Fuel Dilution "Burn-Off"
- Thread starter Danh
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: kjbock
Originally Posted By: Danh
Originally Posted By: FZ1
Sorry,but if your oil level is rising with gasoline then there is a mechanical problem. We 2.4 drivers have to use the severe service ocis (5,000)as a starting point and go down from there if necessary. Sorry for your trouble. When in Doubt...Pump it out...! JMO.
I dunno. If the engine is going to dilute the oil by design and if, at best, maybe 50% of the fuel that winds up in the crankcase will ultimately evaporate, progressively increasing fuel dilution seems inevitable. And if there's no actual oil consumption, an increase in oil level may be inevitable, too. I sure get that in my 2.4 during winter months: about 1/3 quart above full after 1,200 miles.
Looking at the Honda article, it looks like the objective was to hit a fuel economy target. Other objectives, like fuel dilution, were second or third-level priorities or afterthoughts. So while I doubt there's anything mechanical to be fixed, this sure doesn't seem like an ideal situation. And I think we Honda owners have every reason to feel duped.
I think you posted this before, but have you ever had poor wear metals with any of your used oil analysis showing high levels of fuel in the oil? I know it is very concerning to see such high levels of fuel dilution, but if it doesn't seem to result in a lot of engine wear, it may not affect engine life that much.
No, wear levels have been fine. But then again, my used oil analysis measurements have been at 3,500 miles or less. But at that point 0w-20 oil viscosity is 6.2-6.5 cSt and headed south, and the IOLM suggests I have 70% oil life remaining. If I ran the oil to the the 10-12k IOLM suggestion I doubt my used oil analysis results would be so good.
So, if used oil analysis really show engine wear, frequent oil changes seem to be a solution and I'll live with a 4month/4K OCI. But if the choice is between excess engine wear and 3X the advertised oil change cost, I say we've been deceived.
Originally Posted By: Danh
Originally Posted By: FZ1
Sorry,but if your oil level is rising with gasoline then there is a mechanical problem. We 2.4 drivers have to use the severe service ocis (5,000)as a starting point and go down from there if necessary. Sorry for your trouble. When in Doubt...Pump it out...! JMO.
I dunno. If the engine is going to dilute the oil by design and if, at best, maybe 50% of the fuel that winds up in the crankcase will ultimately evaporate, progressively increasing fuel dilution seems inevitable. And if there's no actual oil consumption, an increase in oil level may be inevitable, too. I sure get that in my 2.4 during winter months: about 1/3 quart above full after 1,200 miles.
Looking at the Honda article, it looks like the objective was to hit a fuel economy target. Other objectives, like fuel dilution, were second or third-level priorities or afterthoughts. So while I doubt there's anything mechanical to be fixed, this sure doesn't seem like an ideal situation. And I think we Honda owners have every reason to feel duped.
I think you posted this before, but have you ever had poor wear metals with any of your used oil analysis showing high levels of fuel in the oil? I know it is very concerning to see such high levels of fuel dilution, but if it doesn't seem to result in a lot of engine wear, it may not affect engine life that much.
No, wear levels have been fine. But then again, my used oil analysis measurements have been at 3,500 miles or less. But at that point 0w-20 oil viscosity is 6.2-6.5 cSt and headed south, and the IOLM suggests I have 70% oil life remaining. If I ran the oil to the the 10-12k IOLM suggestion I doubt my used oil analysis results would be so good.
So, if used oil analysis really show engine wear, frequent oil changes seem to be a solution and I'll live with a 4month/4K OCI. But if the choice is between excess engine wear and 3X the advertised oil change cost, I say we've been deceived.
Originally Posted By: Danh
Originally Posted By: kjbock
Originally Posted By: Danh
Originally Posted By: FZ1
Sorry,but if your oil level is rising with gasoline then there is a mechanical problem. We 2.4 drivers have to use the severe service ocis (5,000)as a starting point and go down from there if necessary. Sorry for your trouble. When in Doubt...Pump it out...! JMO.
I dunno. If the engine is going to dilute the oil by design and if, at best, maybe 50% of the fuel that winds up in the crankcase will ultimately evaporate, progressively increasing fuel dilution seems inevitable. And if there's no actual oil consumption, an increase in oil level may be inevitable, too. I sure get that in my 2.4 during winter months: about 1/3 quart above full after 1,200 miles.
Looking at the Honda article, it looks like the objective was to hit a fuel economy target. Other objectives, like fuel dilution, were second or third-level priorities or afterthoughts. So while I doubt there's anything mechanical to be fixed, this sure doesn't seem like an ideal situation. And I think we Honda owners have every reason to feel duped.
I think you posted this before, but have you ever had poor wear metals with any of your used oil analysis showing high levels of fuel in the oil? I know it is very concerning to see such high levels of fuel dilution, but if it doesn't seem to result in a lot of engine wear, it may not affect engine life that much.
No, wear levels have been fine. But then again, my used oil analysis measurements have been at 3,500 miles or less. But at that point 0w-20 oil viscosity is 6.2-6.5 cSt and headed south, and the IOLM suggests I have 70% oil life remaining. If I ran the oil to the the 10-12k IOLM suggestion I doubt my used oil analysis results would be so good.
So, if used oil analysis really show engine wear, frequent oil changes seem to be a solution and I'll live with a 4month/4K OCI. But if the choice is between excess engine wear and 3X the advertised oil change cost, I say we've been deceived.
It seems to me the OLM/engineers didn't have what's best for the engine programmed in.
Originally Posted By: kjbock
Originally Posted By: Danh
Originally Posted By: FZ1
Sorry,but if your oil level is rising with gasoline then there is a mechanical problem. We 2.4 drivers have to use the severe service ocis (5,000)as a starting point and go down from there if necessary. Sorry for your trouble. When in Doubt...Pump it out...! JMO.
I dunno. If the engine is going to dilute the oil by design and if, at best, maybe 50% of the fuel that winds up in the crankcase will ultimately evaporate, progressively increasing fuel dilution seems inevitable. And if there's no actual oil consumption, an increase in oil level may be inevitable, too. I sure get that in my 2.4 during winter months: about 1/3 quart above full after 1,200 miles.
Looking at the Honda article, it looks like the objective was to hit a fuel economy target. Other objectives, like fuel dilution, were second or third-level priorities or afterthoughts. So while I doubt there's anything mechanical to be fixed, this sure doesn't seem like an ideal situation. And I think we Honda owners have every reason to feel duped.
I think you posted this before, but have you ever had poor wear metals with any of your used oil analysis showing high levels of fuel in the oil? I know it is very concerning to see such high levels of fuel dilution, but if it doesn't seem to result in a lot of engine wear, it may not affect engine life that much.
No, wear levels have been fine. But then again, my used oil analysis measurements have been at 3,500 miles or less. But at that point 0w-20 oil viscosity is 6.2-6.5 cSt and headed south, and the IOLM suggests I have 70% oil life remaining. If I ran the oil to the the 10-12k IOLM suggestion I doubt my used oil analysis results would be so good.
So, if used oil analysis really show engine wear, frequent oil changes seem to be a solution and I'll live with a 4month/4K OCI. But if the choice is between excess engine wear and 3X the advertised oil change cost, I say we've been deceived.
It seems to me the OLM/engineers didn't have what's best for the engine programmed in.
Originally Posted By: Danh
Originally Posted By: kjbock
Originally Posted By: Danh
Originally Posted By: FZ1
Sorry,but if your oil level is rising with gasoline then there is a mechanical problem. We 2.4 drivers have to use the severe service ocis (5,000)as a starting point and go down from there if necessary. Sorry for your trouble. When in Doubt...Pump it out...! JMO.
I dunno. If the engine is going to dilute the oil by design and if, at best, maybe 50% of the fuel that winds up in the crankcase will ultimately evaporate, progressively increasing fuel dilution seems inevitable. And if there's no actual oil consumption, an increase in oil level may be inevitable, too. I sure get that in my 2.4 during winter months: about 1/3 quart above full after 1,200 miles.
Looking at the Honda article, it looks like the objective was to hit a fuel economy target. Other objectives, like fuel dilution, were second or third-level priorities or afterthoughts. So while I doubt there's anything mechanical to be fixed, this sure doesn't seem like an ideal situation. And I think we Honda owners have every reason to feel duped.
I think you posted this before, but have you ever had poor wear metals with any of your used oil analysis showing high levels of fuel in the oil? I know it is very concerning to see such high levels of fuel dilution, but if it doesn't seem to result in a lot of engine wear, it may not affect engine life that much.
No, wear levels have been fine. But then again, my used oil analysis measurements have been at 3,500 miles or less. But at that point 0w-20 oil viscosity is 6.2-6.5 cSt and headed south, and the IOLM suggests I have 70% oil life remaining. If I ran the oil to the the 10-12k IOLM suggestion I doubt my used oil analysis results would be so good.
So, if used oil analysis really show engine wear, frequent oil changes seem to be a solution and I'll live with a 4month/4K OCI. But if the choice is between excess engine wear and 3X the advertised oil change cost, I say we've been deceived.
Sounds like 5W/0W-30 might be a better oil for this engine (and the 1.5L). Might be able to make it to 7,000 miles on an OCI then.
Originally Posted By: kjbock
Originally Posted By: Danh
Originally Posted By: FZ1
Sorry,but if your oil level is rising with gasoline then there is a mechanical problem. We 2.4 drivers have to use the severe service ocis (5,000)as a starting point and go down from there if necessary. Sorry for your trouble. When in Doubt...Pump it out...! JMO.
I dunno. If the engine is going to dilute the oil by design and if, at best, maybe 50% of the fuel that winds up in the crankcase will ultimately evaporate, progressively increasing fuel dilution seems inevitable. And if there's no actual oil consumption, an increase in oil level may be inevitable, too. I sure get that in my 2.4 during winter months: about 1/3 quart above full after 1,200 miles.
Looking at the Honda article, it looks like the objective was to hit a fuel economy target. Other objectives, like fuel dilution, were second or third-level priorities or afterthoughts. So while I doubt there's anything mechanical to be fixed, this sure doesn't seem like an ideal situation. And I think we Honda owners have every reason to feel duped.
I think you posted this before, but have you ever had poor wear metals with any of your used oil analysis showing high levels of fuel in the oil? I know it is very concerning to see such high levels of fuel dilution, but if it doesn't seem to result in a lot of engine wear, it may not affect engine life that much.
No, wear levels have been fine. But then again, my used oil analysis measurements have been at 3,500 miles or less. But at that point 0w-20 oil viscosity is 6.2-6.5 cSt and headed south, and the IOLM suggests I have 70% oil life remaining. If I ran the oil to the the 10-12k IOLM suggestion I doubt my used oil analysis results would be so good.
So, if used oil analysis really show engine wear, frequent oil changes seem to be a solution and I'll live with a 4month/4K OCI. But if the choice is between excess engine wear and 3X the advertised oil change cost, I say we've been deceived.
Sounds like 5W/0W-30 might be a better oil for this engine (and the 1.5L). Might be able to make it to 7,000 miles on an OCI then.
You're an oil guy, so I'll ask you.
Could ester basestocks do anything to mitigate the potential wear caused by high fuel dilution?
I ask this because there was a long thread here years ago in which an owner of some sort of high zoot Audi was seeing horrible used oil analysis attributed to high fuel dilution.
In consultation with a purported expert who used to post here, he started using an RLI ester based oil.
His excess wear metal concerns went away.
Is there any reason to think that ester basestocks deal with fuel dilution any better than Grp III or Grp IV basestocks?
Or, phrased another way, do some oils work better with high fuel dilution than others?
Could ester basestocks do anything to mitigate the potential wear caused by high fuel dilution?
I ask this because there was a long thread here years ago in which an owner of some sort of high zoot Audi was seeing horrible used oil analysis attributed to high fuel dilution.
In consultation with a purported expert who used to post here, he started using an RLI ester based oil.
His excess wear metal concerns went away.
Is there any reason to think that ester basestocks deal with fuel dilution any better than Grp III or Grp IV basestocks?
Or, phrased another way, do some oils work better with high fuel dilution than others?
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
You're an oil guy, so I'll ask you.
Could ester basestocks do anything to mitigate the potential wear caused by high fuel dilution?
I ask this because there was a long thread here years ago in which an owner of some sort of high zoot Audi was seeing horrible used oil analysis attributed to high fuel dilution.
In consultation with a purported expert who used to post here, he started using an RLI ester based oil.
His excess wear metal concerns went away.
Is there any reason to think that ester basestocks deal with fuel dilution any better than Grp III or Grp IV basestocks?
Or, phrased another way, do some oils work better with high fuel dilution than others?
There are undoubtedly others better equipped to answer this question than me.
I did have a conversation with Mobil's tech department on this subject and their only suggestion was to find the thickest oil in the required grade. I interpret this to mean no base stock or formulation handles fuel dilution better than any other as the biggest fuel dilution issue is reduced viscosity. So scour the TDS documents and find the 0w-20 (if that's the required grade) and find the one with the highest cSt @ 100C.
You're an oil guy, so I'll ask you.
Could ester basestocks do anything to mitigate the potential wear caused by high fuel dilution?
I ask this because there was a long thread here years ago in which an owner of some sort of high zoot Audi was seeing horrible used oil analysis attributed to high fuel dilution.
In consultation with a purported expert who used to post here, he started using an RLI ester based oil.
His excess wear metal concerns went away.
Is there any reason to think that ester basestocks deal with fuel dilution any better than Grp III or Grp IV basestocks?
Or, phrased another way, do some oils work better with high fuel dilution than others?
There are undoubtedly others better equipped to answer this question than me.
I did have a conversation with Mobil's tech department on this subject and their only suggestion was to find the thickest oil in the required grade. I interpret this to mean no base stock or formulation handles fuel dilution better than any other as the biggest fuel dilution issue is reduced viscosity. So scour the TDS documents and find the 0w-20 (if that's the required grade) and find the one with the highest cSt @ 100C.
Originally Posted By: Danh
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Enjoy that site, there's lots of great stuff, including their assessments of the future of the oils that became labelled as the 16 grades.
Thanks for the link, Shannow. This site also contains an article about the development of the engine in my CRV (K24W). Included in the article is a discussion about 3 fuel injector spray pattern alternatives: Honda chose the pattern that resulted in the lowest cylinder "wetting" and fuel dilution, but it still produced fuel dilution of 5%.
The alternative injector patterns were tested at WOT@2,500 rpm (no indication of for how long), so probably not representative of typical driving. But the important news for me is that considerable fuel dilution seems to be expected with this engine. And even if typical driving produces less, realizing that once in the sump only part of the fuel will ever leave makes my fuel dilution results seem normal if not welcome. I think I'll stop fretting and just drive the thing...
And if all the compromises that led to this result for the K24W were OK with Honda, Dblshock and other 1.5 TDGI Honda owners shouldn't be surprised to see similar results.
Rather surprised they published that. Full marks for full disclosure.
Unless it was a mistake.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Enjoy that site, there's lots of great stuff, including their assessments of the future of the oils that became labelled as the 16 grades.
Thanks for the link, Shannow. This site also contains an article about the development of the engine in my CRV (K24W). Included in the article is a discussion about 3 fuel injector spray pattern alternatives: Honda chose the pattern that resulted in the lowest cylinder "wetting" and fuel dilution, but it still produced fuel dilution of 5%.
The alternative injector patterns were tested at WOT@2,500 rpm (no indication of for how long), so probably not representative of typical driving. But the important news for me is that considerable fuel dilution seems to be expected with this engine. And even if typical driving produces less, realizing that once in the sump only part of the fuel will ever leave makes my fuel dilution results seem normal if not welcome. I think I'll stop fretting and just drive the thing...
And if all the compromises that led to this result for the K24W were OK with Honda, Dblshock and other 1.5 TDGI Honda owners shouldn't be surprised to see similar results.
Rather surprised they published that. Full marks for full disclosure.
Unless it was a mistake.
Last edited:
common sense dictates you bump a grade due to CAFE then if your running a fuel diluting TGDI that's clearly another bump bringing it to the W40's.. here at 46th parallel north probably 0/40, summer or south of 35th 5w40, that's where I'm headed.
The gist of this thread seems to be centered around dblshock's questioning of using 0w20 oil in a tgdi engine like the Honda he has. As far as I can tell this is or was the first turbo engine to use a 0w20 oil. But it seems more are coming and with Pennzoil adding the HTO -06 cert on their 0w20, a trend is forming. I'm interested to see further used oil analysis using this grade of oil to see how the wear metals rank while dealing with the fuel dilution.
The only answer I see at this time is to shorten the OCIs to 5000k/7500k instead of the 10k Honda is suggesting.
The only answer I see at this time is to shorten the OCIs to 5000k/7500k instead of the 10k Honda is suggesting.
Why'd you buy it?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
https://www.hondarandd.jp/point.php?sid=41&pid=1027&did=1027&lang=en
Simulation of Oil Separating Behavior for Engine Breather System
is a paper I referenced here some time ago.
the old days of taking off the walking stick breather and plugging in a PCV and maybe putting in a baffle are long long gone
I read the Honda paper. As I suspected, the focus was very much on the 'physical' separation of oil droplets from blow-by. I don't deny that physical separator design isn't important and it's clear they have put a great deal of effort into the science of droplet impaction & coalescence. However the words vapour pressure aren't mentioned once so they're basically ignoring any of the oil that's already in the vapour phase as the dirty blow-by traverses the physical separator. Likewise, they haven't considered what happens to unburnt/partially burnt fuel in the sump.
So 10/10 for what they did but 0/10 for imagination and thinking outside the box.
https://www.hondarandd.jp/point.php?sid=41&pid=1027&did=1027&lang=en
Simulation of Oil Separating Behavior for Engine Breather System
is a paper I referenced here some time ago.
the old days of taking off the walking stick breather and plugging in a PCV and maybe putting in a baffle are long long gone
I read the Honda paper. As I suspected, the focus was very much on the 'physical' separation of oil droplets from blow-by. I don't deny that physical separator design isn't important and it's clear they have put a great deal of effort into the science of droplet impaction & coalescence. However the words vapour pressure aren't mentioned once so they're basically ignoring any of the oil that's already in the vapour phase as the dirty blow-by traverses the physical separator. Likewise, they haven't considered what happens to unburnt/partially burnt fuel in the sump.
So 10/10 for what they did but 0/10 for imagination and thinking outside the box.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
You're an oil guy, so I'll ask you.
Could ester basestocks do anything to mitigate the potential wear caused by high fuel dilution?
I ask this because there was a long thread here years ago in which an owner of some sort of high zoot Audi was seeing horrible used oil analysis attributed to high fuel dilution.
In consultation with a purported expert who used to post here, he started using an RLI ester based oil.
His excess wear metal concerns went away.
Is there any reason to think that ester basestocks deal with fuel dilution any better than Grp III or Grp IV basestocks?
Or, phrased another way, do some oils work better with high fuel dilution than others?
I would personally be very wary about relying on esters as a means to control wear from thinned, fuel diluted oils. My big beef with esters is not that they don't work (sometimes a little splosh of ester gives a disproportionately big boost in wear protection) but that they can be very inconsistent. They can be brilliant in terms of wear on one wear test but the same oil can be catastrophically bad on another test.
My own evolved view of esters was avoid then if you can. If you can't avoid them, then minimise them to give you just what you need (like seal elastomer performance in PAO-based oils). Finally if you need extra wear performance then look to alternate solutions (such as Moly) before you reach for the ester bottle.
Regarding the specific Audi problem, esters WOULD have impacted positively on the downstream effects of excessive fuel re-evaporation (dirty inlet valves, combustion chamber deposits, stuck oil rings) because esters help on Noack. Having said that, I would have reached for the PAO bottle first because it does much the same kind of thing and is usually cheaper.
You're an oil guy, so I'll ask you.
Could ester basestocks do anything to mitigate the potential wear caused by high fuel dilution?
I ask this because there was a long thread here years ago in which an owner of some sort of high zoot Audi was seeing horrible used oil analysis attributed to high fuel dilution.
In consultation with a purported expert who used to post here, he started using an RLI ester based oil.
His excess wear metal concerns went away.
Is there any reason to think that ester basestocks deal with fuel dilution any better than Grp III or Grp IV basestocks?
Or, phrased another way, do some oils work better with high fuel dilution than others?
I would personally be very wary about relying on esters as a means to control wear from thinned, fuel diluted oils. My big beef with esters is not that they don't work (sometimes a little splosh of ester gives a disproportionately big boost in wear protection) but that they can be very inconsistent. They can be brilliant in terms of wear on one wear test but the same oil can be catastrophically bad on another test.
My own evolved view of esters was avoid then if you can. If you can't avoid them, then minimise them to give you just what you need (like seal elastomer performance in PAO-based oils). Finally if you need extra wear performance then look to alternate solutions (such as Moly) before you reach for the ester bottle.
Regarding the specific Audi problem, esters WOULD have impacted positively on the downstream effects of excessive fuel re-evaporation (dirty inlet valves, combustion chamber deposits, stuck oil rings) because esters help on Noack. Having said that, I would have reached for the PAO bottle first because it does much the same kind of thing and is usually cheaper.
I am going to try Valvoline Maxlife Full Synthetic 0W20 or 5W20 in my sons next OCI on his 2010 Civic... Pretty sure I read that these were on the higher side of viscosity for 20 weight oils.
Originally Posted By: Boss302fan
I am going to try Valvoline Maxlife Full Synthetic 0W20 or 5W20 in my sons next OCI on his 2010 Civic... Pretty sure I read that these were on the higher side of viscosity for 20 weight oils.
They may be, but as your son's Civic is port-injected rather than direct-injected, the fuel dilution/viscosity reduction issues are really not a concern. Any 20-weight oil would work very well in your son's car.
I am going to try Valvoline Maxlife Full Synthetic 0W20 or 5W20 in my sons next OCI on his 2010 Civic... Pretty sure I read that these were on the higher side of viscosity for 20 weight oils.
They may be, but as your son's Civic is port-injected rather than direct-injected, the fuel dilution/viscosity reduction issues are really not a concern. Any 20-weight oil would work very well in your son's car.
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
You're an oil guy, so I'll ask you.
Could ester basestocks do anything to mitigate the potential wear caused by high fuel dilution?
I ask this because there was a long thread here years ago in which an owner of some sort of high zoot Audi was seeing horrible used oil analysis attributed to high fuel dilution.
In consultation with a purported expert who used to post here, he started using an RLI ester based oil.
His excess wear metal concerns went away.
Is there any reason to think that ester basestocks deal with fuel dilution any better than Grp III or Grp IV basestocks?
Or, phrased another way, do some oils work better with high fuel dilution than others?
I would personally be very wary about relying on esters as a means to control wear from thinned, fuel diluted oils. My big beef with esters is not that they don't work (sometimes a little splosh of ester gives a disproportionately big boost in wear protection) but that they can be very inconsistent. They can be brilliant in terms of wear on one wear test but the same oil can be catastrophically bad on another test.
My own evolved view of esters was avoid then if you can. If you can't avoid them, then minimise them to give you just what you need (like seal elastomer performance in PAO-based oils). Finally if you need extra wear performance then look to alternate solutions (such as Moly) before you reach for the ester bottle.
Regarding the specific Audi problem, esters WOULD have impacted positively on the downstream effects of excessive fuel re-evaporation (dirty inlet valves, combustion chamber deposits, stuck oil rings) because esters help on Noack. Having said that, I would have reached for the PAO bottle first because it does much the same kind of thing and is usually cheaper.
And, in the context of part of this discussion (North America, 0w-20), a good, readily available source is Mobil 1 Extended Performance 0w20, which is 60-70% PAO according to its MSDS.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
You're an oil guy, so I'll ask you.
Could ester basestocks do anything to mitigate the potential wear caused by high fuel dilution?
I ask this because there was a long thread here years ago in which an owner of some sort of high zoot Audi was seeing horrible used oil analysis attributed to high fuel dilution.
In consultation with a purported expert who used to post here, he started using an RLI ester based oil.
His excess wear metal concerns went away.
Is there any reason to think that ester basestocks deal with fuel dilution any better than Grp III or Grp IV basestocks?
Or, phrased another way, do some oils work better with high fuel dilution than others?
I would personally be very wary about relying on esters as a means to control wear from thinned, fuel diluted oils. My big beef with esters is not that they don't work (sometimes a little splosh of ester gives a disproportionately big boost in wear protection) but that they can be very inconsistent. They can be brilliant in terms of wear on one wear test but the same oil can be catastrophically bad on another test.
My own evolved view of esters was avoid then if you can. If you can't avoid them, then minimise them to give you just what you need (like seal elastomer performance in PAO-based oils). Finally if you need extra wear performance then look to alternate solutions (such as Moly) before you reach for the ester bottle.
Regarding the specific Audi problem, esters WOULD have impacted positively on the downstream effects of excessive fuel re-evaporation (dirty inlet valves, combustion chamber deposits, stuck oil rings) because esters help on Noack. Having said that, I would have reached for the PAO bottle first because it does much the same kind of thing and is usually cheaper.
And, in the context of part of this discussion (North America, 0w-20), a good, readily available source is Mobil 1 Extended Performance 0w20, which is 60-70% PAO according to its MSDS.
Originally Posted By: dblshock
ya, we got a mess here.
Probably a bigger mess over in New Diesel Ville, where fuel dilution due to DPF regeneration is a big issue, and engine run-away due to auto-ingestion of sump oil is a real danger. Seems possible diesels are dead in Europe.
ya, we got a mess here.
Probably a bigger mess over in New Diesel Ville, where fuel dilution due to DPF regeneration is a big issue, and engine run-away due to auto-ingestion of sump oil is a real danger. Seems possible diesels are dead in Europe.
- Status
