Oil for New Nissan Note 1.6L

[timeau]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Ahh yes. The highly regarded Heated Spoon Test for Additive Loss. How could I have missed that.

Probably your oil rings are not that picky. Believe or not, but they don't care about your believes. They just got covered by almost diamond hard deposits from oil additives and that's it.
Again, I disassembled at least 6-7 different engines. And I have never, never seen a scientist inside a cylinder

So simplest test sometimes give you an idea what is good or wrong, no rocket science is required.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
^^^^HAW! What a laugh.
The infamous burnt spoon test! The new standard in oil evaluation!
And he dissed Toyota's 0W-20, too.
Seriously, almost any branded synthetic in the spec'd weight is probably better than needed...

You are right: less knowledge - better sleep.
Originally Posted By: BlackWidow
Originally Posted By: timeau
At least europenian Shell Ultra is awful.

Why?

I am glad that you asked that. Sorry for a long explanation, but this is necessary to explain this.
First of all: why synthetic oils are used?
1. They are more expensive and bring more money for manufactures;
2. They can be used in very cold climate;
3. They provide longer OCI.
Item number 2 is not important unless you live in Alaska. So, please, pay attention on item 1 and 3. Actually, number 1 is the most significant, and number 3 provides an excellent explanation of overpaying. Mighty advertisement makes people think that synthetic oil bring them something magic that they have never had before. Same as Starbucks, Coca-Cola, etc., where people are paying by their health. In case of synthetic oil people pay by their engines.
You definitely know about the chemical polarity. In plain language and quite roughly this is an ability to dissolve other substances. Mineral oils have high polarity: they dissolve additives completely. Heating can't make additives to precipitate. That's what you can see on a picture above, left bottle.
PAO or Group III oils are low polar liquids, they just can't dissolve additives. Manufactures need to do additional investigations to solve this problem. How do you think why Royal Purple has Group II in it? This is extremely illogical: they advertise and sell Group IV oils, right? So the answer is: mineral component is used to dissolve additives.
Another example. You probably read about some suspension on the bottom of oil bottle. People wonders what is this. These are precipitated additives that came from long storing oils. And almost all of these oils are Group III.
So in some, but not all synthetic oil additives could precipitate. No science required to check this: just heat it. Or read about new fashion in oil industry.

Few citations from there:
Quote:
The hot gases in the turbocharger turbine area create a very harsh environment for the oil in the bearing housing. This is probably the most severe area in the whole engine for the oil, with oil temperatures exceeding 350 degrees C for short periods.


So 350C is not exotic temperature any more. Remember this number. Actually, piston rings on non-turbo cars could easily have 300C too.

Quote:

For example, a good combination of antioxidants and detergents can significantly reduce the formation of oxidized species that create sludge, and a balanced mixture of detergents can reduce deposit formation on the pistons. Finally, optimized dispersants can solubilize sludge, preventing its separation from the lubricant.[/qoute]

Industry & OEM Actions

Industry specifications for engine oils are generally slow to adopt the latest engine types in the list of required performance tests. However, industry organizations and individual OEMs are recognizing that tests based on older engines can no longer guarantee the protection needed for modern TGDI engines. An example can be found in the European ACEA Oil Sequences, where a sludge test using a TGDI engine is currently under development. Also, a TGDI oxidation/ deposit test has been proposed, with deposits in the turbo bearing area being a key parameter.


One more time: this is an article from http://gf-6.com. Is it quite reputable? I think so. Also it have a set of excellent graphs and photos.

Back to Shell Ultra.
Heating this oil in a laboratory to 380 C produces pretty poor result:
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6507/16219540.3/0_8c85b_c35c6789_orig
Additives precipitate on the bottom of the flask. Compare with Mobil1:
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6403/16219540.1/0_8a647_a56af106_XXL
and
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6403/16219540.1/0_8a645_78cbc5b6_XXL

Otherwise, Pennzoil advertise their Ultra as the oil for clean pistons. This makes me think that they would not dare to do that without any reason. So Pennzoil Ultra could be OK, I just don't have enough information.

P.S. Havoline Synthetic: what a mess...
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6503/16219540.1/0_8a63d_2d1f9310_XXL
Mazda OEM:
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6505/16219540.3/0_8c855_c3e7614d_orig

 

[OVERKILL]

So.... actual engine tear-down testing needs to be abandoned for just testing the oil in a spoon or super heated beaker?

You do realize that most major OEM certifications/approvals involve the testing of the product in an ACTUAL ENGINE, right?

I'm quite sure that the testing of the product in an actual engine is more likely to replicate the product's performance in..... an actual engine.... than a spoon/beaker/other super heated device

Shell's piston pictures are from.... you guessed it.... an actual engine test for piston deposits, one that is an industry standard.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: timeau

You definitely know about the chemical polarity. In plain language and quite roughly this is an ability to dissolve other substances. Mineral oils have high polarity: they dissolve additives completely. Heating can't make additives to precipitate. That's what you can see on a picture above, left bottle.
PAO or Group III oils are low polar liquids, they just can't dissolve additives. Manufactures need to do additional investigations to solve this problem. How do you think why Royal Purple has Group II in it? This is extremely illogical: they advertise and sell Group IV oils, right? So the answer is: mineral component is used to dissolve additives.


You appear to be blending polarity (the attraction element, think oil clinging to the walls of a cylinder, esters are quite polar and this can provide some cleaning benefit as they will attract to and potentially lift away deposits like varnish) with additive solubility, which is something that decreases with highly refined base oils. Now, both traits do tend to trend down as the base stock group # increases (group 1 is more polar and has greater additive solubility than Group II, which is more polar and has more additive solubility than group III...etc) but this is why AN's and Esters (Group V) are blended into Group III and IV base stocks as well as some lower group product to provide the necessary additive solubility. This delicately balanced blend provides you with superior high heat resistance, better cold temperature performance (and I assure you, you do not need to live in Alaska to benefit from this.... I assume you've never been to Edmonton eh?) and the ability to be kept in service longer while still providing the same level of protection.

Here's a little read on the additive solubility thing BTW:

Additive solubility in Group II, III

 

[s1mp13m4n]

My wife and I own a 2012 Nissan Versa S with the 1.8 l engine. The 1.6 and 1.8 are the same family. Our cars use the same oil and filter. This is what I use in our car.

Amsoil 5w-30 OE
Amsoil EA15K12 oil filter

I choose to use the Nissan oem oil change of 3750 miles. I realize the oil and filter can go much longer. Our car is under warranty thus I chose to use the severe service schedule according to Nissan. Nissan specs 5w-30 for both our cars, so I prefer to use what the engine was designed to use.

 

[yvon_la]

S1mp .and you are right to not extend oci .flow is all nice and good but so is pressure ,why ?check a radiator .say it call for a 15 psi cap and you put a 0 psi cap ?oil pressure follow a similar pattern .if pressure isn't high enough problem will happen.yes it is possible to have an engine with 10 psi/1000 rpm and be with a 0w20 oil.but most engine weren't design for it so you likely won't get 10psi /1000 rpm if you don't use the xxw30

 

[timeau]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
So.... actual engine tear-down testing needs to be abandoned for just testing the oil in a spoon or super heated beaker?

They need to be at least improved. What the sence to have the oil with a million of certification marks if these oils don't do what they suppose to do?

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
You do realize that most major OEM certifications/approvals involve the testing of the product in an ACTUAL ENGINE, right?

Also I am just wondering what rocket science are people expecting to confirm simplest things? Does the heat in the spoon differ from a heat inside of cylinder if temperature is same? Moreover, conditions inside of ACTUAL ENGINE should be more severe than in a spoon. I would accept your point of view if the picture is opposite: good results in a spoon does NOT mean correct behavior in an ACTUAL ENGINE. But if it failed at the beginning what for to test it further?

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
I'm quite sure that the testing of the product in an actual engine is more likely to replicate the product's performance in..... an actual engine.... than a spoon/beaker/other super heated device

OK, let's reformulate the task. Have you ever hired an employee? At least I give him/her a small task and look what have (s)he done. If result is not acceptable, I won't hire (s)he. And you are trying to convince me that if I ask him do do a REAL task, (s)he would be OK.
You know, wonders exists in Horwards only, in this world there is no magic.

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Shell's piston pictures are from.... you guessed it.... an actual engine test for piston deposits, one that is an industry standard.

Look in the article that I provide. You'll see almost same pictures on a turbo bearings.
BTW, technics is not marketing or politics. Oils don't care about "properly made experiments" and other funny staff. They just work or fail.

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
You appear to be blending polarity (the attraction element, think oil clinging to the walls of a cylinder, esters are quite polar and this can provide some cleaning benefit as they will attract to and potentially lift away deposits like varnish) with additive solubility, which is something that decreases with highly refined base oils.

Not at all. I was talking about the ability of liquid to dissolve other substances.

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
This delicately balanced blend provides you with superior high heat resistance

Did I dispute about heat resistance? This was number 3 in my previous post. Problem is/was in additives separation in a heat. Some oils are properly done (Mobil1, Shell Titanium), some are not. I don't see anything illogical here.

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
better cold temperature performance (and I assure you, you do not need to live in Alaska to benefit from this.... I assume you've never been to Edmonton eh?) and the ability to be kept in service longer while still providing the same level of protection.

You probably guessed that English is not my native language, right? So Edmonton's temperatures are not THAT impressing comparing to the most eastern part of Europe where I was living. Is -20-25C from 20 to 30 days a year good enough? Probably yes. And I will tell you a small secret: you will NOT see a difference between 0W40 and 5W40 in that conditions. Especially if 50% of people have engine core heater on their cars.

 

[SteveSRT8]

A long winded post does nothing to prove your poorly thought out assertions. And no one here gives a hoot about oil performance in a spoon either.

More ignorance does not equal better sleep...

 

[ARCOgraphite]

The TEOST deposit spec is a bench test - not in situ.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted By: Miller88
The note is a nice little car - you got the same configuration I would get if I got one! Only thing I don't like is the under-the-body spare tire.

Don't they have like a 3 quart oil capacity? I'd run a good synthetic in that, especially since it's now DI.
Yeah that spare is odd - but the release is in the trunk floor - I think.
I would not pay more than $12500 like I did. This is a stuck in the "90's driving base subcompact - the Sentra is a HUGE improvement if it wasn't for the weak 1.8 in that car.
On the NOte. The Unibody is pretty shakey up front and the front suspension has "mystery" steering response that I might not be able to cope with
. The back seat is insanely, 'full size car' generous at 39 inches legroom - but I don't carry passengers.
Enjoy the wonderfull 1.6L engine though mated with the MT, just right for the car's 2400 lbs.
The 2015 FIt with the new 130 HP di and 6 speed MT is still likely the car to beat in this segment. The Local dealer had a base model for 16K$ but they sold it in one day, The previous gen Forte sedan was as near perfect as anything ever made in this segment. Hard to find for sale not beat up though.

The Nissan is made at a new factory in AguasCalientes, Mexico.


I drove a new Sentra. Horrible. The CVT refused to let the engine go above 1100RPM when accelerating. This produced an awful vibration that resonated throughout the whole car.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted By: racin4ds
Good luck with that 1.6 engine, its a mexican built POS that was built with Renault in a joint venture. We had one in our '13 Versa that was replaced at 7500 miles due to piston slap. I found it anemic to say the least, maybe its better in the '14 ??

After the second engine started making noise at 24k miles we walked into Nissan and demanded something be done, I ended up falling like a sucker and traded for the new Sentra S with 6 speed manual, the 1.8 is a bit better than the 1.6 but not by much. At least this one doesn't sound like a diesel... we'll see.

I thought the engine was manufactured by Aichikikai in japan(?)

http://www.aichikikai.co.jp/en/products/engine/index.html

Maybe they have a engine plant in Mexico, I haven't researched that far - yet

It isn't anemic whatsoever in my note with a 5 speed MT. This 1.6 is Much punchier and torque-ier than my '12 Honda FIT 1.5L in the "normal" operating range of 1500-3500 rpm - so far.
Its tough during break-in not to over stress the engine AND balance keeping the thing from getting all carboned up over the first 1000 miles - which will surely cause carbon mechanical knock on zero-deck designs.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: timeau
BTW, technics is not marketing or politics. Oils don't care about "properly made experiments" and other funny staff. They just work or fail.

Of course, but foolish experiments don't tell us about anything, except the creator of the experiment.

 

[timeau]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: timeau
BTW, technics is not marketing or politics. Oils don't care about "properly made experiments" and other funny staff. They just work or fail.

Of course, but foolish experiments don't tell us about anything, except the creator of the experiment.

Please, clarify what is "foolish" and what is not. List of equipment, cloves, buildings

 

[racin4ds]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted By: racin4ds
Good luck with that 1.6 engine, its a mexican built POS that was built with Renault in a joint venture. We had one in our '13 Versa that was replaced at 7500 miles due to piston slap. I found it anemic to say the least, maybe its better in the '14 ??

After the second engine started making noise at 24k miles we walked into Nissan and demanded something be done, I ended up falling like a sucker and traded for the new Sentra S with 6 speed manual, the 1.8 is a bit better than the 1.6 but not by much. At least this one doesn't sound like a diesel... we'll see.

I thought the engine was manufactured by Aichikikai in japan(?)

http://www.aichikikai.co.jp/en/products/engine/index.html

Maybe they have a engine plant in Mexico, I haven't researched that far - yet

It isn't anemic whatsoever in my note with a 5 speed MT. This 1.6 is Much punchier and torque-ier than my '12 Honda FIT 1.5L in the "normal" operating range of 1500-3500 rpm - so far.
Its tough during break-in not to over stress the engine AND balance keeping the thing from getting all carboned up over the first 1000 miles - which will surely cause carbon mechanical knock on zero-deck designs.


Well thats partially correct, but it was co-designed/Co-developed by Renault http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_HR_engine

Wow that Fit must really be a turd if you think the HR16 is torque-ier or powerful!! lol!!! My B18's and B16's in my Hondas walk all over these pathetic Nissan motors. Either way, they get good fuel mileage, which is why I purchased ours anyway.

 

[ThirdeYe]

Originally Posted By: racin4ds
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted By: racin4ds
Good luck with that 1.6 engine, its a mexican built POS that was built with Renault in a joint venture. We had one in our '13 Versa that was replaced at 7500 miles due to piston slap. I found it anemic to say the least, maybe its better in the '14 ??

After the second engine started making noise at 24k miles we walked into Nissan and demanded something be done, I ended up falling like a sucker and traded for the new Sentra S with 6 speed manual, the 1.8 is a bit better than the 1.6 but not by much. At least this one doesn't sound like a diesel... we'll see.

I thought the engine was manufactured by Aichikikai in japan(?)

http://www.aichikikai.co.jp/en/products/engine/index.html

Maybe they have a engine plant in Mexico, I haven't researched that far - yet

It isn't anemic whatsoever in my note with a 5 speed MT. This 1.6 is Much punchier and torque-ier than my '12 Honda FIT 1.5L in the "normal" operating range of 1500-3500 rpm - so far.
Its tough during break-in not to over stress the engine AND balance keeping the thing from getting all carboned up over the first 1000 miles - which will surely cause carbon mechanical knock on zero-deck designs.


Well thats partially correct, but it was co-designed/Co-developed by Renault http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_HR_engine

Wow that Fit must really be a turd if you think the HR16 is torque-ier or powerful!! lol!!! My B18's and B16's in my Hondas walk all over these pathetic Nissan motors. Either way, they get good fuel mileage, which is why I purchased ours anyway.


The B18 is where it's at.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Honda fan boy huh? I'm not into such childish team playing - most ALL cars are junk in my estimation. In not a Nissan fan really either though, and Not a Honda fan for sure as my '83 hatch Accord and its garbage suspension tune almost killed me - Its been since then before I bought another. Snap oversteer if you may ask.

If I had more time before my trans would exploded (to look around (I TRADED THE CAR in an "emergency"), I'd have driven the segment leaders like The Fiesta, the Kia Rio and the FIAT turbo and the Sonic in an effort to find something that handles decently - unlike these garbage strut and rubbery marshmallow-bushed LCA entry cars - C'mon the Fiat 128 and original Fiesta in the '70s would run circles around the sloppy steering on current subcompact cars (excepting the RIO)

Some notes:
Funny with the Sonic I looked at, engine was made in Hungary and the trans in Austria.

The FIT is Mexican made and DI now for 2015. No more Japanese Honda imported in the US (discounting acura). I don't like small bore and silly-long stroke under 2 litre engines - the silly stroke must be a smog thing.
I wish I fit in the base Impreza 5 door. Best deal out there. I just wasn't comfortable

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: timeau

They need to be at least improved. What the sence to have the oil with a million of certification marks if these oils don't do what they suppose to do?


But they DO do what they are supposed to do. When is the last time you tore down a late model Mercedes or BMW engine? The Euro certs are quite stringent and so are the newer American ones.

Historically, the only oils that HAD a large number of certifications were the diesel oils and the European ones.

Originally Posted By: timeau

Also I am just wondering what rocket science are people expecting to confirm simplest things? Does the heat in the spoon differ from a heat inside of cylinder if temperature is same? Moreover, conditions inside of ACTUAL ENGINE should be more severe than in a spoon. I would accept your point of view if the picture is opposite: good results in a spoon does NOT mean correct behavior in an ACTUAL ENGINE. But if it failed at the beginning what for to test it further?


I'm not even sure what you are saying here

I've torn down many engines (as has SteveSRT8) and those run on a quality synthetic at a sane interval have been spotless inside. I currently have a 302 in my garage with factory compression and over 200,000 miles on it and you could eat off the internals.

Originally Posted By: timeau

OK, let's reformulate the task. Have you ever hired an employee? At least I give him/her a small task and look what have (s)he done. If result is not acceptable, I won't hire (s)he. And you are trying to convince me that if I ask him do do a REAL task, (s)he would be OK.
You know, wonders exists in Horwards only, in this world there is no magic.


I've never hired an employee to do something like wiring and then fire them because they failed at being able to do plaster work. This is essentially the coorelation you are trying to make here. How an oil performs in a spoon is irrelevant if the oil performs properly in an engine. You claim that it doesn't, but the only "proof" that you've posted so far is the spoon and beaker data, which isn't proof. Where are your tear-down pictures on engines you've run on both synthetic and conventional in a controlled environment to establish the basis for your claims here? You don't have any I assume, otherwise you would have posted them by now.

Originally Posted By: timeau

Look in the article that I provide. You'll see almost same pictures on a turbo bearings.
BTW, technics is not marketing or politics. Oils don't care about "properly made experiments" and other funny staff. They just work or fail.


You mean the beaker pics? And what are "technics" ?

Originally Posted By: timeau

Not at all. I was talking about the ability of liquid to dissolve other substances.


Then you are talking about solubility.

From your own link:

Originally Posted By: wikipedia
In chemistry, polarity refers to a separation of electric charge leading to a molecule or its chemical groups having an electric dipole or multipole moment. Polar molecules interact through dipole–dipole intermolecular forces and hydrogen bonds. Molecular polarity is dependent on the difference in electronegativity between atoms in a compound and the asymmetry of the compound's structure. Polarity underlies a number of physical properties including surface tension, solubility, and melting- and boiling-points.


Where you can click on the link to solubility:

Originally Posted By: wikipedia
Solubility is the property of a solid, liquid, or gaseous chemical substance called solute to dissolve in a solid, liquid, or gaseous solvent to form a homogeneous solution of the solute in the solvent. The solubility of a substance fundamentally depends on the physical and chemical properties of the solute and solvent as well as on temperature, pressure and the pH of the solution. The extent of the solubility of a substance in a specific solvent is measured as the saturation concentration, where adding more solute does not increase the concentration of the solution and begin to precipitate the excess amount of solute.


So yes, they are related, but the specific trait you are talking about isn't polarity, it is solubility. And if you read the link I posted you will note that the additive packages for Group III and Group IV oils are designed differently from the additive packages for Group II oils because those packages have poor solubility in the Group III and IV base oils, whereas an additive package designed for a Group IV base oil demonstrates proper solubility in a Group III base oil.

Originally Posted By: timeau

Did I dispute about heat resistance? This was number 3 in my previous post. Problem is/was in additives separation in a heat. Some oils are properly done (Mobil1, Shell Titanium), some are not. I don't see anything illogical here.


Because it doesn't represent what happens in an ACTUAL ENGINE. It is a BENCH TEST. That is why, as I already stated, lubricants are tested in actual engines, not on spoons.


Originally Posted By: timeau
You probably guessed that English is not my native language, right? So Edmonton's temperatures are not THAT impressing comparing to the most eastern part of Europe where I was living. Is -20-25C from 20 to 30 days a year good enough? Probably yes. And I will tell you a small secret: you will NOT see a difference between 0W40 and 5W40 in that conditions. Especially if 50% of people have engine core heater on their cars.


No, Edmonton is a lot colder than that at times. They saw -40C several times this past winter for example. We saw -30C here in Ontario several times as well. No, it isn't Siberia, but it is cold.

And regarding the difference between 0w-40 and 5w-40, no, it isn't a secret, because we have product data sheets that give us actual data on the oil's performance at those temperatures.

MRV for a 5w-xx is measured at -35C, CCS is measured at -30C. The oils visc is roughly halved every 5C from that point up.
MRV for a 0w-xx is measured at -40C, CCS is measured at -35C.

A 0w-xx has to be below 6,200cP at -35C for CCS (Cold Cranking Simulator). A 5w-xx has to be below 6,600cP at -30C for CCS.

So, if M1 0w-40 is 6,000cP at -35C for example, it would be be roughly 3,000cP at -30C. That makes it HALF the viscosity that the 5w-40 will be around at that temperature.

The difference of course shrinks as both oils thin as the temperature rises, but the difference is still significant.

That said, show me a conventional 5w-40. The 40-weight oils that are conventional will be 10w-40 and 15w-40, both of which have massively poorer cold temperature performance with CCS limits of 7,000cP @ -25C and 7,000cP at -20C respectively.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
The TEOST deposit spec is a bench test - not in situ.


This is true, but it is designed to replicate a specific condition inside an engine, it isn't super heating oil on a spoon.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: timeau
Please, clarify what is "foolish" and what is not. List of equipment, cloves, buildings

For starters, holding a lighter under a spoonful of oil is foolish, whether it's motor oil or something more illicit. And I don't see how the addition of cloves, or any other kitchen spice, will help the matter.

 

[Lex94]

"most ALL cars are junk in my estimation"

Yup...Chintzy, fragile, expensive to repair - and it is going to get worse as they try to meet government laws.

Makes me just want to go buy a Ram 1500.

 

[fdcg27]

No, bro, almost all cars are pretty decent.
It's your abusive, ham-fisted and inattentive driving that turns them into junk.
We've never gotten less then 150K trouble free miles out of any vehicle and in my younger days, I drove quite hard, as I still do when the mood strikes me.
Learn how to use a car properly and you can drive quite fast while doing no damage at all.
A ruined manual gearbox is more a comment on the driver than it is on the car.
Learn how to shift and you'll have no further gearbox problems.
Learn how to drive and the mechanical problems you seem to have with every car you own will come to an end.
You aren't a track hero and the street is not the place to be pretending that you are.