German Castrol 0w30, 6900 miles, 99 Civic

[Patman]

Here are the latest oil analysis results on my sister's car, from Wearcheck
Canada.
This was her second interval with GC 0w30.

Here are the details:
1999 Honda Civic
1.6L engine, 106hp, 5 speed manual
6900 miles on oil/54,000 miles on engine
NAPA Gold 1334 oil filter
Oil interval was from July 3 to Oct 26
No top up oil
Oil capacity is 4L (4.2 qts)
Mostly highway driving, but lots of rush hour traffic too


Iron-15
Lead-2.2
Aluminum-2.1
Copper-1.8
Silicon-11
Chromium-0.6
Nickel-0
Titanium-0
Silver-0.2
Tin-0
Sodium-0
Potassium-0
Boron-5.6
Barium-0
Moly-2.3
Magnesium-153
Calcium-3277
Phosphorus-900
Zinc-979
Manganese-232
Vanadium-0
Fuel-0
Water-0
Glycol-0
Oxidation-0% (has to be lab error)
Nitration-49%
VI-184
Viscosity at 40C-64.1 (virgin is 67.6)
Viscosity at 100C-11.9 (virgin is 12.2)
TBN-6.80 (virgin is 9.39)


This is from the earlier batch of this oil, so chances are it had close to 9ppm of iron to begin with, so that's why iron is higher than it should be. These wear numbers are even better than the first interval she ran with this oil. I'll post a side by side view of that data later on when I have more time to line it all up properly.

I'm extremely impressed with this oil, yet again it proved that in non turbo applications it stays extremely close to it's starting viscosity at 100C.

I will admit I was a little bit worried that the second interval in this car might've shown wear numbers slightly higher, due to the plated moly (from the Mobil 1 used before GC) going away. But this obviously is not the case.

It's just too bad this is the last UOA from this car. My sister is moving out west and this car has now been sold.

 

[buster]

Great report! This oil is very consistant. I'd have no compliants with this one.

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
Great report! This oil is very consistant. I'd have no compliants with this one.

---

Yep, the only thing that really bothers me about this oil is the high iron in the virgin samples, but it appears to be getting to lower levels with the newer batches, so hopefully by the time the next batch comes out, they'll have cleaned out their pipes and there will be no trace metals in the new oil.

 

[Al]

Very impressive. I guess the only thing you could quibble with is the silicon. But a guy has to find some fault

. We should start seeing more GC reports as more folks are checking it out. I guess the vehicle has smething to do with good results. Wish I hade more cars so I could try it.

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Al:
Very impressive. I guess the only thing you could quibble with is the silicon.

---

The silicon level actually dropped from her last interval, so it would've been interesting to see the next run (if there was one) Her last 5500 mile interval showed 11ppm of silicon, so in this case she went 1400 miles more and still showed 11ppm of silicon. I don't think too much of that is dirt anyway though, based on the low chromium and low lead.

Here is a quick comparison of her two intervals with this oil:

code:

---

5500mi 6900mi

Iron 14 15

Lead 4.5 2.2

Al 2.5 2.1

Copper 3.0 1.8

Chromium 0.8 0.6

Silicon 11 11

100C VIS 11.5 11.9

TBN 6.90 6.80

---

I still believe the oxidation number is way off. Her first 5500 mile run showed 29% oxidation and 21% nitration. So this run seems weird showing 0% oxidation but 49% nitration. They also didn't give a sulfation value, so this leads me to believe something funky happened with those particular tests.

[ October 30, 2003, 06:07 AM: Message edited by: Patman ]

 

[Patman]

I thought I should include a comparison between this run and the 8000 mile run she did last year with SL formula TriSynthetic 5w30 Mobil 1.

code:

---

M1 GC

8k 6.9k



Iron 19 15

Lead 10 2.2

Aluminum 5.2 2.1

Copper 3.8 1.8

Silicon 8 11

Chromium 3 0.6

Nickel 0.1 0

Titanium 0.1 0

Silver 0.4 0.2

Tin 0.2 0

Sodium 6.5 0

Potassium 0 0

Boron 118 5.6

Barium 0 0

Moly 82 2.3

Magnesium 50 153

Calcium 2834 3277

Phosphorus 902 900

Zinc 1091 979

Oxidation 51% 0%?

Nitration 37% 49%

Vis at 40C 50.6 64.1

Vis at 100C 9.5 11.9

TBN 5.27 6.80

---

[ November 01, 2003, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: Patman ]

 

[Primus]

Patman,
Results are really good and better then with M1. Thanks a lot for their presentation. Obviously your sister's car liked GC.

Think it was possible to foresee or at least suppose that GC, given it is ACEA A3/B3 rated and approved by many European OEMs, may be better then just API SJ or SL oil, especially if the question about its use in not very demanding Honda engine and this type of driving. But could you expect GC will be also better then M1 10W-30 or Castrol 5W-50 if the same car is pushed hard most of the time between oil change ?

To tell the truth it would be interesting to see results with Castrol 5W-50 in your car. Why not to try ? There is nothing better then pure experiment.

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Primus:


To tell the truth it would be interesting to see results with Castrol 5W-50 in your car. Why not to try ? There is nothing better then pure experiment.

---

The results with GC in my 95 Firebird were good enough that I don't want to try anything else right now. I can't argue with only seeing 3.6ppm of lead in a 3k interval in an extremely hard driven V8! I can't imagine it getting too much lower than this. As much as I'm curious about how other oils would do in my Firebird, I am going to stick with GC 0w30 as long as I can. With the wear numbers I'm seeing I'm sure I'll still not need an engine rebuild in the next 5-6 years. And at that point is when I'll be selling it and getting a C5 Corvette.

 

[Patman]

In typical Patman fashion, whenever I get a UOA I like to analyze the wear numbers in terms of ppm/1000 miles. When graphed in this fashion, you can really see the improvement shown by GC on it's second interval. Perhaps the antiwear technology it uses is similar to how moly behaves, and gets better on the second run than on the first.

Here is a comparison in terms of ppm/1000 miles:

code:

---

GC #1 GC #2

Iron 2.54 2.17

Lead 0.81 0.31

Al. 0.45 0.30

Copper 0.54 0.26

Si 2.00 1.59

Chromium 0.14 0.08

---

[ November 01, 2003, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: Patman ]

 

[TooSlick]

Patman,

Not surprised to see these numbers ....

I think the ACEA, A3/B4 oils in the high 30wt or low 40wt range, are just about ideal for most situations. Even engines showing good results with the 5w-20's would be better served using something a bit thicker when they get over 100k miles on them.

What Canadian gas has that much manganese in it??? I've seen 70 ppm from the Shell fuel down here ...

 

[Patman]

All of our fuel up here has MMT in it still, which is why we see such high manganese in our UOAs. It doesn't seem to affect the oil in any way though.

I agree about the high 30/low 40wt oils providing excellent protection for a lot of engines. That viscosity of oil seems to do very well in the LS1 and LT1 engine, and also in these Honda engines too. I can't wait to see how my wife's Honda responds to this oil. It won't hit 5000 miles until sometime next spring or early summer though.

 

[Last_Z]

Hmmm......Pat, so you like high 30 low 40 weights even for the Civic huh!

You see? Thicker oil isn't so bad....key word here is "thicker"....meaning thicker than what you are currently running, but NOT impliying you go off the scale with an 80W

I really believe that a mid 30W to mid 40W is perfect for almost all vehicles depending on the engine and use....in other words: LS1, hard driven, summer time....thick 40W....Civic, all types of driving, summer time....light 40W.
Winter time is another story....a 5W-20 might be better......same can be said for 50W...they also have their applications.

BTW Pat, good report! You are making me wanna buy some more of this stuff. I only have one OCI for my Z, which will be next.
Rick

 

[Last_Z]

Pat,
Agree!