Oil for new 18 Stinger GT

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by WhizkidTN
Why not the full-SAPS A3/B4 in this GDI engine (and a turbo engine in this case)? I may have missed the discussion on this.

Two things: (1) They usually don't have SN PLUS, which is the LSPI protection for GDI engines, and (2) their high sulfated ash (usually around 1.3%) increases the intake-valve deposits (IVD) in GDI engines.

Irrelevant if oil meets MB229.5, LL-01, Porsche A40. They are far ahead than API SN Plus.
Full SAPS oils can have as low SAPS as 1%. Castrol Edge is 1.15%. It is not only SAPS. but composition of additives, and if oil meets MB229.5 or Mid-SAPS MB229.51, deposit test is far more stringent than API SN Plus.
Also, we will see whether 3.3T is CBU prone. If it is, that means that KIA did not learn anything from Europeans. However, considering how much KIA copied BMW, and the fact that car is basically developed by BMW engineers, it is possible that they learned something about CBU.

 

[OilUzer]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
I made that comment three years ago. My knowledge, opinions, etc. evolve.

Why do you want to use 10W-30?

Base-oil quality is key for GDI in terms of IVD. You can look at the MSDS to see whether 5W-30 or 10W-30 has more PAO or GTL. Thinner base oils have lower aniline points and clean better. Thicker base oils can protect the valvetrain better. Low NOACK could be bad for GDI IVD as I said before.


In one other thread, I specifically asked about noack and ivd relationship and one of the experts (i should say super expert

) on this site does not hold the same position!
How sure are you regarding your low noack theory?

btw, I enjoy your posts. Very informative!

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by WhizkidTN
Why not the full-SAPS A3/B4 in this GDI engine (and a turbo engine in this case)? I may have missed the discussion on this.

Two things: (1) They usually don't have SN PLUS, which is the LSPI protection for GDI engines, and (2) their high sulfated ash (usually around 1.3%) increases the intake-valve deposits (IVD) in GDI engines.

Irrelevant if oil meets MB229.5, LL-01, Porsche A40. They are far ahead than API SN Plus.
Full SAPS oils can have as low SAPS as 1%. Castrol Edge is 1.15%. It is not only SAPS. but composition of additives, and if oil meets MB229.5 or Mid-SAPS MB229.51, deposit test is far more stringent than API SN Plus.
Also, we will see whether 3.3T is CBU prone. If it is, that means that KIA did not learn anything from Europeans. However, considering how much KIA copied BMW, and the fact that car is basically developed by BMW engineers, it is possible that they learned something about CBU.

Yes, these OEM specs are good specs, requiring good base oils, which help with deposits and engine cleaning. However, these engine tests are also clueless about the challenges of GDI engines, even if some of them use particular GDI engines. If those particular engines don't experience LSPI, that doesn't mean that the oil that passes their tests will have LSPI protection. As a matter of fact, some ACEA A3/B4 full-SAPS oils like M1 (or M1 FS) 0W-40 are the most LSPI-prone oils as they have heavy doses of calcium, which is the culprit behind LSPI. ACEA and European OEMs still haven't incorporated the LSPI and chain-wear tests. In fact, it looks like they will adopt the ILSAC GF-6 LSPI (also in SN PLUS) and chain-wear tests into the next ACEA update. Therefore, ILSAC/API are ahead of ACEA and European OEMs in addressing the GDI challenges:

https://www.infineuminsight.com/articles/specification-updates/acea-sequences-revisions-underway/

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by OilUzer
How sure are you regarding your low noack theory?

For a given base-oil type, such as PAO, a 0W-xx (higher NOACK) should leave less intake-valve deposits (IVD) than a 10W-xx (lower NOACK). This doesn't mean that a Group II oil with even higher NOACK will leave even less IVD -- it won't, as the base-oil quality is the key.

As I said, if you're concerned with IVD, first pick a good base oil (PAO, or if not available, GTL) and then go with 0W-xx if possible or 5W-xx if 0W-xx isn't available. I would avoid 10W-xx, 15W-xx, etc. if I'm concerned with IVD.

As I also noted, thinner base oils, which have higher NOACK, also have lower aniline points, which means higher solvency and more cleaning.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by WhizkidTN
Why not the full-SAPS A3/B4 in this GDI engine (and a turbo engine in this case)? I may have missed the discussion on this.

Two things: (1) They usually don't have SN PLUS, which is the LSPI protection for GDI engines, and (2) their high sulfated ash (usually around 1.3%) increases the intake-valve deposits (IVD) in GDI engines.

Irrelevant if oil meets MB229.5, LL-01, Porsche A40. They are far ahead than API SN Plus.
Full SAPS oils can have as low SAPS as 1%. Castrol Edge is 1.15%. It is not only SAPS. but composition of additives, and if oil meets MB229.5 or Mid-SAPS MB229.51, deposit test is far more stringent than API SN Plus.
Also, we will see whether 3.3T is CBU prone. If it is, that means that KIA did not learn anything from Europeans. However, considering how much KIA copied BMW, and the fact that car is basically developed by BMW engineers, it is possible that they learned something about CBU.

Yes, these OEM specs are good specs, requiring good base oils, which help with deposits and engine cleaning. However, these engine tests are also clueless about the challenges of GDI engines, even if some of them use particular GDI engines. If those particular engines don't experience LSPI, that doesn't mean that the oil that passes their tests will have LSPI protection. As a matter of fact, some ACEA A3/B4 full-SAPS oils like M1 (or M1 FS) 0W-40 are the most LSPI-prone oils as they have heavy doses of calcium, which is the culprit behind LSPI. ACEA and European OEMs still haven't incorporated the LSPI and chain-wear tests. In fact, it looks like they will adopt the ILSAC GF-6 LSPI (also in SN PLUS) and chain-wear tests into the next ACEA update. Therefore, ILSAC/API are ahead of ACEA and European OEMs in addressing the GDI challenges:

https://www.infineuminsight.com/articles/specification-updates/acea-sequences-revisions-underway/

LSPI is primary concern in engines of small displacement and turbo. Considering that Europeans use Turbo direct injection technology longer than most manufacturers, if not longest, and that those oil approvals are constantly updated, I would put in my car Castrol 0W40 anytime over ANY API SN+ oil, if I had a car like let's say Stinger (which ill never happen).
Reason why Euro oils are moving to ILSAC GF-6 is that Euro manufacturers are thinning required oils for NA market due to CAFE. Take note, I did not mention ACEA purposely, I mentioned MB, BMW and Porsche approvals, which are far more stringent than ACEA.

 

[Ruturaj]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Ignore those threads about 10W-30 being better than 5W-30. That's old wives' tale and there is no such thing.

Lower NOACK alone certainly doesn't help with GDI intake-valve deposits (IVD). Does it hurt? It probably does, as liquid oil spends more time on the valves before it can evaporate. Think about the spark-plug oil fouling. If the spark plugs run cold and the oil can't evaporate, they will be fouled by coked oil. There seemed to be a reverse correlation between NOACK and TEOST 33C in the Amsoil data. AAA study also found similar results for conventional vs. synthetic in TEOST 33C and MHT tests. However, it's difficult to separate the base-oil-quality effect from the NOACK effect in the latter study.

You need:

(1) The best full-synthetic base oil. Look at the MSDS's if possible. 5W-30's are usually made from better base oil than 10W-30 but this isn't always the case. If xW-20 was recommended, I would go with the PAO-based M1 EP 0W-20 but yours recommend 5W-30.

(2) Lower ash. Avoid sulfated ash over 1%, such as A3/B4 oils. Perhaps about half the IVD is ash, the rest being carbon from the coked liquid base oil (not the evaporated base oil, which quickly and cleanly burns in the combustion chamber) and EGR and exhaust particulates.

(3) SN PLUS. So that you get LSPI protection.

No matter what oil you use, you'll get some IVD in GDI engines unless there is a built-in cleaning mechanism such as dual injection.


So mobil1 ESP checks out for 2 and 3 for both viscosity.

Mobil rates 10w30 to be better (as per there comparison) than 5w30 for protecting against wear and oil consumption.

But 5w30 Annual protection does better (as per them only) in Turbocharger protection.

About point 1, I found the MSDS for both. It doesn't have base oil in there

Attaching them,

If NOACK and TEOST 33C are indeed inversely proportional (assuming TEOST 33C is good measure for deposits) then it would make sense to go highest feasible NOACk value.

Also found out (but not very sure) Ford WSS-M2C947-A is related to TEOST 33C value (Saw this on NASIO 'Excellent oil from Exxon Mobil, the only 0w20 claiming adherence to Ford's WSS-M2C947-A spec for 5w20 oil, which implies it meets the stricter turbocharger deposit specifications (TEOST 33C) for 5w20.').

But it seems that only 0W20 (which I don't want to use) are performing best TEOST value.

 

[Gokhan]

You're going to make me look like I'm spreading fake news.

(1) I never said that NOACK is inversely proportional to TEOST 33C. First and foremost, the base-oil quality matters. Then, for a given base-stock-quality "slate" (such as a specific brand of PAO), thinner base stocks with higher NOACK should do better in TEOST 33C as they can evaporate faster before deposits can form. Also, thinner base stocks in the same slate have lower aniline points and better solvency.

(2) Same thing in (1) applies for the comparative valvetrain-wear performance of 5W-30 vs. 10W-30. Unless they are made from the same base-stock slate, you can't make any judgement. For example, if they are both Group III, then perhaps 10W-30 can do better in valvetrain wear. However, don't expect a Group III 10W-30 to do better than a PAO 5W-30, the latter of which has superior viscosity as a function of temperature/pressure and friction properties.

(3) The only viscosity grade allowed in Ford WSS-M2C947-A is 0W-20 as far as it seems. So, what you saw in blogs is fake news.

(4) 0W-20s not passing TEOST 33C only applies to high-moly (hundreds of pppm) 0W-20s. 0W-20 viscosity grade is exempt from TEOST 33C for this reason (Japanese OEMs want having the option of high moly in them) and only for this reason.

(5) M1 ESP is a Group III oil with some ester. Does ester make it better than a PAO-containing oil like the vanilla M1? It probably doesn't.

(6) The 10W-30 you're referring to is M1 EP 10W-30. It's less than 5% PAO. As you see, base oils tend to get inferior as the xW part gets thicker. M1 EP 0W-20 is mostly PAO for example.

(7) M1 AP 5W-30 is not a very good oil according to its MSDS. M1 vanilla 5W-30 and M1 EP 5W-30 have more PAO.

(8) I already made a recommendation for your engine: M1 vanilla 5W-30 or M1 EP (Extended Protection) 5W-30. It also has the A5/B5 Kia recommends. The GTL-based PPPP or QSUD 5W-30 are also OK. If you want to race, where oil temperatures can get very high, then use a 5W-40 or thicker, but otherwise, it's not the optimal viscosity for regular driving with regular oil temperatures.

 

[turnbowm]

Originally Posted by edyvw
...Reason why Euro oils are moving to ILSAC GF-6 is that Euro manufacturers are thinning required oils for NA market due to CAFE. Take note, I did not mention ACEA purposely, I mentioned MB, BMW and Porsche approvals, which are far more stringent than ACEA.

I think the reasons for ILSAC GF-6 are as indicated below...

...Lubricants have been found to have an impact on LSPI. This has led to the development of an ASTM LSPI test for the ILSAC GF-6 specification, and this test is now also being considered for introduction into the ACEA Sequences.
To address the unique wear requirements of GDI engines there is also talk about introducing a chain wear test to the ACEA Sequences. Again, there seems to be no need to design a new test since an ASTM chain wear test is being developed for ILSAC GF-6.

https://www.infineuminsight.com/articles/specification-updates/acea-sequences-revisions-underway/

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by turnbowm
Originally Posted by edyvw
...Reason why Euro oils are moving to ILSAC GF-6 is that Euro manufacturers are thinning required oils for NA market due to CAFE. Take note, I did not mention ACEA purposely, I mentioned MB, BMW and Porsche approvals, which are far more stringent than ACEA.

I think the reasons for ILSAC GF-6 are as indicated below...

...Lubricants have been found to have an impact on LSPI. This has led to the development of an ASTM LSPI test for the ILSAC GF-6 specification, and this test is now also being considered for introduction into the ACEA Sequences.
To address the unique wear requirements of GDI engines there is also talk about introducing a chain wear test to the ACEA Sequences. Again, there seems to be no need to design a new test since an ASTM chain wear test is being developed for ILSAC GF-6.

https://www.infineuminsight.com/articles/specification-updates/acea-sequences-revisions-underway/

I read that. Any oils above HTHS of 3.5cp will not be ILSAC GF-6.
I am saying primary reason is CAFE as why manufacturers are moving to thinner oils, and will be ILSAC GF-6 certified in that case.
However, those same engines are staying certified for heavier oils on Euro markets and will not use ILSAC GF-6.
In the end ACEA sequence is irrelevant when it comes to manufacturers approvals. ACEA is not mandatory, it is voluntarily.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by turnbowm
Originally Posted by edyvw
...Reason why Euro oils are moving to ILSAC GF-6 is that Euro manufacturers are thinning required oils for NA market due to CAFE. Take note, I did not mention ACEA purposely, I mentioned MB, BMW and Porsche approvals, which are far more stringent than ACEA.

I think the reasons for ILSAC GF-6 are as indicated below...

...Lubricants have been found to have an impact on LSPI. This has led to the development of an ASTM LSPI test for the ILSAC GF-6 specification, and this test is now also being considered for introduction into the ACEA Sequences.
To address the unique wear requirements of GDI engines there is also talk about introducing a chain wear test to the ACEA Sequences. Again, there seems to be no need to design a new test since an ASTM chain wear test is being developed for ILSAC GF-6.

https://www.infineuminsight.com/articles/specification-updates/acea-sequences-revisions-underway/

I read that. Any oils above HTHS of 3.5cp will not be ILSAC GF-6.
I am saying primary reason is CAFE as why manufacturers are moving to thinner oils, and will be ILSAC GF-6 certified in that case.
However, those same engines are staying certified for heavier oils on Euro markets and will not use ILSAC GF-6.
In the end ACEA sequence is irrelevant when it comes to manufacturers approvals. ACEA is not mandatory, it is voluntarily.

(1) ACEA has categories for both thin oils (A5/B5, C1, and C2 [HTHSV >= 2.9 cP] and C5 [HTHSV = 2.6 - 2.8 cP]) and thick oils (A3/B3, A3/B4, C3, and C4 [HTHSV >= 3.5 cP]).

(2) Same engine tests are required for ILSAC (10W-30 or thinner) and non-ILSAC viscosity grades (all that are thicker) for API certification.

(3) All European OEM certifications are based on an ACEA certification plus an additional engine test or two.

(4) For all practical purposes, certification (industry or OEM) = additive package. You then choose the base oil that meets the NOACK. All major additive companies are US-based and their primary working group is the ILSAC consortium. Therefore, when they update the additive packages for future specifications, it's driven by ILSAC. As a result, any ACEA additive package will be built from an ILSAC additive package.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by turnbowm
Originally Posted by edyvw
...Reason why Euro oils are moving to ILSAC GF-6 is that Euro manufacturers are thinning required oils for NA market due to CAFE. Take note, I did not mention ACEA purposely, I mentioned MB, BMW and Porsche approvals, which are far more stringent than ACEA.

I think the reasons for ILSAC GF-6 are as indicated below...

...Lubricants have been found to have an impact on LSPI. This has led to the development of an ASTM LSPI test for the ILSAC GF-6 specification, and this test is now also being considered for introduction into the ACEA Sequences.
To address the unique wear requirements of GDI engines there is also talk about introducing a chain wear test to the ACEA Sequences. Again, there seems to be no need to design a new test since an ASTM chain wear test is being developed for ILSAC GF-6.

https://www.infineuminsight.com/articles/specification-updates/acea-sequences-revisions-underway/

I read that. Any oils above HTHS of 3.5cp will not be ILSAC GF-6.
I am saying primary reason is CAFE as why manufacturers are moving to thinner oils, and will be ILSAC GF-6 certified in that case.
However, those same engines are staying certified for heavier oils on Euro markets and will not use ILSAC GF-6.
In the end ACEA sequence is irrelevant when it comes to manufacturers approvals. ACEA is not mandatory, it is voluntarily.

(1) ACEA has categories for both thin oils (A5/B5, C1, and C2 [HTHSV >= 2.9 cP] and C5 [HTHSV = 2.6 - 2.8 cP]) and thick oils (A3/B3, A3/B4, C3, and C4 [HTHSV >= 3.5 cP]).

(2) Same engine tests are required for ILSAC (10W-30 or thinner) and non-ILSAC viscosity grades (all that are thicker) for API certification.

(3) All European OEM certifications are based on an ACEA certification plus an additional engine test or two.

(4) For all practical purposes, certification (industry or OEM) = additive package. You then choose the base oil that meets the NOACK. All major additive companies are US-based and their primary working group is the ILSAC consortium. Therefore, when they update the additive packages for future specifications, it's driven by ILSAC. As a result, any ACEA additive package will be built from an ILSAC additive package.

You do know that ACEA is voluntarily specification not mandatory? No, they are not based on ACEA, they are based on actual needs of engine they developed.
I worked on VW504.00/507.00 oil development. it is not test or two, and it is not developed from ACEA tests (I purposely saying test and not requirement as ACEA is NOT mandatory).
I am very well aware that ACEA has lighter oil tests, which are irrelevant as what MB or VW are going to offer.
I have told you already that for this application IMO only thing that matters is MB229.5, BMW LL01 or Porsche A40. Whether it is API SN+ is absolutely irrelevant and if I was an owner, I could not care less as those specs. are already more stringent than any API tests.
Owner can chase ILSAC GF-6, API SN+, my point is he is getting oil that is developed around more stringent requirements if he goes with MB 229.5, BMW LL01 or Porsche A40.

 

[turnbowm]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
...Yes, these OEM specs are good specs, requiring good base oils, which help with deposits and engine cleaning. However, these engine tests are also clueless about the challenges of GDI engines, even if some of them use particular GDI engines. If those particular engines don't experience LSPI, that doesn't mean that the oil that passes their tests will have LSPI protection. As a matter of fact, some ACEA A3/B4 full-SAPS oils like M1 (or M1 FS) 0W-40 are the most LSPI-prone oils as they have heavy doses of calcium, which is the culprit behind LSPI. ACEA and European OEMs still haven't incorporated the LSPI and chain-wear tests. In fact, it looks like they will adopt the ILSAC GF-6 LSPI (also in SN PLUS) and chain-wear tests into the next ACEA update. Therefore, ILSAC/API are ahead of ACEA and European OEMs in addressing the GDI challenges...

Hard to understand why the Europeans are dragging their feet on these issues. API was late to the LSPI party with their SN+ release, but ACEA seems to be oblivious.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by edyvw
You do know that ACEA is voluntarily specification not mandatory? No, they are not based on ACEA, they are based on actual needs of engine they developed.
I worked on VW504.00/507.00 oil development. it is not test or two, and it is not developed from ACEA tests (I purposely saying test and not requirement as ACEA is NOT mandatory).

OK, so, it depends on the OEM. Looking at the Afton Specification Handbook, VW and MB specs aren't built on ACEA. However, BMW and other OEM specs are.

It's also interesting that GM dexos is built on both API and ACEA simultaneously.

Coming back to intake-valve deposits (IVD), VW 504.00 is the only VW spec that tests for IVD. Castrol Edge 5W-30 LL carries VW 504.00 alongside ACEA C3:

https://www.castrol.com/en_gb/unite...dge-product-range/edge-product-page.html

This is inline with what I have been saying all along -- avoid full-SAPS oils and choose a mid-SAPS oils with a good base oil if you want less IVD. It's interesting that even though VW 504.00 is full-SAPS by definition (up to 1.5% sulfated ash), in practice, it must be mid-SAPS to reduce IVD or else it won't pass the VW IVD test known as VW FSI (FSI = GDI) PV 1481. Full-SAPS oils don't carry VW 504.00 for that reason.

 

[Ruturaj]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
You're going to make me look like I'm spreading fake news.


Sorry about the confusion.

Originally Posted by Gokhan
(8) I already made a recommendation for your engine: M1 vanilla 5W-30 or M1 EP (Extended Protection) 5W-30. It also has the A5/B5 Kia recommends. The GTL-based PPPP or QSUD 5W-30 are also OK. If you want to race, where oil temperatures can get very high, then use a 5W-40 or thicker, but otherwise, it's not the optimal viscosity for regular driving with regular oil temperatures.


I am going to assume you meant Extended performance not protection. I won't be racing my car. I would go with Mobil1 Extended Performance 5w-30. Thank you all the info.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by Ruturaj
Originally Posted by Gokhan
You're going to make me look like I'm spreading fake news.
Sorry about the confusion.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
(8) I already made a recommendation for your engine: M1 vanilla 5W-30 or M1 EP (Extended Protection) 5W-30. It also has the A5/B5 Kia recommends. The GTL-based PPPP or QSUD 5W-30 are also OK. If you want to race, where oil temperatures can get very high, then use a 5W-40 or thicker, but otherwise, it's not the optimal viscosity for regular driving with regular oil temperatures.
I am going to assume you meant Extended performance not protection. I won't be racing my car. I would go with Mobil1 Extended Performance 5w-30. Thank you all the info.

No worries.

Yes, I think Mobil 1 Extended Performance (M1 EP) 5W-30 is the optimal choice for this engine among the current oils. It has tad bit more PAO and tad bit less VII than M1 vanilla 5W-30. NOACKs are the same (about 10%). M1 EP 5W-30 has a little thinner base oil than M1 vanilla 5W-30.

I noted in my previous post that VW 504.00 oils go through the VW GDI intake-valve-deposit (IVD) test but unfortunately, none of them have LSPI protection or SN PLUS (they have high calcium and no magnesium). There are some great PAO-based oils with low - mid SAPS like Motul 8100 X-clean+ VW 504.00, but they are also expensive, hard to find, and lack LSPI protection.

 

[Brigadier]

Motul 8100 x-clean is dexos 2 rated. Dexos 2 has an LPI test.

 

[dblshock]

most here run the TGDI on Edge 0W40 and call it a day.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by Brigadier
Dexos 2 has an LPI test.

No, dexos1 Gen 2 has an LSPI test. dexos2 is still Gen 1.

 

[turnbowm]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by Brigadier
Dexos 2 has an LPI test.

No, dexos1 Gen 2 has an LSPI test. dexos2 is still Gen 1.

I think Brigadier has this one right...

https://www.fuelsandlubes.com/fli-article/the-new-gm-dexos2-its-complicated/

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by turnbowm
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by Brigadier
Dexos 2 has an LPI test.
No, dexos1 Gen 2 has an LSPI test. dexos2 is still Gen 1.
I think Brigadier has this one right...

https://www.fuelsandlubes.com/fli-article/the-new-gm-dexos2-its-complicated/

No... It's talking about the dexos2 Gen 2 update. Currently, it's the original Gen 1 spec.

You can also easily tell if an oil doesn't have LSPI protection from the detergent type. LSPI protection always requires Ca + Mg detergent. All current dexos2 oils have Ca-only detergent. If an oil has SN PLUS, it has Ca + Mg detergent and LSPI protection.