D.I., oci more important than oil type?

[wemay]

After all the dicussion related to fuel dilution issues involving d.i. applications, it appears that no matter what oil is used, the longer the oci the more dilution occurs. This being the case, why run a synthetic if you, as I have, decide on a 3k mi oci. At this oci you will not reap the benefits of a syn but can at least get into the meat of a quality conventional that meets your spec.

Any thoughts

 

[bepperb]

The other benefit of a synthetic oil in a DI engine is less volatility reducing intake valve deposits. This is measured with a NOACK value if you are interested in comparing oils.

 

[dparm]

Not necessarily. Plenty of DI motors don't suffer from crazy fuel dilution. Even when they do, it's rare to see any serious adverse affects. The DI systems are improving every year.

Here's my old Audi S4, a direct-injected supercharged V6 that is tuned to make about 30% more power than stock. And yes, I had it on the track once and autocrossed it too. Wear metals were up but not to the point that I was worried. This was the ho-hum dealer-provided Castrol Syntec 5w40.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: bepperb
The other benefit of a synthetic oil in a DI engine is less volatility reducing intake valve deposits. This is measured with a NOACK value if you are interested in comparing oils.

Syn' oils do have lower volatility than mineral oils but this is no correlation between intake valve deposits and NOACK.
The main benefit of the better synthetic oils is that they leave less deposits generally. Probably the best measure of this is the TEOST deposit test which has nothing to do with an oils volatility level.

 

[wemay]

I'm sure the technology is improving but that doesn't help those that bought a d.i. vehicle pre 2014. There will always be decent UOA's as well. But the trend is showing consistent fuel dilution at levels that some deem excessive. How much this dilution hurts the engine is still debatable, but it isnt good. I cannot fathom that a quality conventional will breakdown to dangerous levels in any engine at 3000 mile oci, even turbo d.i. considering SN and GF-5 cover turbo protection.

D.I. = back to the future (oci).

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: wemay
I'm sure the technology is improving but that doesn't help those that bought a d.i. vehicle pre 2014. There will always decent UOA's as well. But the trend is showing consistent fuel dilution at levels that some deem excessive. How much this dilution hurts the engine is still debatable, but it isnt good. I cannot fathom that a quality conventional will breakdown to dangerous levels in any engine at 3000 mile oci, even turbo d.i. considering SN and GF-5 cover turbo protection.

D.I. = back to the future (oci) lol.


DI looks like a step backwards for the automakers who have been slowly been increasing OCI's over the years. It looks like they'll have to shorten them for the DI engine. I still don't see the value of these engines. A few extra HP, a slight increase in MPG. The cost is shorter OCI's which costs more, intake valve deposits, and a jury that's still out as far as engine life is concerned. I'm sure I'll catch some heat, but the more I learn about DI the less I like it.

 

[dparm]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: wemay
I'm sure the technology is improving but that doesn't help those that bought a d.i. vehicle pre 2014. There will always decent UOA's as well. But the trend is showing consistent fuel dilution at levels that some deem excessive. How much this dilution hurts the engine is still debatable, but it isnt good. I cannot fathom that a quality conventional will breakdown to dangerous levels in any engine at 3000 mile oci, even turbo d.i. considering SN and GF-5 cover turbo protection.

D.I. = back to the future (oci) lol.


DI looks like a step backwards for the automakers who have been slowly been increasing OCI's over the years. It looks like they'll have to shorten them for the DI engine. I still don't see the value of these engines. A few extra HP, a slight increase in MPG. The cost is shorter OCI's which costs more, intake valve deposits, and a jury that's still out as far as engine life is concerned. I'm sure I'll catch some heat, but the more I learn about DI the less I like it.



Many manufacturers have not shortened the interval. They've instead increased the oil pan & filter size, and required stouter oils. The Germans all go 10k, and most of their motors are now DI (with 8-10L sumps and huge cartridge filters).

 

[wemay]

demarpaint,

You are not gonna take heat from me. Exactly the reason i'm going conservative on oci. More and more manufacturers are choosing d.i., dual clutch and cvt. But the jury is still out.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: wemay
demarpaint,

You are not gonna take heat from me. Exactly the reason i'm going conservative on oci. More and more manufacturers are choosing d.i., dual clutch and cvt. But the jury is still out.

Technology is headed in that direction, there's no getting around it. I just wish they'd get more of the bugs out first, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon either.

BTW if I had a DI engine I'd be doing short OCI's too, so you won't be catching any heat from me for doing a short OCI for a DI engine. LOL

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: wemay
demarpaint,

You are not gonna take heat from me. Exactly the reason i'm going conservative on oci. More and more manufacturers are choosing d.i., dual clutch and cvt. But the jury is still out.

Technology is headed in that direction, there's no getting around it. I just wish they'd get more of the bugs out first, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon either.

BTW if I had a DI engine I'd be doing short OCI's too, so you won't be catching any heat from me for doing a short OCI for a DI engine. LOL


Lol...good to know.

 

[dparm]

Originally Posted By: wemay
demarpaint,

You are not gonna take heat from me. Exactly the reason i'm going conservative on oci. More and more manufacturers are choosing d.i., dual clutch and cvt. But the jury is still out.



None of those technologies are cutting-edge, truth be told. Direct injection has been around for automobiles since the 50s, and way before that for other types of engines (airplane, notably). It seemed to get popular again in the 90s.

Dual-clutches were developed in the 1980s but gained popularity right around the year 2000, and are now in millions of vehicles.

CVTs have been around for decades as well, but didn't see widespread use until more recently (1980s+). It too is now in millions of vehicles.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: dparm

Many manufacturers have not shortened the interval. They've instead increased the oil pan & filter size, and required stouter oils. The Germans all go 10k, and most of their motors are now DI (with 8-10L sumps and huge cartridge filters).


This may be the only solution for early d.i. applications if the desire is to maintain OCI at or above 5K mi. But I dont see Ford, Hyundai/Kia, GM, Dodge etc, recalling cars for a retrofit if all they have to do is issue a tsb to shorten the OCI.

 

[Tucson Five-O]

wemay,

You are the king of changing oils!

But in all seriousness, yes it seems that fuel dilution and it's effect on oil viscosity is the current problem that DI owners are facing, surpassing intake valve deposits. Once manufacturers discovered that heating up the intake valves, to prevent the lighter oil fractions depositing on the valves worked, along with more sophisticated PCV vapor handling systems, and late closing intake valves on the compression stroke to expose the valve face to the detergents in the fuel, the higher pressure fuel passing by the rings is the current issue.

If I still had a DI engine, I would tailor my OCIs, via OLM or manually, to the hot viscosity of the oil, starting with your guess of 3000 mile OCI. I'd set the limit on a 5W-30 oil to 9.0cst minimum, a 5W-20 oil to 7.0cst minimum, until I saw the Fe levels were not excessive, compared to a similar port injected engine. And I would adjust that OCI, as we know the oil continues to thin as it is subjected to the constant fuel dilution of a DI engine.

And yes, driving habits, such as short tripping, particularly in cold weather will ascerbate the problem, but no one can drive a GM DI engine, for instance, without seeing the effects.

I would also think about using an oil with maybe a bit more viscosity in the approved 5W-30 range, that is A5/B5 rated, as opposed to PP or QSUD, that may not be, to give a little bit more time before the oil thins to some critical value.

Truly a step back in engine design and end user satisfaction if you ask me.

Gary

 

[bigjl]

I will happily run a quality synthetic oil 5 or 6 thousand miles if i deem the usage to be severe enough to warrant it.

I see no tangible benefit by trying to save a few quid by using an inferior mineral/dino oil.

BiL's Vectra has the GM 2.2 Direct Injection petrol luml snd it gets quality Castol Edge 5w40 and a US made Hengst cartridge filter a couple of times a year usually.

Not sure of the miles between oci to be honest.

But from memory the official one is 18k or 12months i think. Or it may well be 18k or 24 months.

Oil always looks clean when it comes out and there is no smell of petrol from it.

 

[wemay]

Mineral/dino oil is not inferior at 3K mi oci. I could say you are wasting folks are wasting synthetics by changing at 5K, but I won't.

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: wemay
I'm sure the technology is improving but that doesn't help those that bought a d.i. vehicle pre 2014. There will always decent UOA's as well. But the trend is showing consistent fuel dilution at levels that some deem excessive. How much this dilution hurts the engine is still debatable, but it isnt good. I cannot fathom that a quality conventional will breakdown to dangerous levels in any engine at 3000 mile oci, even turbo d.i. considering SN and GF-5 cover turbo protection.

D.I. = back to the future (oci) lol.


DI looks like a step backwards for the automakers who have been slowly been increasing OCI's over the years. It looks like they'll have to shorten them for the DI engine. I still don't see the value of these engines. A few extra HP, a slight increase in MPG. The cost is shorter OCI's which costs more, intake valve deposits, and a jury that's still out as far as engine life is concerned. I'm sure I'll catch some heat, but the more I learn about DI the less I like it.


When we bought our hundyai , one of the criteria, was that it not be DI. I think they will get there, but its still early.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: Tucson Five-O
wemay,

You are the king of changing oils!

But in all seriousness, yes it seems that fuel dilution and it's effect on oil viscosity is the current problem that DI owners are facing, surpassing intake valve deposits. Once manufacturers discovered that heating up the intake valves, to prevent the lighter oil fractions depositing on the valves worked, along with more sophisticated PCV vapor handling systems, and late closing intake valves on the compression stroke to expose the valve face to the detergents in the fuel, the higher pressure fuel passing by the rings is the current issue.

If I still had a DI engine, I would tailor my OCIs, via OLM or manually, to the hot viscosity of the oil, starting with your guess of 3000 mile OCI. I'd set the limit on a 5W-30 oil to 9.0cst minimum, a 5W-20 oil to 7.0cst minimum, until I saw the Fe levels were not excessive, compared to a similar port injected engine. And I would adjust that OCI, as we know the oil continues to thin as it is subjected to the constant fuel dilution of a DI engine.

And yes, driving habits, such as short tripping, particularly in cold weather will ascerbate the problem, but no one can drive a GM DI engine, for instance, without seeing the effects.

I would also think about using an oil with maybe a bit more viscosity in the approved 5W-30 range, that is A5/B5 rated, as opposed to PP or QSUD, that may not be, to give a little bit more time before the oil thins to some critical value.

Truly a step back in engine design and end user satisfaction if you ask me.

Gary


All great points Gary, especially concerning my newfound OCD conerning this vehicle. Lol

 

[ChrisD46]

+1 demarpaint !
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: wemay
I'm sure the technology is improving but that doesn't help those that bought a d.i. vehicle pre 2014. There will always decent UOA's as well. But the trend is showing consistent fuel dilution at levels that some deem excessive. How much this dilution hurts the engine is still debatable, but it isnt good. I cannot fathom that a quality conventional will breakdown to dangerous levels in any engine at 3000 mile oci, even turbo d.i. considering SN and GF-5 cover turbo protection.

D.I. = back to the future (oci) lol.


DI looks like a step backwards for the automakers who have been slowly been increasing OCI's over the years. It looks like they'll have to shorten them for the DI engine. I still don't see the value of these engines. A few extra HP, a slight increase in MPG. The cost is shorter OCI's which costs more, intake valve deposits, and a jury that's still out as far as engine life is concerned. I'm sure I'll catch some heat, but the more I learn about DI the less I like it.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: wemay
I'm sure the technology is improving but that doesn't help those that bought a d.i. vehicle pre 2014. There will always decent UOA's as well. But the trend is showing consistent fuel dilution at levels that some deem excessive. How much this dilution hurts the engine is still debatable, but it isnt good. I cannot fathom that a quality conventional will breakdown to dangerous levels in any engine at 3000 mile oci, even turbo d.i. considering SN and GF-5 cover turbo protection.

D.I. = back to the future (oci) lol.


DI looks like a step backwards for the automakers who have been slowly been increasing OCI's over the years. It looks like they'll have to shorten them for the DI engine. I still don't see the value of these engines. A few extra HP, a slight increase in MPG. The cost is shorter OCI's which costs more, intake valve deposits, and a jury that's still out as far as engine life is concerned. I'm sure I'll catch some heat, but the more I learn about DI the less I like it.


When we bought our hundyai , one of the criteria, was that it not be DI. I think they will get there, but its still early.


That's my criteria as well. DI is here to stay, but it still needs to evolve a bit more IMO.

 

[wemay]

...maybe even go to a blend, but not full syn at this oci as It would be a waste.