Conventional oils and varnish

[OVERKILL]

There's actually an API test sequence for this, IIIG:

Quote
The Sequence IIIG Test is a fired-engine, dynamometer lubricant test for evaluating automotive engine oils for certain high-temperature performance characteristics, including oil thickening, varnish deposition, oil consumption, and engine wear. Such oils include both single viscosity grade and multi-viscosity grade oils that are used in spark-ignition, gasoline-fueled engines, as well as diesel engines.

 

[StevieC]

All engines don't have problems with varnish therefore it's not all as you are trying to claim and use your examples to back-up. Yes oils continue to improve as things change but varnish has been with us a very long time and still happens today in some engines so if oil manufacturers were so concerned it would have been nipped in the but like LSPI as soon as possible because it was a serious problem and that hasn't happened over decades of oil revisions. Why? BECAUSE IT ISN'T a problem except to folks like you guys who have an agenda that it's bad because of a few affect engines that seem to not be able to tolerate it.

"quite aware how I operate"

You know what you can do with that comment and I'll give you a hint. The sun doesn't shine there.

I did explain what I wrote therfore taking responsibility for it. You and a few others don't see it that way, whatever, but I didn't sweep it under the rug I came out and explained my position.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
There's actually an API test sequence for this, IIIG:

Quote
The Sequence IIIG Test is a fired-engine, dynamometer lubricant test for evaluating automotive engine oils for certain high-temperature performance characteristics, including oil thickening, varnish deposition, oil consumption, and engine wear. Such oils include both single viscosity grade and multi-viscosity grade oils that are used in spark-ignition, gasoline-fueled engines, as well as diesel engines.


Again I'm not saying I condone varnish as being a good thing because I don't. But what I'm saying is that varnish is harmless when it occurs where the engine isn't a sensitive snowflake or else they would all be sensitive snowflakes and that isn't the case. Of course ideally any type of deposit is not something you want but that's not what we are talking about.

We are talking about whether or not varnish is harmless and I made the case that it is harmless and then further explained that the vast majority of engines where varnish exist live full lives with no apparent performance issues and that it's rare cases such as those you and Trav have cited that are the exception.

It's 12:10am here and I'm going to bed because it has been a long day outside of BITOG but I promise to respond to whatever anyone posts tomorrow when I have time. I didn't want anyone to think I was running away from this.

 

[StevieC]

Oh also... Check out the Engine Tear Down pictures here of the Chevy van that did a million miles and you can see heavy varnish in the engine. How was varnish a bad thing here?

http://www.syntheticwarehouse.com/brochures/million_mile_van.pdf (PAGE 3)

What about the varnish in your beloved Mobil-1 oil that did the 20,000 mile run? Where is that engine failing?

Look at this piston from the Schaeffers engine tear down. Look how dirty it is and no stuck rings... ?!?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
All engines don't have problems with varnish therefore it's not all as you are trying to claim and use your examples to back-up.


All engines, given enough build up of varnish, will have problems. While that amount will vary, the result is still an impact. I was trying to keep it easy to follow with personal examples, but you are so on the defensive at this point it doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by StevieC
Yes oils continue to improve as things change but varnish has been with us a very long time and still happens today in some engines so if oil manufacturers were so concerned it would have been nipped in the but like LSPI as soon as possible because it was a serious problem and that hasn't happened over decades of oil revisions. Why? BECAUSE IT ISN'T a problem except to folks like you guys who have an agenda that it's bad because of a few affect engines that seem to not be able to tolerate it.


It's a problem because it's a deposit, which all standards presently in use, test for the resistance of, in all certified oils. The fact that it's still a reality in many engines doesn't change the fact that there are standards in place to control and attempt to mitigate it.

Per the ACEA, Sequence VG:
Originally Posted by ACEA
The Sequence VG engine sludge and varnish deposit test is a fired engine-dynamometer test that evaluates the ability of a lubricant to minimize the formation of sludge and varnish deposits

The Sequence VG test is a cyclic test, with a total running duration of 216 hours, consisting of 54 cycles of 4 hours each. The test engine is a Ford 4.6L, spark ignition, four stroke, eight cylinder "V" configuration engine. Features of this engine include dual overhead camshafts, a cross-flow fast burn cylinder head design, two valves per cylinder, and electronic port fuel injection. A 90-minute break-in schedule is conducted prior to each test, since a new engine build is used for each test. Upon test completion, the engine is disassembled and rated for sludge and varnish. Average engine sludge and average engine varnish are calculated.


I posted the API one earlier.

Originally Posted by StevieC
"quite aware how I operate"

You know what you can do with that comment and I'll give you a hint. The sun doesn't shine there.

Yeah, as in you get emotionally invested in these discussions and you start skimming posts and don't bother reading half of them. I know you do this because you don't respond to numerous points I've made or make statements that you wouldn't make had you actually read the content. That's the reason I do point-by responses, as a courtesy to the person I'm responding to, so they know I actually read what they wrote.

Originally Posted by StevieC
I did explain what I wrote therfore taking responsibility for it. You and a few others don't see it that way, whatever, but I didn't sweep it under the rug I came out and explained my position.

Defending it is not taking responsibility for it, which is what you are describing as explaining. It turned into word salad that never ceded the issue of the ambiguity in the original statement.

 

[StevieC]

Review the post above this one with the picture overnight while I sleep and I'll respond to this one of yours tomorrow. "I promise to read it".

 

[Trav]

Far from being a rare exception, There have been many threads on this board about piston soaks for lower than normal compression and oil consumption, sticking/noisy lifter/lash adjusters, noisy timing chains, sticking VVT, etc on all sorts of makes and models including Japanese.

You get mad at people who know what they are talking about and have a lot more experience than you will ever have because they call you out on your incorrect and sometimes irresponsible statements.

Edit: I wondered when a you tube video would get in here.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by Trav
Far from being a rare exception, There have been many threads on this board about piston soaks for lower than normal compression and oil consumption, sticking/noisy lifter/lash adjusters, noisy timing chains, sticking VVT, etc on all sorts of makes and models including Japanese.

You get mad at people who know what they are talking about and have a lot more experience than you will ever have because they call you out on your incorrect and sometimes irresponsible statements.



Every car of the same model and of the same year and of every year and of the same brand everwhere in the world is having this problem? Everyone in the entire world is a member of BITOG so we have full sampling of all cars out there? No we have wrench-heads in a small forum with a small collection of over-maintenance, worries, and actual problems. This isn't reflective of the masses. Does every car that comes through your door with varnish have mechanical problems as a result? No it doesn't and I've seen enough over the years with varying degrees of varnish to prove it as I mentioned above and cited examples of.

EDIT: Youtube was a picture and it's Schaeffers not some idiot on YouTube with a conspiracy theory.

I will say to you good night until tomorrow as I said to Overkill. I will respond should you have further comments, in the morning.

I just happened to still be here because I was going back to read something before closing my laptop and when I refreshed I noticed you had posted.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Again I'm not saying I condone varnish as being a good thing because I don't. But what I'm saying is that varnish is harmless when it occurs where the engine isn't a sensitive snowflake or else they would all be sensitive snowflakes and that isn't the case. Of course ideally any type of deposit is not something you want but that's not what we are talking about.


That's exactly what we are talking about! You don't want deposits because deposits build up! And as they build up they will begin to affect performance. I covered this in an earlier post quite completely. While a minimum level of surface varnish is generally unavoidable unless you are a BITOG'er, it generally won't have an impact on operation. As accumulation builds, any engine design can be noticeably affected by varnish build-up if it gets bad enough. Whether it will get bad enough during the life of the engine will depend on the design and its tolerance to varnish. But it not being perceptible to the end user doesn't change the fact that this impact is present.

The reason we don't want deposits is because they aren't ultimately harmless. Their effects may be negligible at low levels of accumulation, and if those levels remain reasonably low through the life of the piece of equipment, the impact on its operation is likely minimal, and so progressive that the end user likely is never aware. It's the potential impact, as accumulation increases, that is where things transition into the perceptible. But there's an impact at any stage, regardless of how small, which is why protocols exist to attempt to curtail it. That doesn't mean we can eliminate it, but the idea is to control it; minimize it as much as possible and thus keep its impact to a minimum.

Originally Posted by StevieC
We are talking about whether or not varnish is harmless and I made the case that it is harmless and then further explained that the vast majority of engines where varnish exist live full lives with no apparent performance issues and that it's rare cases such as those you and Trav have cited that are the exception.

It's 12:10am here and I'm going to bed because it has been a long day outside of BITOG but I promise to respond to whatever anyone posts tomorrow when I have time. I didn't want anyone to think I was running away from this.


That's fine, I'm headed to bed myself here soon.

Varnish may be a fact of life with many engine designs, it may be unavoidable with certain usage patterns and a guarantee with certain maintenance patterns. Its impact may be insignificant over the life of the vehicle the engine is fitted to, but that still doesn't make it harmless. It has the potential to cause serious issues in any engine, left unchecked. And you won't know what that level is until the issue happens. That's why, as I noted earlier, the API and ACEA, as well as the OEM's, have protocols in place to control and minimize varnish. It's like living with an inactive condition or one in remission. There may be tiny impacts on a person's life, but they are so small they are never noticed. They could live their entire life with that condition and never even know about it, but that doesn't make that condition harmless. If it gets away from them the impact can be significant, and often, it takes that sort of event for somebody to even find out they have it. Somewhat amusingly, genetics of course plays a role in both

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Oh also... Check out the Engine Tear Down pictures here of the Chevy van that did a million miles and you can see heavy varnish in the engine. How was varnish a bad thing here?

http://www.syntheticwarehouse.com/brochures/million_mile_van.pdf (PAGE 3)


The varnish would have been from the long OCI's he ran, and that's obviously a design that is reasonably tolerant of varnish. One has to consider though that this is almost 1,000,000 miles of accumulation. What do you think it looked like at 150,000 miles? Obviously the mileage was outpacing the condition and something else was bound to fail before the deposits had a significant impact. And for the mileage? There really isn't that much build up, that's quite frankly, impressive. Would have been nice to see compression numbers from it though, and shots of the pistons to see how free the rings were.

Originally Posted by StevieC
What about the varnish in your beloved Mobil-1 oil that did the 20,000 mile run? Where is that engine failing?


Do you mean their promo video? Have to be more specific. My experience is M1 is good at keeping engines clean when used on a reasonable OCI, but I've never run it anywhere near that long and if there was varnish in the 20,000 mile run you speak of, then yeah, that's a good reason as to why I would avoid it. You saw my M5 head shot, I generally, like I'm sure you do, despite this conversation, prefer my engine to stay looking like that. Which was also on M1

Originally Posted by StevieC
Look at this piston from the Schaeffers engine tear down. Look how dirty it is and no stuck rings... ?!?


The oil control rings don't look too hot

Those are the ones that stick first, and they look stuck in that picture.

This "pomp piece" from Mobil, which is for 500,000 miles of dyno time (yeah, I know), shows excellent cleanliness:


This 120,000 mile taxi (pomp piece) engine teardown also shows excellent cleanliness and you'll note one of the key things they are looking for is varnish:


And some pics from the above vid of the pistons and the rings, which are clearly free, including the oil control rings. Pistons are also quite clean:

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by StevieC
All engines don't have problems with varnish therefore it's not all as you are trying to claim and use your examples to back-up. Yes oils continue to improve as things change but varnish has been with us a very long time and still happens today in some engines so if oil manufacturers were so concerned it would have been nipped in the but like LSPI as soon as possible because it was a serious problem and that hasn't happened over decades of oil revisions. Why?


More dumb "logic"...in a hysterical defence of your originally incorrect post.

No one is asserting that every engine with varnish is in dire straights (as you have suggested we are)….however your original assertion was that varnish is harmless ...fullstop...bit of backpedalling, and "well what you are really saying is..."...that's strawmanning.

Not every engine died at the side of the road from LSPI...there were issues, and they were addressed, through OEM and API test regimes.

You are claiming that the only engines that could have issues with varnish are poor design...but that engine oils are evolving...you CAN'T argue both sides of the same coin.

engine oils evolve, as different engines evolve, and issues emerge that become common enough (note, NOT EVERY ENGINE IN THE WORLD) to warrant consideration....

If taken to the logical conclusion of your "poor design"...then every engine in the modern world that can't run 200,000 miles on SA 20 or 30 grades is a "poor design".

a proper design would last that long without having the engine oils evolve to meet their problems.

 

[Shannow]

Oh, and another thought...does that mean that only really badly designed engines need the extra "cleaning power" of Amsoil ?

Couple of questions on that...

Why are they marketing it to schmucks that have properly designed engines and don't need the cleaning power ?

and

Why do they limit the warranty/mileage on the engines that REALLY need all that extra (that's the exceeds in meets or exceeds) cleaning power ?

 

[OilUzer]

curious, can you scrape off or chemically remove varnish and weigh it?

 

[4WD]

Dexos comment does not make sense … millions of GM and non GM vehicles benefited from both motor oil and ATF standards GM produced working hand and hand with lubricant SME's …

 

[dlundblad]

This thread can definitely make one scared of conventional. My Jeep sure had a lot of varnish on its lower end when I did the timing chain and that's with a lot of synthetic usage.

I wonder if running a synthetic every other or every 3 oil changes would help?

 

[4WD]

I've always thought an occasional chemical change in fuel or lubricant can't hurt …

 

[demarpaint]

Wow this doesn't end................

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by 4WD
I've always thought an occasional chemical change in fuel or lubricant can't hurt …


I agree, without a heap of (well much if any) data, but it makes sense not to do the same lube/fuel blend forever

 

[Cujet]

My concern with simple varnish remains piston ring sticking and piston oil ring drainage.

Many of today's engines have issues with this. It's preventable with the use of quality synthetics coupled with sufficiently frequent oil changes.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by StevieC
Oh also... Check out the Engine Tear Down pictures here of the Chevy van that did a million miles and you can see heavy varnish in the engine. How was varnish a bad thing here?

http://www.syntheticwarehouse.com/brochures/million_mile_van.pdf (PAGE 3)


The varnish would have been from the long OCI's he ran, and that's obviously a design that is reasonably tolerant of varnish. One has to consider though that this is almost 1,000,000 miles of accumulation. What do you think it looked like at 150,000 miles? Obviously the mileage was outpacing the condition and something else was bound to fail before the deposits had a significant impact. And for the mileage? There really isn't that much build up, that's quite frankly, impressive. Would have been nice to see compression numbers from it though, and shots of the pistons to see how free the rings were.

Originally Posted by StevieC
What about the varnish in your beloved Mobil-1 oil that did the 20,000 mile run? Where is that engine failing?


Do you mean their promo video? Have to be more specific. My experience is M1 is good at keeping engines clean when used on a reasonable OCI, but I've never run it anywhere near that long and if there was varnish in the 20,000 mile run you speak of, then yeah, that's a good reason as to why I would avoid it. You saw my M5 head shot, I generally, like I'm sure you do, despite this conversation, prefer my engine to stay looking like that. Which was also on M1

Originally Posted by StevieC
Look at this piston from the Schaeffers engine tear down. Look how dirty it is and no stuck rings... ?!?


The oil control rings don't look too hot

Those are the ones that stick first, and they look stuck in that picture.

This "pomp piece" from Mobil, which is for 500,000 miles of dyno time (yeah, I know), shows excellent cleanliness:


This 120,000 mile taxi (pomp piece) engine teardown also shows excellent cleanliness and you'll note one of the key things they are looking for is varnish:


And some pics from the above vid of the pistons and the rings, which are clearly free, including the oil control rings. Pistons are also quite clean:

Overkill,

If you look at the Mobil 1 video where they show the engine torn down after 20K miles there is quite the varnish there and M1 doesn't seem concerned with it, so much so that they are making the claim that it's fine for 20K miles. How many of these 20K runs with this amount of varnish after one run would there be. Surely a huge company like M1 that makes great products would be concerned but they don't seem to be.

As for the Schaeffers engine if you watch that video you will see him moving the rings back and forth in his hand on that piston I provided the picture of and it looks fine. There is heavy build-up on that piston as well as varnish at particular shots and they don't seem concerned with it either. I'm not saying I would accept this amount because you know I'm OCD when it comes to this sort of stuff in my own engine but my point is that they aren't concerned with it so clearly it supports my claim that varnish is harmless where the engine isn't overly sensitive to it.

As for last night and some of what you were saying, let me be clear. The engines that had varnish where the engine didn't have issue with it because they weren't tolerant of it ran to the end of their service lives fine. That the ultimate goal. The engine lives to the life expectancy of the user. Who cares if it had a lot of varnish or little varnish. The engine made it and it did so without the performance being impacted to the point where a repair was required or setting a CEL or affecting the performance as measured by the driving that is encountered.

I'm sorry you are having such a hard time admitting that varnish isn't a problem but it isn't in the vast majority of engines that it occurs in. It just isn't. Other folks here confirm this so it's not be being biased to what I've seen. And in the case of the Million Mile Chevy where it was torn down and you do see heavy varnish it didn't affect the wear on that engine as measured and also didn't affect it from running perfectly as stated in the article and it was torn apart by a 3rd party not even the company that makes the oil.

So I say again in summary if varnish is such a problem why aren't Amsoil, M1 and Scaheffers concerned based on their own engine tear-downs where it exists? BECAUSE IT'S A NON-ISSUE FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF ENGINES WHERE IS OCCURS and it's due to poor engine design in the ones that seem to have a problem with it OR ELSE every engine out there that ends up with varnish (and there is a ton of them) would be experiencing issues and it would have forced OE's and Oil manufacturers to scramble for a solution quickly like with LSPI.

I'm done now because we are going in circles and I can't state it any more than I have. I also have quite a few conference calls today and then late calls with Japan tonight so I wouldn't be able to get back to this until the weekend if I wanted to anyway.

Have a good day.