Merkurwwu, I have been using the FP60 since new to combat some of the Volvo tendency to fuel dilute and recommend it. Mine is my wife's car and sees a lot of short-trip driving. I have not noticed an excessive amount of fuel dilution with mine. UOA shows low insolubles with a 4k run of the oil (I split the dealer changes with one of my own).
Is fuel dilution permanent?
- Thread starter Merkurwwu
- Start date
- Status
There was no mud slinging. Terry suggested you should not jump to conclusions without further education in the subject matter. That's not mud slinging.
Calling you a dummy...that would be mud slinging.
(That was a joke, BTW. I'm NOT calling you that.)
Merkerwuu, I just picked up a new Passat with the 2.0T FSI engine and so I'm sure fuel dilution will be an issue. My temporary plan is just to change every 3k miles until I get Terry to help me to design a regiment to keep this engine lasting a long time.
G-Man, he said "as usual" I am misinformed. Even he knows that's false. I am sometimes misinformed but not usually.
I want some clarifications but not secrets. He said M1 is one of the worst at resisting aromatics attack. First define what aromatics attack is. Then tell how it was determined that M1 is one of the worst in that regard and how the higher iron wear was linked to to this attack.
I want some clarifications but not secrets. He said M1 is one of the worst at resisting aromatics attack. First define what aromatics attack is. Then tell how it was determined that M1 is one of the worst in that regard and how the higher iron wear was linked to to this attack.
Thanks for the info Terry. We'll be doing business soon with our other vehicles and then later in the year with the Volvo (the dealer gets the first changes at 3500 and 7500 miles).
Thank you too, Tones, I'll look into it...!
Thank you too, Tones, I'll look into it...!
Sounds like RLI's new oil formulation is the one to use now.
JAG and buster, Now that I have your attention; BITOG while a wonderfully accessable and generally relied upon source for consumer level tribological study of the automotive type is not the proper pervue for full disclosure and since my business is that, not a hobby, I share what I can when I can.
Some motor oils have successfully reformulated to take advantage of the fuels realities here in the US. Some have not.
XOM is underdeveloping and underexecuting on their top of the line formulas and commentary to the opposite is poppycock. In a normally running engine M1 will work fine but the current formulas indeed allow too much wear by any measure. Aromatics from systemic fuel dilute is causing aggravated wear in most oil formulas but M1 is letting YOU the customer down for the money spent. You are paying for brand recognition not technology. Hopefully that will change.... they sure have the resources to do it.
JAG, you and buster post lots here and the newer members will not know that just because you are prolific you may not have much breadth of experience to base your bold wear commentary in this thread, on. I just provided an alternative view backed with lots of experience and professional testing.
This is no HIT on M1, it an observation from a independent analyst who wants the best for his customers.
Brand be darned.
Amsoil has corrected their vis thickening oxidation issues of 2 years ago.
COP synthetic blends are real stable but allow too much valvetrain wear in the past few years since introduction.
Schaeffers used to use a PTFE formula in their add pack that was a component of the "PENETRO" additive.
Valvoline used to have terrible cold crank and pump values in there conventional oils that was corrected 6 years ago.
RLI formulas until recently had oxidation limiting issues until the advancement of advanced Hybridized HOBS characteristics and thus they are now rivaling about any GRP V oils. RS4 program proves that from all over the US and some foreign customers.
I share what I can and base it on testing and stay independent.
If you want proof that you buy from me I give it in spades. Even then I will limit what you share on a public forum.
And I still respect and value your contributions JAG and buster.
Terry
Some motor oils have successfully reformulated to take advantage of the fuels realities here in the US. Some have not.
XOM is underdeveloping and underexecuting on their top of the line formulas and commentary to the opposite is poppycock. In a normally running engine M1 will work fine but the current formulas indeed allow too much wear by any measure. Aromatics from systemic fuel dilute is causing aggravated wear in most oil formulas but M1 is letting YOU the customer down for the money spent. You are paying for brand recognition not technology. Hopefully that will change.... they sure have the resources to do it.
JAG, you and buster post lots here and the newer members will not know that just because you are prolific you may not have much breadth of experience to base your bold wear commentary in this thread, on. I just provided an alternative view backed with lots of experience and professional testing.
This is no HIT on M1, it an observation from a independent analyst who wants the best for his customers.
Brand be darned.
Amsoil has corrected their vis thickening oxidation issues of 2 years ago.
COP synthetic blends are real stable but allow too much valvetrain wear in the past few years since introduction.
Schaeffers used to use a PTFE formula in their add pack that was a component of the "PENETRO" additive.
Valvoline used to have terrible cold crank and pump values in there conventional oils that was corrected 6 years ago.
RLI formulas until recently had oxidation limiting issues until the advancement of advanced Hybridized HOBS characteristics and thus they are now rivaling about any GRP V oils. RS4 program proves that from all over the US and some foreign customers.
I share what I can and base it on testing and stay independent.
If you want proof that you buy from me I give it in spades. Even then I will limit what you share on a public forum.
And I still respect and value your contributions JAG and buster.
Terry
AMEN TERRY!! My favorite post here in a week I think. (not for knocking anyone, just a very well thought out and informative post)
Terry, I was just suggesting we see more data/used oil analysis before getting all excited about RLI and it appears we have some in the works as many have/are trying it. I know nothing about RLI other than they must have something extremely proprietary to get this technology to work well. I've done a little digging into this stuff and most of it, prior to the RLI thread, was negative. Ofcourse some positives too but as an overall chemistry in motor oils. Again this is your area and I know very little about it.
Originally I thought the entire/most of the RLI stuff was BIO based, but it turns out it is only 30%. Doesn't make a difference to me either way if it works, I was just thrown off a bit. Your comments about M1 are probably right. I have ZERO doubts at all that M1 is not what it used to be in most, not all, grades. Clearly profit driven.
Yes, Amsoil has improved a lot and you were right years ago suggesting Amsoil has oxidation issues. Maybe the exposure on this board along with Pablo's letter a few years ago woke up Amsoil. Whatever it was, I'm glad they changed bc they are making some very good oils right now across the board.
Originally I thought the entire/most of the RLI stuff was BIO based, but it turns out it is only 30%. Doesn't make a difference to me either way if it works, I was just thrown off a bit. Your comments about M1 are probably right. I have ZERO doubts at all that M1 is not what it used to be in most, not all, grades. Clearly profit driven.
Yes, Amsoil has improved a lot and you were right years ago suggesting Amsoil has oxidation issues. Maybe the exposure on this board along with Pablo's letter a few years ago woke up Amsoil. Whatever it was, I'm glad they changed bc they are making some very good oils right now across the board.
Thanks Terry, all.
Some people around here can be a real tease, but heck the facts could very well seem like another language, like lawyer-talk!
Take care...scientists and consumers alike.
Some people around here can be a real tease, but heck the facts could very well seem like another language, like lawyer-talk!
Take care...scientists and consumers alike.
This is a hobby for me...for him it's his business.
It cost a lot of money to "prove things". Come up with a pile of cash and he'll design tests for you. Have x3-x5 this cash because you'll find at times you know less than you thought. And at the end of all of it you get an education and STILL don't know it all (scientific discovery tends to open more questions).
Companies can pay for this out of antisipated profits. You can get the same "proof" if you want to pay.
I'm happy to use antidotal evidance, study, and my own experience. Then share what I can here.
It cost a lot of money to "prove things". Come up with a pile of cash and he'll design tests for you. Have x3-x5 this cash because you'll find at times you know less than you thought. And at the end of all of it you get an education and STILL don't know it all (scientific discovery tends to open more questions).
Companies can pay for this out of antisipated profits. You can get the same "proof" if you want to pay.
I'm happy to use antidotal evidance, study, and my own experience. Then share what I can here.
Thanks for clarifying as much as you are willing to, Terry. My questioning is not meant to denigrate you, it's just my nature to need to hear both the WHAT and the WHY or HOW.
I still would like to hear a description of what aromatics damage is in terms of chemical reactions. Educating us on that should not be giving away knowledge that's held tight. What I gathered in the RLI used oil analysis thread from RI_RS4 is that it's breakdown of the polymeric viscosity index improvers caused by fuel in the oil. Now I'm not so sure.
I know that fuel in oil causes many bad chemical reactions to occur. That's well known. But I never heard of the term aromatics damage from anyone but you so that's why I'm asking for your description. On a related note, I once made a 60% motor oil / 40% gasoline mixture and heated it like I often do pure motor oils, but I did not heat it for long. Just looking at the oil's reddish brown color after most of the gas had been evaporated off showed it was chemically stressed. But the worst thing I ever put into motor oil during testing was water.
I still would like to hear a description of what aromatics damage is in terms of chemical reactions. Educating us on that should not be giving away knowledge that's held tight. What I gathered in the RLI used oil analysis thread from RI_RS4 is that it's breakdown of the polymeric viscosity index improvers caused by fuel in the oil. Now I'm not so sure.
I know that fuel in oil causes many bad chemical reactions to occur. That's well known. But I never heard of the term aromatics damage from anyone but you so that's why I'm asking for your description. On a related note, I once made a 60% motor oil / 40% gasoline mixture and heated it like I often do pure motor oils, but I did not heat it for long. Just looking at the oil's reddish brown color after most of the gas had been evaporated off showed it was chemically stressed. But the worst thing I ever put into motor oil during testing was water.
JAG, nice finding with the fuel dilution experiment. GC turned reddish brown in my G35 when I used it. It later turned very black. Guess what Terry found in my used oil analysis...1.29% fuel dilution/320F FP. Blackstone said it was 410F FP. Could be another tool/indicator for those who are curious about whether they have fuel dilution issues.
"Testing protocols are critical to understanding and back yard oil boilings are not normally controlled enough to gain that kind of insight!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, hey, hey???
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, hey, hey???
"Testing protocols are critical to understanding and back yard oil boilings are not normally controlled enough to gain that kind of insight!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I always thought that the Schaeffer's oils held up very well to fuel dilution. At least the older, thicker formula.
RI RS4: Yeeouch!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked