Valvoline R&P Oil Burner Test Results
- Thread starter Glenda W.
- Start date
just more link joints... and you can't address the slack properly, everytime the chain becomes longer the timing between cams and crank gets more out of whack. the best you can do with taking up slack is keep it from rattling somewhat.
Guinea pig you say?! Cmon over to the "What are you eating" section as I am sure that group has its own issues over there
Note that towards the end of the test, the intervals got increased, as stated in the video. I'm pretty sure this was done to force an end to the test that might have been going on for years.
Right, more link joints. So, if you get X amount of wear during a bend (and essentially no wear when the chain is straight) each time a link makes it's way around its course the wear occurs as it bends around each gear it encounters. So the longer the chain, the less the wear because the less time it spent bending per completing one course. I'm saying that "long chains" may experience less wear than short chains per crank revolution...because short chains complete an entire course more often than long chains. IOW there are many more crank revs per link in an engine with a short chain. An easy way to imagine this is to consider a chain that is ridiculously long compared to a chain that is so short it experiences nearly constant bending with almost no straight section. The long chain will experience less wear due to less time spent bending. Similar wear-difference idea when comparing chains that experience tight radii bends compared to chains that go around much larger radii gears...more bending results in more wear (assuming everything else being equal).
but you have to add up the wear per link, so is it really any less? it'll take longer until the chain is weakened to the point of mechanical failure (vs a shorter chain), but the stretch of the chain at that point will be more. And it's the total stretch and it's impact on timing that condemns a chain of significant length.
VVT helps here. It will make up for this, to a certain point.
yet the vvt system complaining and setting a code is usually the trigger to replacing the chain.
I'm not aware of any VVT systems that lack a cam position sensor, so I'd think this is generally the case.
Typically it's a sync error between cam position and crank position.
yes. which you'd expect VVT to compensate for.
and it can. The faults usually come from the system having to try "too hard" to do it. It's typically a more severe (and separate) fault for the system to have have fully tapped out its ability to compensate.
THe first case might be a check engine light, the second is likely a limp home or derate.
Which brings us back to the start of this part of the conversation. Long chains aren't helping, even if the wear per link is lower there just are more links in between the crank and cam, and VVT is of limited help.
At least it means repairs are more likely to happen before the chain fails catastrophically.
Yes. Being in tension means every chain link carries the same stress. Using a longer rope doesn't lower the stress it carries or increase its strength.
Which means longer chain, all else being equal, will just generate more total wear metals because you have more sliding contact area under the same stress.
This is likely why API SP added the chain wear aspect. Older engines with stubby little chains got away with wear rates that new engines and their miles of chains cannot accept.
Hmm, maybe Honda wasn't so dumb after all to use dry belts replaced every 100k miles.....
Valvoline has always stated that four (minimum) or more, consecutive OCI are required, not "up to four".
https://www.valvolineglobal.com/en/restore-protect/
"With continuous use, Restore & Protect Motor Oil removes up to 100% of deposits and prevents future deposit formation, restoring engines to run like factory clean.
*Piston deposit removal when used as directed for four or more consecutive oil changes at standard maintenance intervals based on adapted sequence IIIH testing."
At this point I'm happy if there's no wet belt being used.
Patman
Staff member
I have said this before but I still find it somewhat confusing. Isn’t 2 intervals at 6000 miles each going to be the same as 4 intervals at 3000 miles? The fact that they don’t really state what those intervals are in actual miles is odd. I would rather that they say the approximate total number of miles needed. Of course they would rather people do 4 x 3000 as opposed to 2 x 6000 as they would sell more oil….
And we’ve also discussed that maybe this oil does most of its cleaning at the beginning of the interval as well, but that’s just speculation
2x is not the same as 4x. The cleaning action could be happening at the beginning of each OCI, so 3k or 10k miles per OCI might have the same cleaning effect.
The intervals should be clearly stated in your owners manual. I don't see how any of this is confusing.
Patman
Staff member
It’s confusing because every owners manual is going to have a different OCI. But that doesn’t mean that the ones with longer intervals are going to take longer to clean. See what I’m getting at?
My OLM in my Civic puts me at 10k intervals but someone else might have 5k intervals specified for their car. But that doesn’t mean my Civic needs 40,000 miles to clean vs another car at 20,000.
Patman
Staff member
Also, if there is any truth about VRP doing most of its cleaning at the beginning of the interval, and Valvoline knows this, wouldn’t it make sense for them to tell people to do four or more intervals at 3000 miles each?
Agree.
I'm on my 3rd run of VRP in my sons Santa Fe (Theta 2.) So far, have not noticed much difference. OCI's on that car are around 4K each.
Similar threads
