TEOST Castrol Edge FST

[wemay]

I know that because my GDI 2.0T is an SUV or crossover (sporty but not a sports car), and the fact that Hyundai does not require synthetic oil, i have been indecisive regarding oil selections. "Deciding on Valvoline conventional, Mobil 1, Quaker State, Pennzoil Conventional and now PSB (which is currently in use)". I have rationalized my choices for Conventional oil with my 35-40 miles a day driving, 1/2 being hwy, and my 5k mile oci's. But this has still left an uneasy feeling in my gut (over thinking? maybe but still there) because i want this thing to last at least 10-15 years/200k miles. Being a GDI with a Timing Chain, everyone advises to use a synthetic if this is a goal. So i have decided, based on the TEOST test results (link below), and the fact that di/turbo engines are sited in the test, i will use Castrol Edge FST. In other words, some will use NOACK, others will use TBN to decide what is best for them, i will use the TEOST.


http://www.amsoil.com/lit/g3115.pdf

 

[jrustles]

TEOST relates to turbine deposits.

The TEOST 33C subjects the oil to flowing slowly over a heating element that cycles between two temperatures, whilst the oil is doped with a catalyst and being exposed to an oxidizer (nitrous oxide). I've hypothesized that non-polar bases tend to fare better than polar bases. I also hypothesize that Edge is largely PAO based, from these results.

For DI, you want to focus on volatility. It is the vapours from oil volatilization that move throughout the PCV system and condense in the intake tract and on the valves. If the valve temperature is not high enough, or there is no fuel wash, then the deposits will smoulder and harden instead of burning clean off or not adhering at all.

 

[double vanos]

Seems to me that deposit control and NOWACK ought to be hand in hand but it appears they aren't. Your plan sounds ok though. Please discuss further .....

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
TEOST relates to turbine deposits.

The TEOST 33C subjects the oil to flowing slowly over a heating element that cycles between two temperatures, whilst the oil is doped with a catalyst and being exposed to an oxidizer (nitrous oxide). I've hypothesized that non-polar bases tend to fare better than polar bases. I also hypothesize that Edge is largely PAO based, from these results.

For DI, you want to focus on volatility. It is the vapours from oil volatilization that move throughout the PCV system and condense in the intake tract and on the valves. If the valve temperature is not high enough, or there is no fuel wash, then the deposits will smoulder and harden instead of burning clean off or not adhering at all.

I disagree.
TEOST is an actual deposit test and will correlate to piston and intake tract deposits in a DI engine.
An oil's volatility rating likely has little affect on intake tract deposits. It is largely the actual atomized oil itself that's the cause of deposits.

If I had a DI engine with a known intake deposit issue I'd certainly consider an oil like Castrol Edge with it's very low TEOST deposit level.

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

I disagree.
TEOST is an actual deposit test and will correlate to piston and intake tract deposits in a DI engine.




Yes, a turbine deposit test.
Quote:

Simulates the effect of engine operating conditions on the oxidation and deposit-forming
tendencies of engine oils, especially in the high temperature Turbocharger area.


If you read the protocol, you'll discover that the heated rod represents the turbine shaft, and the temperature cycling represents turbo heat load, and the delivery method of running the oil at a slow rate over said heater 'turbine shaft simulator' simulates the oil flow through the bearing section in addition to the use of pro-oxidants to simulate hours spent cycling or coking inside of the bearing section. Even for a turbo deposit test, it's way more extreme than real life.

Pistons see entirely different operating conditions, flow rates, exposure time and temperatures as well as having a much lower specific heat capacity vs cast iron.

Not to mention, the worst performer in the test is one of the cleanest running, most robust (and most polar) oils out there- specifically favoured in high-power, high-temp TURBO applications.

Quote:

An oil's volatility rating likely has little affect on intake tract deposits. It is largely the actual atomized oil itself that's the cause of deposits.

At least that was not an assertion

Are you trolling me bro?! You're suggesting that it is not lighter, volatile compounds vapourizing, but full-composition motor oil 'mist' + pure air which the PCV deals with?

What happens to vapourized compounds of finished motor oils in an engine? Have you ever seen the underside of a common valve cover? Is that brown stuff motor oil? Why would full-composition motor oil redux as hard deposits on a COOLER surface than anything below it?? If not dealt with by the PCV system, I'd love to hear your explanation of where these vapours go.

 

[Shannow]

jrustles, 10 years on turbines,and that's a valid test for them.

Bulk oil tank 40C, 40-50C temperature rise across the bearings (mostly frictional heat however), higher temperatures plus oxygen/steam at the bearing housing edges...back through oil separators, copper alloy based coolers, governor hydraulics with brass and mixed metals...back into the bearings, and sheared back up to 90C.

Interestingly while the non polar resists deposit formation for longer, when it starts, it can't hold it...GrI all the way IMO.

 

[wolf_06]

Wow, really Quaker State Ultimate Durability is the best bang for the buck, its compared to high end synthtic oil.

Impressive.

 

[jrustles]

Valuable perspective. Thank you

Originally Posted By: Shannow
jrustles, 10 yesra on turbines,and that's a valid test for them.

Bulk oil tank 40C, 40-50C temperature rise across the bearings (mostly frictional heat however), higher temperatures plus oxygen/steam at the bearing housing edges...back through oil separators, copper alloy based coolers, governor hydraulics with brass and mixed metals...back into the bearings, and sheared back up to 90C.

Interestingly while the non polar resists deposit formation for longer, when it starts, it can't hold it...GrI all the way IMO.

hehe you serious about the GrI thing??

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: jrustles

Are you trolling me bro?! You're suggesting that it is not lighter, volatile compounds vapourizing, but full-composition motor oil 'mist' + pure air which the PCV deals with?

What happens to vapourized compounds of finished motor oils in an engine? Have you ever seen the underside of a common valve cover? Is that brown stuff motor oil? Why would full-composition motor oil redux as hard deposits on a COOLER surface than anything below it?? If not dealt with by the PCV system, I'd love to hear your explanation of where these vapours go.

Ever noticed how thick the viscosity of the oil is in a catch can ? It's once atomized oil than has accumulated.
I posit that it is this oil that largely contributes to intake tract deposits not the lighter oil fractions that are evaporated.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: jrustles

hehe you serious about the GrI thing??


For turbine oils...definitely.

Removing deposits in IC engines, GrI and ridiculously short OCIs would definitely help as well.

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

Ever noticed how thick the viscosity of the oil is in a catch can ? It's once atomized oil than has accumulated.
I posit that it is this oil that largely contributes to intake tract deposits not the lighter oil fractions that are evaporated.


We may be arguing the same, or similar points here.
You say 'atomization' where I think of atom splitting or nozzle-mist, and I say volatilization per the industry, relating to PCV system oil consumption.

There is nothing stopping finished motor oil vapours from condensing/precipitating out in the catch can or intake tract.
Protip: the base oils are not the first and/or only component evaporating. Additives like ZDDP can decompose liberating P into the intake stream. According to a study, a major route of catalyst P poisoning is not from slippage past the rings, but from the decomposition of ZDDP from volatilized oil via PCV.

Engine oil does indeed volatilize, and controlling it is a standardized design parameter. The resultant products are carried to the intake stream via PCV for consumption, and thus the relation between volatility and oil consumption.

TEOST test relevance to dry intake valves notwithstanding, when approaching this problem, I would want to limit the oil throughput of the PCV system to begin with by selecting an oil for volatility, rather than extrapolating from a test of entirely different conditions by re-appropriating the results to managing valve deposits. Not like I would ever consider Redline as a the latter, but whether 'good oil' or 'bad oil', motor oil and it's additives do not belong on my intake valve.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
If I had a DI engine with a known intake deposit issue I'd certainly consider an oil like Castrol Edge with it's very low TEOST deposit level.



Would you consider Edge SPT (black bottle) to be just as good since both also share the turbo HT0-06 cert? Everything but the ti additive being equal as per the Castrol Q&A section on BITOG. The reason I ask is because Edge ti seems more for extended oci. Im keeping mine in line with oem spec 5k miles.

Unless, of course the price is close enough to make Edge ti worth a couple bucks more.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

Ever noticed how thick the viscosity of the oil is in a catch can ? It's once atomized oil than has accumulated.
I posit that it is this oil that largely contributes to intake tract deposits not the lighter oil fractions that are evaporated.


We may be arguing the same, or similar points here.
You say 'atomization' where I think of atom splitting or nozzle-mist, and I say volatilization per the industry, relating to PCV system oil consumption.

There is nothing stopping finished motor oil vapours from condensing/precipitating out in the catch can or intake tract.
Protip: the base oils are not the first and/or only component evaporating. Additives like ZDDP can decompose liberating P into the intake stream. According to a study, a major route of catalyst P poisoning is not from slippage past the rings, but from the decomposition of ZDDP from volatilized oil via PCV.

Engine oil does indeed volatilize, and controlling it is a standardized design parameter. The resultant products are carried to the intake stream via PCV for consumption, and thus the relation between volatility and oil consumption.

TEOST test relevance to dry intake valves notwithstanding, when approaching this problem, I would want to limit the oil throughput of the PCV system to begin with by selecting an oil for volatility, rather than extrapolating from a test of entirely different conditions by re-appropriating the results to managing valve deposits. Not like I would ever consider Redline as a the latter, but whether 'good oil' or 'bad oil', motor oil and it's additives do not belong on my intake valve.

When I say "atomized" that applies to every part of the oil and it's basically occur at high rev's.
The NOACK test is just a high temp' test that evaporates off the lighter oil fractions that don't contribute much if anything to intake tract deposits. The evaporated oil doesn't condense out in a Catch Can but is burned in the engine.
As you probably know installing a Catch Can virtually eliminates intake valve deposits.

Regarding the NOACK 33 test. It's still a deposit test. The TEOST MHT test or Seq' IIIG tests are probably more directly applicable as discussed in the following SAE paper:
http://papers.sae.org/2009-01-2663/

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: wemay
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
If I had a DI engine with a known intake deposit issue I'd certainly consider an oil like Castrol Edge with it's very low TEOST deposit level.



Would you consider Edge SPT (black bottle) to be just as good since both also share the turbo HT0-06 cert? Everything but the ti additive being equal as per the Castrol Q&A section on BITOG. The reason I ask is because Edge ti seems more for extended oci. Im keeping mine in line with oem spec 5k miles.

Unless, of course the price is close enough to make Edge ti worth a couple bucks more.

I wish I could answer that question for you.
I don't know if it's just as good but I would suspect it is good.

 

[wemay]

I highly suspect, more than good enough.

Thanks and Regards

 

[wemay]

I Found the, previously known as Castrol Edge Titanium FST in my local Walmart (the last 5W30 available). It is now in a new bottle (sorry, no image) that is still gold but says Castrol Edge Extended Performance. Above the SAE info, it advises 'Guaranteed protection up to 15,000 miles, with Titanium FST'

 

[wemay]

When finished with this interval, i think i will just use Quaker State Ultimate Durability. The pitfalls and nuances of the "OEM recommendations" just arent worth the effort when looking for a niche oil that caters to your overall driving dynamics, especially where warranty is a concern.Quaker State Ultimate Durability will be the safe bet.

 

[wemay]

...or Quaker State Conventional between 3-4k. But QS none the less.

 

[wemay]

After looking at the TEOST test again, Synpower held its own quite well...

http://www.amsoil.com/lit/g3115.pdf

 

[wemay]

Heck, all major brands should be fine.