtually identical, regardless of the viscosity of any of the individual oils. The pump moves a given volume, it's displacing air, and will fill at pretty close to the same rate.

Pumpable...it's half of what the "W" part of the grade gives you. There's a couple of different failure modes that cause an oil to be unpumpable. First is that the oil is too thick to flow into the pick-up, and the other is that it's too thick to get reasonably to the oil pump through the pick-up, and the oil pump starts pulling the oil column apart, leading to no pumping.

These failure modes are modelled by the "MRV" test, which requires the oils to be no thicker than a number (very very big number (60,000cst), and to display no "yield stress" at that temperature. That latter is where an oil sort of "breaks" like an iceberg before flowing at really cold temperatures.

Now these test temperatures are as follows...
0W - (-)40C
5W - (-)35C
10W- (-)30C
15W- (-)25C
20W- (-)20C
25W- (-)15C

Looking at wiki etc. A 25W would still be capable in San Diego. I'm not, and wouldn't recommend it, but I HAVE used 25W70 down to about 15F, and it still worked...noticeably slower cranking (that's residual oil on the bearings/pistons, resisting movement), and economy was poor, but it still did the job, and got to the top end of my old J-Car wagon).

But a 10W or 15W would be fine for your regional use.
 
I quite like these Esso videos, on cold start.

It's been misinterpreted on BITOG and elsewhere that these videos "prove" that a 0W always "flows" better than the other W grades.



The actual takeaway from the video starts at about 2 mins 30 seconds.

Note, that the oils are at -35C, the test temperature for the pumpability of a 5W. The 0W "flows" very well...the 5W would still get the job done, and the 10W, and 15W are below their test certification temperature.

There's a rule of thumb that 5C temperature rise halves the viscosity at these temps...move the temperatures up 5C, and you would expect the 5W to look much more like the 0W did...it's warmer, the oil is thinner (still thick).

At about the 5 minute mark, they show the starting of a test engine, and the ability to pull the oil into the pump and deliver it to the cam bearings...can see clearly that at -35C, the oil gets to the remote ends of the galleries quite quickly.

At about 6:40, they repeat the test with a 10W...note how poorly it cranks, and poorly the oil flows...5C BELOW it's test temp (they don't do 5W30, not sure why, but I think it's artistic effect)...Actually, that part of the test has a few takaways...as it's cranked, the oil that's still in the bearings and piston skirt areas is thick, and holding engine speed back. Cranking heats and thins this oil, and allows the engine to speed up enough to start.

8:20 is some of the sump action I described in my last post.

Have an oil that's a "W grade" or two lower than the minimum temperature that yo are going to see, and "starvation" during start/warm up is a non issue.
 
Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
I'm not sure why people think a 10W-60 shears so much. They don't have much more polymer than a 0W-40

A 5W-40 is typically 3.6-3.8 cP. anything more than that is likely a very thick 40 grade and using too much polymer


Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
Certainly moving to a thinner oil will help bearings get pressure sooner but dont forget the 10W-60 is almost a 5W already.


BobbyDavro, thanks for this information about Castrol 10W-60, I've used a lot of it over the years. I "graduated" to it after a few years of GTX 20W-50. It was my first synthetic, and I thought it was like magic compared to the old mineral oils.

The Castrol Australia website links to this 10W-60 pds, which lists the HTHS as 5.1, if anybody is interested.


http://msdspds.castrol.com/bpglis/FusionPDS.nsf/Files/1F4BB84BA02C537580257C2B0008CFFB/$File/CASTROL%5FEDGE%5F10W-60%20SN%5F3374734%5F2013%5F11.pdf
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top