Any harm from Motul 300v?

[dparm]

Originally Posted By: Leonardo629
Hujan, since you are willing to consider 300V and its price point, have you considered Mobil 1 racing 0W50?



Way too much ZDDP. You'd have a lot of problems with long term use of that stuff.

 

[Leonardo629]

Many UOAs have shown a significant reduction in bearing wear once switch to a lighter oil like 0W40.

 

[Leonardo629]

Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: Leonardo629
Hujan, since you are willing to consider 300V and its price point, have you considered Mobil 1 racing 0W50?



Way too much ZDDP. You'd have a lot of problems with long term use of that stuff.


Dan, same thing can be said about 300V, but I think Hujan runs Akra Evo, and tracks his M3 often where race oil is needed.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Leonardo629
Many UOAs have shown a significant reduction in bearing wear once switch to a lighter oil like 0W40.

Correction: Replace "significant reduction in bearing wear" with "drop in lead numbers."

 

[dparm]

Originally Posted By: Leonardo629
Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: Leonardo629
Hujan, since you are willing to consider 300V and its price point, have you considered Mobil 1 racing 0W50?



Way too much ZDDP. You'd have a lot of problems with long term use of that stuff.


Dan, same thing can be said about 300V, but I think Hujan runs Akra Evo, and tracks his M3 often where race oil is needed.



Zinc = 1850ppm, Phosphorous = 1750ppm
(street 0w40 is 1000ppm, 1100ppm, respectively)

They explicitly warn about cat converter poisoning.

 

[Leonardo629]

d00df00d, no correction needed

 

[d00df00d]

Oh, you've done well-controlled testing and tear-downs then? Could you post those results?

 

[Leonardo629]

It's all been done on M3post.com, EAS has been doing UOAs and rod bearing replacement for us So. Cal folks. And yes, excessive bearing/copper in UOAs coincide with bearing wear.

 

[d00df00d]

For engines run on the thinner oils, too?

 

[bobbydavro]

Wierd as I would have thought these engines won't use lead bearings. Lead was banned years ago in Europe and this is where the S65 is built.

What oils are the thicker ones on the UOA. Only one of them looks potentially like TWS

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
I would prefer diester 300v or POE RL over adding the solid particulate LiquiMoly - Likely keep the rings freer of deposits as gum can agglomerate even micro solids, and, as even high MoDTC oils fail SAE TEOST deposit test. Now this maybe more of a concern in turbo engine hot spots, or some here rightly ignore deposits if they have some lubricity in boundary conditions on tight clearance parts.
Just some points of interest in your decision making

that is a very good point. RL does not do well in the TEOST test. One of the downfalls of the type of moly they and others uses (Japanese OEMS).

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Leonardo629
Many UOAs have shown a significant reduction in bearing wear once switch to a lighter oil like 0W40.

Correction: Replace "significant reduction in bearing wear" with "drop in lead numbers."


hmm, gone from "normal" to "normal"...very compelling.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
I would prefer diester 300v or POE RL over adding the solid particulate LiquiMoly - Likely keep the rings freer of deposits as gum can agglomerate even micro solids, and, as even high MoDTC oils fail SAE TEOST deposit test. Now this maybe more of a concern in turbo engine hot spots, or some here rightly ignore deposits if they have some lubricity in boundary conditions on tight clearance parts.
Just some points of interest in your decision making

that is a very good point. RL does not do well in the TEOST test. One of the downfalls of the type of moly they and others uses (Japanese OEMS).


Does this go for all viscosity or just 0W20 high Moly oils?

From ConocoPhillips...
http://www.ocsoil.fi/upload/News on Lubes/ILSAC-GF-5.pdf

The TEOST 33C bench test evaluates an engine oil’s tendency to form high-temperature
deposits. This test was originally developed and included in GF-2 to evaluate turbocharger
deposits. It was not part of GF-3 or GF-4, but is back in GF-5 in anticipation of greater use of
turbochargers. Turbochargers allow the automakers to use smaller displacement, more fuel-
efficient engines while still maintaining high power output. Deposit buildup in the turbocharger
bearing areas can lead to loss of engine performance, turbocharger failure and possibly engine
failure. In GF-2, the maximum limit for deposits was 60 mg. For GF-5, the maximum limit is 30
mg (except there is no limit for SAE 0W-20 oils because some Japanese OEMs recommend
SAE 0W-20 oils with high molybdenum content which will not pass this test).

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: Leonardo629
Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: Leonardo629
Hujan, since you are willing to consider 300V and its price point, have you considered Mobil 1 racing 0W50?



Way too much ZDDP. You'd have a lot of problems with long term use of that stuff.


Dan, same thing can be said about 300V, but I think Hujan runs Akra Evo, and tracks his M3 often where race oil is needed.



Zinc = 1850ppm, Phosphorous = 1750ppm
(street 0w40 is 1000ppm, 1100ppm, respectively)

They explicitly warn about cat converter poisoning.


They also warn and state that it is NOT a street oil, and that it has a VERY short OCI (not even 1500 miles??).

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: Hujan
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.


The 300V Trophy 0W-40 is only a .1 greater HTHSV than the M1, before any shearing by either.

 

[Hujan]

Originally Posted By: Leonardo629
Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: Leonardo629
Hujan, since you are willing to consider 300V and its price point, have you considered Mobil 1 racing 0W50?



Way too much ZDDP. You'd have a lot of problems with long term use of that stuff.


Dan, same thing can be said about 300V, but I think Hujan runs Akra Evo, and tracks his M3 often where race oil is needed.


Mostly correct. I am not at all worried about damaging the catalytic converters on the vehicle.

 

[Hujan]

Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
Wierd as I would have thought these engines won't use lead bearings. Lead was banned years ago in Europe and this is where the S65 is built.

What oils are the thicker ones on the UOA. Only one of them looks potentially like TWS


Very astute observation. The bearings were lead in MYs 2008, 2009, and I believe at least part of 2010. Those were supplied by Mahle/Clevite. For sure, MY 2011-2013 used tin bearings. I believe those were supplied by King. Mine were the tin bearings.

 

[Hujan]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: Hujan
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.


The 300V Trophy 0W-40 is only a .1 greater HTHSV than the M1, before any shearing by either.

Yeah, and for that reason I was really looking at 300v 5w-40 much more than the 0w-40.

 

[Hujan]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
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.



Thanks for that link. That video is pretty awesome. It was neat tot see the side-by-side of the different oil weights try to pour in that super cold temperature. It almost looked like you could break a piece off of the last one. I do see the attraction of a 0w from that video, but I get your larger point.

I have some followup questions if I may:

1) Will all oils of the same winter weight grade flow pretty much the same as each other at cold temps? Or does can it adjust up or down based on other factors?

2) Does the second number have any influence on the oil's cold flow? In other words would you expect a 15w40 to flow the same, better, or worse at cold temps than a 10w60?

3) Does comparing the KV40 of two oils give us a sense of, say, their viscosities at 20 C, 10 C, or 0 C? It seems odd to me that one oil would be less viscous than another at 40 C but more viscous than the other at 0 C. Is that accurate?

 

[bluesubie]

Originally Posted By: Hujan

Thanks for that link. That video is pretty awesome. It was neat tot see the side-by-side of the different oil weights try to pour in that super cold temperature. It almost looked like you could break a piece off of the last one. I do see the attraction of a 0w from that video, but I get your larger point.

I have some followup questions if I may:

1) Will all oils of the same winter weight grade flow pretty much the same as each other at cold temps? Or does can it adjust up or down based on other factors?

2) Does the second number have any influence on the oil's cold flow? In other words would you expect a 15w40 to flow the same, better, or worse at cold temps than a 10w60?

3) Does comparing the KV40 of two oils give us a sense of, say, their viscosities at 20 C, 10 C, or 0 C? It seems odd to me that one oil would be less viscous than another at 40 C but more viscous than the other at 0 C. Is that accurate?


To get an idea of oil thickness at different temps, plug in the 40C and 100C viscosities in this oil graph.

http://www.widman.biz/English/Calculators/Graph.html

Yes I was pulling your leg earlier about "cold starts" in (or near) San Diego but I do believe you are focusing too much on cold starts whether they are at 50F or 30F.

As Shannow (I think) pointed out earlier, a 10W's cold cranking viscosity is tested at -25C.
http://www.pqiamerica.com/coldcrank.htm

I know there are some WRX guys running RT6 in -0F temps in the Midwest.