Ferrari F430 oil

[LordNilesStandish]

This is an example of oil sample of an engine that failed. He hadn't done an oil sample before that, but I suspect the oil sample in the last few changes would of shown high iron. For me, it's cut open the oil filter, and send in an oil sample. Should give me the heads up on whats going on with the engine, and if I need to do any work to prevent a total replacement. Valve train overhaul is 2k to 10k. Total engine replacement is 40k for GT3 to 90K for GT3 RS (depending on model year) even though basically the same engine. Cheap data to help drive decisions in any event.

View attachment 276922

Has the GT3 community found any general consensus advantage with respect to valvetrain longevity by using say 5w50 vs 0W40?

 

[kschachn]

Has the GT3 community found any general consensus advantage with respect to valvetrain longevity by using say 5w50 vs 0W40?

No one could make such a determination outside of a laboratory. For one thing the approvals such as Porsche A40 have identical wear requirements regardless of the winter rating. Minimum HT/HS is required but winter ratings are allowed under the approval.

 

[FlyingTexan]

https://www.fcpeuro.com/products/30...CnuUOs7OfvSEpQjzYpGHXtby-csFTG-UaAqiaEALw_wcB

 

[LordNilesStandish]

No one could make such a determination outside of a laboratory. For one thing the approvals such as Porsche A40 have identical wear requirements regardless of the winter rating. Minimum HT/HS is required but winter ratings are allowed under the approval.

To clarify the winter rating was not part of my question. My question refers @100oC.
I disagree. Its an empirical evidence question.
Does the empirical performance based evidence support an improvement of valvetrain wear using higher viscosity at 100oC? All other things being equal of course.

 

[LordNilesStandish]

No one could make such a determination outside of a laboratory. For one thing the approvals such as Porsche A40 have identical wear requirements regardless of the winter rating. Minimum HT/HS is required but winter ratings are allowed under the approval.

To clarify the winter rating was not part of my question. My question refers @100oC.
I disagree. Its an empirical evidence question.
Does the empirical performance based evidence support an improvement of valvetrain wear using higher viscosity at 100oC? All other things being equal of course.

 

[kschachn]

To clarify the winter rating was not part of my question. My question refers @100oC.
I disagree. Its an empirical evidence question.
Does the empirical performance based evidence support an improvement of valvetrain wear using higher viscosity at 100oC? All other things being equal of course.

I apologize, I didn’t see the grade change.

 

[LordNilesStandish]

I apologize, I didn’t see the grade change.

No worries

 

[scrllock]

Long thread here.

https://rennlist.com/forums/997-forum/1187473-another-oil-analysis.html

There is a recent UOA where it's clearly not DI40 due to calcium levels, but many good ones in there.

Redline is good, but FCP doesn't stock it in 5w40 anymore. 300V is a racing oil, and for some reason it tends to throw low oil pressure warnings on some GT cars, so I shyed away from running it. DI40 to me is the best 5w40 oil FCP sells. I think there are better oils out there, but, again the question was specific to FCP.

I see, the consensus from those seems to be don't run it past 5k and it's good.

I'm curious about the 300V issue. The argument that it's racing oil doesn't hold up to me, given DI40 has a similar lifespan. Some actual data on what the cause was (with an actual oil pressure reading off a gauge, not the OEM switch/sensor) would be more interesting than the usual forum rumors (where somehow switching to conventional oil immediately fixed it??).

 

[edyvw]

I prefer to think of it as "correlation doesn't strictly imply causation, but something cannot cause unless it correlates."

In other words, correlation may not mean it causes it, but lack of correlation 100% rules out causation.

I think I'll disagree with @edyvw on his assessment of oil analysis. I've yet to meet a doctor that says bloodwork is irrelevant and tells you nothing about the body that contained it.

The limitation of UOA is the focus on <10 micron particle range. The rate at which an engine sheds those tiny particles often tells you nothing unless the disparity is orders of magnitude. 10ppm iron vs 20 or 30 is sort a shoulder shrug. But 10ppm vs 400 or 600? Probably means something.

I'd personally find an ISO4406 particle count trend to be more useful at the typical 4, 6, and 14 micron cutoffs.

That is why I said, spikes, increasing trends etc. Few ppm? Could be xxx variables involved including margin of error.

 

[edyvw]

This is an example of oil sample of an engine that failed. He hadn't done an oil sample before that, but I suspect the oil sample in the last few changes would of shown high iron. For me, it's cut open the oil filter, and send in an oil sample. Should give me the heads up on whats going on with the engine, and if I need to do any work to prevent a total replacement. Valve train overhaul is 2k to 10k. Total engine replacement is 40k for GT3 to 90K for GT3 RS (depending on model year) even though basically the same engine. Cheap data to help drive decisions in any event.

View attachment 276922

That is different than whether oil is better or worse because it has a few ppm difference. That is absolutely irrelevant.
This particular UOA is when UOA is useful to potentially identify an issue.

 

[LordNilesStandish]

Oh were now talking small sample 'statistics'