Can Engine Oil Help Prevent Carbon Build Up?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by pitzel
Originally Posted by Gokhan
They also showed that the main source of IVD is PCV, as IVD decreased by 2/3 when PCV was disconnected.
Evaporated oil goes through the PCV. So of course if you inhibit the PCV system, the evaporated oil cannot hit the intake valves. You can go onto YouTube (for example) and find examples of people emptying their catch cans -- the catch cans largely being filled with material that does not resemble normal crankcase motor oil, but rather a material with considerably less viscosity than what would be found in an engine. The engine effectively operating as a sort of fractional distillation apparatus, in combination with the recirculation of combustion byproducts that have leaked through the rings.

Do you trust the analysis of people with no scientific background on YouTube instead of a systematic scientific study by scientists in a major oil-additive company?

This is their direct quote:

[Linked Image from lh3.googleusercontent.com]

Source: Formation of intake valve deposits in gasoline direct-injection engines, Gregory Guinther and Scott Smith, Afton Chemical Corporation

Once again: The stuff that comes from the PCV and deposits on the intake valves is liquid-oil mist with the entire additive package, not distilled-oil vapor that does not contain any ash deposits.

If the YouTuber discovered that the stuff in the catch can is thinner than the oil, that's because it contains the hydrocarbons in the blowby. That's the whole point of the PCV system -- to burn the hydrocarbons in the blowby -- isn't it?
 
Like I said it makes sense to me as explained. Even the theory about higher Noack having some type of evaporative affect. And yes I do prefer to get my info from a scientific source that set out to uncover the issue. I appreciate you posting it over and over again. I just ran into one of your comments on it a few weeks ago. It would be nice if one of the big companies spoke more directly about the issue and exactly how they are formulating to reduce the issue but it could just be too early in the game for that type of development. Or they don't feel the need to comment on what they may deem proprietary information.
 
Originally Posted by Gokhan

Do you trust the analysis of people with no scientific background on YouTube instead of a systematic scientific study by scientists in a major oil-additive company?


I hadn't seen any 'analysis' on YouTube, but rather, just visual evidence of the fact that what is extracted from the catch cans is quite different from ordinary crankcase oil.

We know that additives such as ZDDP and other organometallic compounds can be significantly volatile in and of themselves. Without having access to the entire paper, its not possible to comment on whether the test protocol properly accounted for such. We do know that ZDDP boil-off rates are much higher earlier in service than later -- that's been well studied.

Certainly a good 'take-away' point is that its probably best to use the highest quality base oils as possible, rather than relying upon extensive additions of additive packages to impute properties to the motor oil that do not naturally exist in the base oil. For instance, VII's, pour point depressants, etc.

An operator that is willing to embrace/accept long drains, probably will also accept paying more for their oil. Able to justify the additional cost of the lubricant by increased in-service life.

I'm not convinced that OEMs are obsessed with this stuff, except to ensure that the recommendations do not cause them reputational liability.
 
Originally Posted by pitzel
... You can go onto YouTube (for example) and find examples of people emptying their catch cans -- the catch cans largely being filled with material that does not resemble normal crankcase motor oil, but rather a material with considerably less viscosity than what would be found in an engine. ...
Just to point out the obvious ... What comes from the catch cans is often mostly condensed water, especially during cold weather.
 
Originally Posted by pitzel


Certainly a good 'take-away' point is that its probably best to use the highest quality base oils as possible, rather than relying upon extensive additions of additive packages to impute properties to the motor oil that do not naturally exist in the base oil. For instance, VII's, pour point depressants, etc.


That's something I can definitely agree with you on.

With a TGDI engine like my fiancee's Civic 1.5T, OCIs just don't need to be longer than 5-6K, due to the potential for fuel dilution.

When it's out of warranty, I'll most likely be looking to use a low-volatility, low-VM-content 5W-20 or 10W-30 with an excellent base oil.
 
Interesting. Thanks Gokahn for the information you provided.

I still think Mobil was ahead of the curve on this. Since 2012 their oils have had a SA of .8 while using high quality base oils (GTL/PAO/AN's etc.).
 
Lubrizol did study long time ago using VW502.00 (high-SAPS) and VW 504.00/507.00 oils. VW502.00 had 167% higher IVD.
Problem with Low-SAPS oils is sulphur in gas, especially in Honda 1.5T. If local gas station has ULSG, then it should be fine. If not, then it is a problem, and big one.
 
Originally Posted by john_pifer
Originally Posted by pitzel


Certainly a good 'take-away' point is that its probably best to use the highest quality base oils as possible, rather than relying upon extensive additions of additive packages to impute properties to the motor oil that do not naturally exist in the base oil. For instance, VII's, pour point depressants, etc.


That's something I can definitely agree with you on.

With a TGDI engine like my fiancee's Civic 1.5T, OCIs just don't need to be longer than 5-6K, due to the potential for fuel dilution.

When it's out of warranty, I'll most likely be looking to use a low-volatility, low-VM-content 5W-20 or 10W-30 with an excellent base oil.

I would still do UOA.
In 2015 (though at that time we did not have ULSG) I used Mobil1 ESP Formula 5W30, and oil was shot after 3k pretty much and EA888 in my Tiguan is nowhere near fuel dilution monster like 1.5T in Honda.
 
Pitzel : If you drive a severe service schedule (3,750 miles per Hyundai 2.4L GDI engine owners manual) using a good D1/Gen 2 synthetic oil - is there any reason to stretch your OCI beyond what the OM recommends ?
Originally Posted by pitzel
Originally Posted by Gokhan

Do you trust the analysis of people with no scientific background on YouTube instead of a systematic scientific study by scientists in a major oil-additive company?


I hadn't seen any 'analysis' on YouTube, but rather, just visual evidence of the fact that what is extracted from the catch cans is quite different from ordinary crankcase oil.

We know that additives such as ZDDP and other organometallic compounds can be significantly volatile in and of themselves. Without having access to the entire paper, its not possible to comment on whether the test protocol properly accounted for such. We do know that ZDDP boil-off rates are much higher earlier in service than later -- that's been well studied.

Certainly a good 'take-away' point is that its probably best to use the highest quality base oils as possible, rather than relying upon extensive additions of additive packages to impute properties to the motor oil that do not naturally exist in the base oil. For instance, VII's, pour point depressants, etc.

An operator that is willing to embrace/accept long drains, probably will also accept paying more for their oil. Able to justify the additional cost of the lubricant by increased in-service life.

I'm not convinced that OEMs are obsessed with this stuff, except to ensure that the recommendations do not cause them reputational liability.
 
Originally Posted by pitzel
Originally Posted by john_pifer
You're saying more frequent oil changes cause more intake tract buildup?
How so?


Virgin motor oil, prior to significant in-service use, has the highest rate of evaporation. So when an engine is exposed to longer OCI's, less initial evaporation takes place under engine operating conditions, and hence, fewer intake valve deposits due to such.

The OEMs have invested considerable resources to prod their customers into using longer OCI's, *and* have mandated far higher quality oils that are less susceptible to early evaporation. They've also cracked down considerably on their own dealer networks that frequently filled cars with out of spec lubricants for cost efficiency or marketing purposes.

A big problem for the OEMs in replicating the intake building issues was simply replicating the issue. As OEM engineers simply could not fully appreciate how engines are maintained in "the real world" which often includes the use of poor quality lubricants changed overly frequently. When the topic came up a few years back, I did a post here where I meta-analyzed a several hundred page thread of an enthusiast forum in which there were complaints of the intake clogging -- every last complainer had a high likelihood of maintenance that was not per spec, ie: overly frequent oil changes and/or high susceptibility to lubricant fraud.

Quote
What comes through the PCV is liquid oil mist, not evaporated oil vapor. Therefore, Noack volatility has no direct effect on the intake valve deposits (IVD).


Of course there's evaporated oil vapor in the PCV gas stream. And if "Noack volatility" has no effect, where the heck does the oil evaporated in a NOACK volatility test end up, if not recirculated back into the intake.


i used to change with m1 every 1500miles in my extreme obsession days in my 09 cts 3.6 di,add that to very short trips and now i see why i started to have cold start misfires,
and lost 2 converters beacuse of that also? both in the 70-80k miles
 
Originally Posted by ChemLabNL
Good Find.

Ideally you want a Noack under 9...Which makes QSUD 10w30 at $20 at Walmart a bargain ILSAC.

It's apples vs. oranges to compare the Noack of a 10W-30.

The reason why OEMs care about Noack is the base-oil quality. However, when CCS increases, Noack decreases naturally; so, a 10W-30 having 9% Noack doesn't mean it has exceptional base-oil quality. You need to compare oils with similar CCS. That's one reason why 10W-30 is not part of the dexos1 spec, as you can have a conventional 10W-30 with 13% Noack of dexos1, but it would have an inferior base oil that wouldn't last through the OCI. (In contrast you can't have a conventional 5W-30 with 13% Noack, and it can only be a synthetic or synthetic blend.)

As I explained earlier, lower Noack does not directly help with IVD. You need high base-oil quality and low SA among other things. Yes, base-oil quality is related to Noack, but again, you should compare oils with similar CCS.
 
That's why I'm bummed that Mobil 1 changed the formula of ESP 5w30. The original formula, which I'm currently using in the Corvette (and still have 30L left for the future), has an SA of only 0.6%. The new formula is now 0.8%. I don't know of any other readily available oil that has an SA of only 0.6%, and I think this low level is very beneficial for my DI engine in my Corvette.
 
Originally Posted by Patman
That's why I'm bummed that Mobil 1 changed the formula of ESP 5w30. The original formula, which I'm currently using in the Corvette (and still have 30L left for the future), has an SA of only 0.6%. The new formula is now 0.8%. I don't know of any other readily available oil that has an SA of only 0.6%, and I think this low level is very beneficial for my DI engine in my Corvette.

.... or maybe it was 0.8% all-along and someone reported the posted number of 0.6% as being wrong.

A similar oil that I'm interested in is Rotella Multi-Vehicle 5w30 (T6 MV). I wonder what it's current SA is.
 
Originally Posted by Triple_Se7en

.... or maybe it was 0.8% all-along and someone reported the posted number of 0.6% as being wrong.



I doubt that. This oil was sold all around the world and every technical data page from every country showed the same number. Independent testing showed it to have a very low noack value around 5.6% too. It was a great oil, I'm not sure why they reformulated it to be just a bit less impressive.
confused2.gif
 
*While I have used M1 10W30 before in my GDI engine Sonata - I just figured it to be better to use a quality D1 / Gen 2 rated synthetic oil to eliminate the guess work as to what quality the base oil may be in the 10W30 synthetic offerings .
 
Originally Posted by buster
Originally Posted by ChemLabNL
What's wrong with QSUD 10w30 base oil ?

QSUD 10w30 Spec Sheet:

https://www.shell-livedocs.com/data/published/en-US/a75302e0-836a-48f0-aa00-bc1b1664fb92.pdf
Noack of 5.0%.
shocked2.gif


5% Noack is not surprising for a 10W-30, as Noack is inversely proportional to the CCS (cold-cranking simulator) viscosity.

QSUD 10W-30 is probably an excellent oil with a GTL base oil. I estimated its HTHS viscosity at 3.2 cP, base-oil viscosity at 2.75 cP, and VII content at 2.0%.

Estimated base-oil viscosity and VII content of selected oils
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top