Turbo PCMO should only use HTO-06, syn etc. Myth?

[wemay]

According to ILSAC GF-5, that mere spec (GF-5) will offer ample protection. Not talking about sports cars mind you. I'm interested in your view regarding daily driver family cars equipped with a turbo. API SN advises the same protection. http://www.gf-5.com/news_and_events/additional-key-additives/ Excerpt from above LINK... Many vehicle manufacturers are using turbo charging to improve fuel economy while maintaining or even improving performance. Turbo chargers are powered by your vehicle exhaust which means they are exposed to very high temperatures. Without properly formulated engine oils such as ILSAC GF-5, this high temperature can lead to coking deposits of charred oil in the turbo. Lubrizol’s detergent and antioxidant system maintains cleanliness of critical turbocharger parts under the most demanding conditions to maintain performance and longer engine life. Lubrizol has tested our ILSAC GF-5 engine oil additives in the most demanding real world driving in the heat of the deserts of Arizona and the congestion of Las Vegas. Our million-mile plus field trails clearly shows ILSAC GF-5 products are up to the challenge of providing outstanding protection from engine wear. All current and newly introduced engine technologies were tested including the latest GDI (gasoline direct injection) twin turbo changed engine in the 2010 Ford Flex. ILSAC GF-5 will keep your engine running like new and provide protection from wear no matter if you drive an older car or the latest high tech vehicle.       

 

[wemay]

http://www.gf-5.com/the_story/testing/ Another link showing their testing...

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: wemay

[quote]Lubrizol has tested our ILSAC GF-5 engine oil additives in the most demanding real world driving in the heat of the deserts of Arizona and the congestion of Las Vegas. Our million-mile plus field trails clearly shows ILSAC GF-5 products are up to the challenge of providing outstanding protection from engine wear. All current and newly introduced engine technologies were tested including the latest GDI (gasoline direct injection) twin turbo changed engine in the 2010 Ford Flex. ILSAC GF-5 will keep your engine running like new and provide protection from wear no matter if you drive an older car or the latest high tech vehicle.     

OK, but for how long? Does GF-5 spec include any long term test sequences? Can it offer the same protection over the course of a 10K OCI? Not saying it can't. Just asking... When you compare GF-5 performance to something like ACEA A3/B4, the GF-5 has a long way to go in terms of soot thickening, wear, sludge, and piston deposits. I would think these would be important for a turbo application.

 

[wemay]

TEOST 33C (ASTM 6335) Bench Test The Thermo-Oxidation Engine Oil Simulation Test (TEOST®) 33C was originally developed for and made part of GF-2 to evaluate Turbocharger deposit formation.  This test was not included in GF-3 or GF-4 but this test, TEOST 33C has been included in the draft specification proposed for GF-5.  The GF-2 Performance limit was 60 mg maximum and the GF-5 proposal weighs in at 25 mg maximum.  This test is meant to evaluate the high temperature deposit forming tendencies of crankcase oil. This test simulates the cyclic temperatures encountered by lubricating oil in a turbocharged gasoline fueled engine.  About 100 ml of test oil is used in a 12 cycle/2 hour test.  The test piece is a hollow heated rod (TEOST® Depositor Rod) that will accumulate deposits over the 2 hour test period. The test oil flows over the rod ant about 0.5g/minute while the test piece is cycled 12 times over a temperature range of 200°C to 480°C.  The increase in the weight of the rod is the performance parameter measured for this procedure.  The greater the weight gain, the poorer the performance. TEOST 33C Test Conditions   Equipment  SAVANT TEOST  Test Length, hours  2  Number of Cycles  12  Cycle Duration, minutes  9.5  Depositor Rod Temperature, °C  200 to 480  Depositor Oil Flow, g/minute  0.45  Oil Sample volume, ml  100  Catalyst  Ferric Napthenate  The TEOST 33C and TEOST MHT-4 tests are designed to measure high temperature deposit forming tendencies of lubricating oils but the procedures are quite different.  The TEOST 33C version cycles between 200°C and 480°C for two hours and is primarily designed to protect turbochargers. The MHT-4 is run at a constant temperature of 285°C for 24 hours and is to evaluate piston deposits. Together the test results from both versions paint a picture of the candidate oil's high temperature deposit forming tendency.

 

[wemay]

I understand your point QP and by means questiining the vitues of A3/B4. It was more so a specific evaluation of GF-5's claim of supplying ample protection in and of it self.

 

[bepperb]

It's difficult to say because lubrizol's relative performance chart does not list HTO-06. Still, you say piston deposits are similar to turbo deposits. If we take that for fact then absolutely there are better certs than GF-5. Lubrizol's own comparison tool will show you pretty much every manufacturer spec is more difficult to pass than GF-5 in regards to piston deposits: https://www.lubrizol.com/apps/relperftool/pc.html So yes, according to ILSAC it does provide the protection. According to pretty much every auto manufacturer it does not. Seems simple to me, if you build your own car in your basement use whatever you want. If you wuss out and have someone else build the car for you I would listen to their advice on using something better than just GF-5.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: wemay

  The TEOST 33C version cycles between 200°C and 480°C for two hours

For comparison, ACEA uses CEC-L-88-T-02 to test for high temp deposits. This is a test in which an engine is ran at maximum load for 72 hours. However, they don't use a turbocharged engine for this test, so it's kind of an apples-to-oranges comparison. But at least it's done on an actual engine and not completely outside of an engine like TEOST 33C. I couldn't tell you which one is more stringent.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: bepperb

It's difficult to say because lubrizol's relative performance chart does not list HTO-06.

I have never actually seen the details behind this spec. Also, is this spec still current? I thought I've read Honda deprecated it.

 

[Shannow]

API/ILSAC write their technical stuff largely as fluff IMO, and serve as a lowest common denominator, predominantly for the US market...some countries don't use API specs at all in their vehicle specifications. Something that I've repeated over the years is that 90% of the time, 90% of the mass produced oils on the market will serve 90% of the cars, and 90% of the users...great, unless you are the 1 in 10,000 that gets the perfect storm (0.1x0.1x0.1x0.1)...and it's an utter disaster. That's when OEM specs IMO trump API/ILSAC. For whatever reason, the manufacturer has found that their engine/customers/OCI/whatever has the potential for the perfect storm, and have developed a test protocol to address that issue, whether it's sludging, coking, a Long Life Spec or whatever. That's why I like M1 0W40...it's across many more of the OEM found problems than say, a simple SN/GF-5 (which may be as well, but you just never know). So when someone puts an ILSAC 5W30 in a BMW, and it works fine, it does...it's the 90% at play, not the extremes...when someone gets a Toyota sludger in spite of "doing everything right", it's the other extreme. I've never, and wouldn't look for the Honda spec to choose an oil for my turbo (not Honda), but certainly look further than SN/CF.

 

[bubbatime]

HTO-06 applies to one model of car imported into America. The 2007-2012 Acura RDX with turbo 2.3L engine. Only 109K units were imported. There are a ton of other turbo cars and you would be better served to use what those manufactures recommend than to stick with an HTO-06 oil.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

The turbo Honda engine is defunct. No? A spec for a non current engine?

 

[wemay]

I think it is but many a poster still reference it when the discussion concerns a turbo application.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Right, but unless we know what this spec really entails, it's kind of pointless to even refer to it.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete

Right, but unless we know what this spec really entails, it's kind of pointless to even refer to it.

That's fair

 

[Quattro Pete]

This is from one of many previous HTO-06 threads, but again, no actual limits/parameters or test numbers...

Quote:

Oil Specification for Turbocharged Engines Honda/Acura HTO-06 Main feature is a modified hot-tube test. Purpose: • Evaluate the deposit-forming tendency of an oil after aging. (Testing an oil in fresh condition only is not useful.) • The aging procedure simulates additive consumption and sludge/soot build-up. 1. Moisture & NOx Bubbling 2. Sludge/Soot Simulation 3. Hot Tube • Procedure is available to lubricant and additive companies upon request. • This procedure does not discriminate against high-moly oils. (High-moly oils are not a problem for Honda turbocharger technology.) • This test correlates well with Honda turbocharger testing (bench and real-world).

 

[wemay]

Forgive me if this ques has been addressed in the past. Why the reference to high moly oils not being a problem? Was it considered an issue by some?

 

[userfriendly]

Would a synthetic HDMO 5W30 CI-4/SN, provide the same level of performance and turbo compatibility without the fuel saving promises, as a synthetic PCMO 5W30 SN/GF5?

 

[Robster]

Turbos do fail on occasion nowadays, but it's exceedingly rare in a modern fuel injected engine--you hardly ever hear about these failures and based on what I've read on other forums, it's not usually about coking of the bearings, its some other failure of the system (wastegates, controllers, etc.). I think modern oils combined with modern turbo cooling designs have made turbos much more reliable than even just a decade ago. I think that's why the GF-5 is deemed sufficient for these non-performance oriented vehicles.

 

[bluesubie]

Originally Posted By: Robster

Turbos do fail on occasion nowadays, but it's exceedingly rare in a modern fuel injected engine--you hardly ever hear about these failures and based on what I've read on other forums, it's not usually about coking of the bearings, its some other failure of the system (wastegates, controllers, etc.). I think modern oils combined with modern turbo cooling designs have made turbos much more reliable than even just a decade ago. I think that's why the GF-5 is deemed sufficient for these non-performance oriented vehicles.

I can always tell who doesn't visit Subaru forums. Turbo failures are especially a problem on Subaru 2004 and 2005 2.5 turbos's. I've had two failures and HTO-06 is the last spec that I would look for. I prefer Euro specs like ACEA A3 and the various Euro manufacture specs becase Subaru turbos are very hard on oil. -Dennis

 

[sds]

Originally Posted By: bluesubie

Originally Posted By: Robster

Turbos do fail on occasion nowadays, but it's exceedingly rare in a modern fuel injected engine--you hardly ever hear about these failures and based on what I've read on other forums, it's not usually about coking of the bearings, its some other failure of the system (wastegates, controllers, etc.). I think modern oils combined with modern turbo cooling designs have made turbos much more reliable than even just a decade ago. I think that's why the GF-5 is deemed sufficient for these non-performance oriented vehicles.

I can always tell who doesn't visit Subaru forums. Turbo failures are especially a problem on Subaru 2004 and 2005 2.5 turbos's. I've had two failures and HTO-06 is the last spec that I would look for. I prefer Euro specs like ACEA A3 and the various Euro manufacture specs becase Subaru turbos are very hard on oil. -Dennis

The '04 turbo 2.5s are using TD04 and IHI turbos that date back to the mid-90s. Those are very much an old design. Not to mention the EJ257 is itself a 10 year old motor based on a ~15 year old design.