Why is this the case, why can't he fix it, what is leaking if it is not a gasket? Just curious, did he say what he is afraid of as to why the repair won't work?
Valvoline Restore and Protect
- Thread starter Scott S
- Start date
CleanSump
Site Donor 2026
Didn't you post on a BMW forum that just before you switched oils you had the VANOS bolt recall done and the mech stated your bolts were loose? It wasn't Restore and Protect, you'd have spun the bearing on LL01 oil.
An interesting data point, but I'm not sure the 0.26 HTHS difference between Valvoline Restore and Protect and the 3.5 minimum probably didn't cause the failure.
What do you mean by "I was 2k into the Valvoline Restore and Protect cleaning process."? Was this your first oil change with Valvoline Restore and Protect? With what oil did you do 10K miles oil change intervals?
May we see any of those YouTube tear down videos? At what mileage with Valvoline Restore and Protect did you do them?
L.A. area minimum wage is gonna be $30/hr soon.
I will check with another shop. Let’s say it were going to be $650, or even $500, would it be worth it? I plan to only keep this vehicle another 2, at most 3 years. 2007 RAV4.
How bad is it leaking? If you can find the spot it's leaking from, could do a Hillbilly fix by putting some high temp RTV sealant on the seam after cleaning it up real well. I've done that trick and it will work if the leak isn't huge, and it shouldn't be under any pressure if it's on the timing chain cover.
Does the timing chain cover have a gasket on this engine? The 2GR does not have one. A sealant is applied when the engine is manufactured, and that sealant can break down over time or it was misapplied or underapplied by the machine.
Probably sealed with RTV type sealant. I just used the term "gasket" because someone else used the term.
Hmm, N52 isn’t too bad usually. However, I agree with your analysis as N52 uses a similar bearing to N54/N55/S55 (same Glyco overlay etc) and those are sometimes specified without issue with LL01FE oil 3.0 HTHS.
It’s notable that N55 and S55 use the exact same rod bearings but they almost never spin in S55 with higher output because the oil pump and filter housing design is different. Many N55 die after oil filter housing gasket replacement without priming, I suspect this is all oil pump / lubrication system related here also.
I've used this before ... excellent engine sealer. High temp and oil resistant.
https://www.amazon.com/ULTRA-BLACK-Gasket-carded-82180-C/dp/B0006SNLPW
Instead of starting another thread I thought I just throw this data point out here. At about 1500 miles into running this on a new engine, I had to change the filter. Engine was just getting way to noisy and gutless - and in past experience it has usually been the filter not the oil. So, I gabbed another MOPAR MO339 filter from Walmart and braved the cold and ice and pulled the old filter and installed the fresh one.
Presto all nice and quiet and normal again. Never in a million years would I expect gumming or clogging on a new engine - if that is what the mechanism was. I save all my filters during the warranty period so I don't want to cut it - not that I could test the filter paper since I don't work near a lab anymore. Car was 2025 Jeep Compass with the (detuned) 2.0L turbo engine - similar to those installed in the Wrangler 4 bangers.
p.s.: The engine has a total of ~2500 miles on it so far; the Valvoline Restore and Protect 5W-30 went in at 990 miles.
- Arco
Presto all nice and quiet and normal again. Never in a million years would I expect gumming or clogging on a new engine - if that is what the mechanism was. I save all my filters during the warranty period so I don't want to cut it - not that I could test the filter paper since I don't work near a lab anymore. Car was 2025 Jeep Compass with the (detuned) 2.0L turbo engine - similar to those installed in the Wrangler 4 bangers.
p.s.: The engine has a total of ~2500 miles on it so far; the Valvoline Restore and Protect 5W-30 went in at 990 miles.
- Arco
Dirty? I guess you and I come from different parts of the world. I'm Ok with you thinking what I did was "dirty". I'm laughing as I type this in fact.
No, the N52 is N/A and port only. It came into my hands at 107k IIRC, and had a diet of Belgian Castrol 0w-40 until about 210k, when it no longer became available. I always have carbon pieces in between the filter pleats, and seemingly the same amount regardless of oil choice. R+P is next and it will be interesting to see what happens there. My engine is dirty inside, with goop inside the cam bolt recesses, and varnish present. It has always had 5K changes since 107k. It will be at 270k soon.
I found some of these reports, that maybe got missed:
(Fe/1k miles)
1. https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...-4-2k-mi-2013-mb-gl450-m278-118-3k-mi.403196/
Valvoline Restore and Protect 5w-30, 4.2k mi; 2013 MB GL450 (M278) 118.3k mi
1.9ppm RP 5w-30
2.7ppm Mobil 1 0w40 SP
2. https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...0-5k-mi-2019-lexus-rx-350-with-65k-mi.396298/
.04ppm RP 5w-30
1.2ppm ??30w
1.4ppm ??20w
2.2ppm ??20w
2.8ppm ??30w (10k-15k on engine, this can be thrown out if you want)
3. https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...5k-miles-2022-kia-soul-with-45k-miles.402533/
1.2ppm RP 5w-30
1.0ppm RP 5w-30
Previous UOA for above:
More high speed highway miles this OCI and the engine hums at about 3,000 rpm at 80mph. Comments welcome. Previous sample was
Amazon Basic 0W-40.
Amazon Basic 0W-40.
1.4ppm Mobil 1 0w-40FS
2.4ppm Mobil 1 0W-40FS
4. https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...-ford-bronco-2-7l-eb-30k-mi-3-lab-uoa.399246/
1.6ppm RP 5w30
3.2ppm Mobil 1 0w30
1.9 ppm Mobil 1 0w30
2.6ppm Mobil 1 0w30
5. Very Epic Thread. Hopefully it is self-evident why...
Comments:
All results are within normal ranges, and the wear rate per 1,000 miles is below 5 ppm, which is good. The particle count results look great, and the Tin level is from the Molybdenum
additive in the oil. Based on these results, the oil change interval can be extended, so resample at next oil change (3,000 to 4,000 miles) to monitor and establish the trend analysis.
Based on these results, all you need is the standard kit. You will get...
6. This too, from within the same thread, different engine (4.0T):
1.2ppm RP 5-30
1.96ppm LM5-40 with Ceratec
2.4ppm LM5-40 with MoS2
2.52ppm LM5-40 no adds.
7. https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...ivic-ex-1-5-190011-miles.401128/#post-7408778
3.75ppm 5-30 RP
6.59ppm 5-40 Castrol Euro
6.31ppm 5-40 Castrol Euro
5.71ppm 5-30 Mobil 1 EPHM
4.71ppm Pennzoil Euro L 5w30
8. https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...83-miles-2023-subaru-outback-2-5l-gdi.399682/
.625ppm RP 5-30
1.47ppm IDM 5-30
2.27ppm VEP 5-20
9. https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...30-3-6k-mi-2019-kia-sorento-v6-91k-mi.393895/
1.11ppm RP 5w-30
.79ppm RP 5w-30
1.19ppm HPL 5w-40/5-30 mix
1.84ppm Mobil 1ESP 5w-30
10. https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...-5w30-6714km-4172mi-2010-1-8l-corolla.391844/
1.0ppm RP 5w30
1.62ppm Pennzoil Platinum Euro LX 0w-30
(Km converted to mi.)
Yes there are some bad runs out there, like in a BMW N52 that the owner believes Valvoline Restore and Protect spun a bearing, which makes me want to run it all the more in ours. I have the RP in a 2007 T&C 3.8 with 270k+ that was very very clean inside when I did VCG, and no oil consumption to speak of. It did have lifter bleed down noise at startup after sitting a week or more. This stopped within a few hundred miles on RP.
This ^^ is precisely that kind of wear data that says Valvoline Restore and Protect isn't *just* a good oil for cleaning old engines. Yet it cleans, but it ALSO protects often even delivering better wear metal results than full saps oils at higher viscosity. It's quite astounding actually. This oil seems to not only run incredibly clean, but deliver wear rate results that defy the limitation of lower HTHS and KV100 of being "only" 30 grade.
Edit: I neglected to give @KEVINK0000 the attaboy so thoroughly earned for such an epic post. I'm hoping this can set right that glaring omission. Great work, sir.
Edit: I neglected to give @KEVINK0000 the attaboy so thoroughly earned for such an epic post. I'm hoping this can set right that glaring omission. Great work, sir.
Thanks, you speak like a gentleman.
I did the post partly to assure myself I hadn't been seeing things on BITOG that didn't exist. I was scared for a minute, TBH.
I did the post partly to assure myself I hadn't been seeing things on BITOG that didn't exist. I was scared for a minute, TBH.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yeah, if you are taking a dig a somebody/somebodies, at least tag them and give them a chance to respond, not doing so is a bit "dirty".
Will be interesting to follow. Is this the same one you ran Quaker State in that we've previously discussed?
Most of these weren't missed, the mileage was simply too low, the material of insufficient quality, or the number of samples too few, that's why I included this qualifier:
OVERKILL said:
See comments below each.
I don't find this to be of sufficient quality data, since two different labs were used and no trending. I omitted samples like this from my list intentionally.
I omitted this one intentionally because the engine is breaking in for the first 3 or 4 samples. There's a 30,000 mile gap between the last sample and the Valvoline Restore and Protect one.
Another one with very low mileage for the earlier runs, skipped.3. https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...5k-miles-2022-kia-soul-with-45k-miles.402533/
1.2ppm RP 5w-30
1.0ppm RP 5w-30
Previous UOA for above:
More high speed highway miles this OCI and the engine hums at about 3,000 rpm at 80mph. Comments welcome. Previous sample was
Amazon Basic 0W-40.
1.4ppm Mobil 1 0w-40FS
2.4ppm Mobil 1 0W-40FS
Another one with very low mileage for the earlier runs (vehicle is 2023, has only 24,000 miles for the 2025 runs).
No previous runs on another lube to compare it to. Valvoline Restore and Protect numbers are:5. Very Epic Thread. Hopefully it is self-evident why...
Comments:
All results are within normal ranges, and the wear rate per 1,000 miles is below 5 ppm, which is good. The particle count results look great, and the Tin level is from the Molybdenum
additive in the oil. Based on these results, the oil change interval can be extended, so resample at next oil change (3,000 to 4,000 miles) to monitor and establish the trend analysis.
Based on these results, all you need is the standard kit. You will get...
View attachment 321991
1. 3.81ppm/1000 miles
2. 1.69ppm/1000 miles
3. 1.19ppm/1000 miles
4. 1.32ppm/1000 miles
First run may have been impacted by the B12 piston soak. All runs had Yamaha ringfree in the fuel.
That's a decent one. Engine has good mileage on it, but he used additives on runs 2 and 3 (MOS2 and then Ceratec).
That was #5 in my list.
Another one I skipped because the mileage was too low. Sample number 1, the engine only has 12,000 miles on it.
Good one. All look pretty similar.
Not enough of a sample size, only 2ppm difference between the two lubes.
Yes, there are. I'm sure you saw the one I tagged you in?
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
But you can't realistically determine that these ppm variances are actually reduced wear, particularly when contrasting oils with considerably different chemistries in terms of AW and detergents, as well as potential base oil blends. That's why we don't "bench race" used oil analysis, the level of insight as to actual wear performance simply isn't there.
What we CAN conclude, is that despite the cleaning, in most applications, we are not seeing any increase in wear metals observed via used oil analysis.
Most of these examples are low mileage engines (save for the Audi thread) where Valvoline Restore and Protect was the most recent oil used and the trend was already going down. This is the observation for samples 2, 3, 4, 8, which is why they were not included in my list.
It seems to clean without increasing the wear rate. This is quite the achievement, but even with Valvoline Premium Blue Restore, where the metal uptake rate has often gone up, there's not sufficient data to argue that more wear is actually taking place.
Let’s just agree that it’s a really great oil. I’ll be using it full time once I’m done the my stash.
Again, in my town, this is not "dirty". Anyone is free to respond here if they want. But I acknowledge your concern for the forum members.
Yes, the same car with QS in it now. I will run one used oil analysis for the QS (now SQ) and then begin the RP. It will be a good test, I think, the engine is dirty, and has oil consumption that I consider above average. (1.5q 5k miles)
I'm going to address this all at the bottom with some commentary for each when warranted.
I think this one matters. See below why.
Again I think we come from different neighborhoods. I consider a 30k engine beyond broken in. The first 3 samples cover a broken-in engine in my opinion. The BS series goes from 15k to 35k and then 65k. Not a problem in my view. Certainly not enough of a question there to omit such a report. Better to question the different vis, but it still provides a picture that is worthy to include. Just the .4PPM result makes it worthwhile to analyze and discuss, not to omit.
Very low mileage? 15k to begin? We will agree to disagree I guess.
Same comment as above.
This was posted for other reasons, mostly because of it's "epicness", or it's "epicity". See below for more ex.
I actually liked this one the least because of the additives. Funny how we all see things.
Again, sample 2 was 15.7k and showed 1ppm difference in Fe, and a big drop in Al. I consider that engine to be broken in, even at the 12k mark.
Yes, do you have something you would like to make clear to me about that? I would like your thoughts.
I believe what all these samples show is a picture, of how this oil is working in some diverse environments. Yes, sometimes with just a couple of runs in each individual engine. Many will throw those out for all kinds of reasons, (which I think is a mistake) but when taken as a whole, all these provide a picture. Like I have said here many times, see these for what they are, rather than for what they are not. There is good information that begins to make sense when taken as a whole, not just dissected and minimized with a solely reductive, limiting approach. This info, even if it doesn't meet an established rigor or standards, can be revealing and very valuable. I have said it helps to use data, sure, we all do, but it also helps to have the brain engaged while doing so, not just relying on method, which I believe can lead to a mind-less approach and therefore becomes faulty.
Now, the break-in "thing":
If the $30 used oil analysis we all look at can be used and are used frequently, and without question, to surmise that an engine might still be breaking in based on the wear metals present, how does then the same used oil analysis cease being useful showing wear metal changes based on changing oils?
used oil analysis Guy: "Hmm. Iron is high. Based on mileage engine is likely still breaking in."
BITOG: "Huzzah, and here, here. Truth!"
used oil analysis Guy: "Hmm. Iron is high. Might be because of the brand change I did, I'll run and sample again."
BITOG: "You can't determine that from a $30 used oil analysis. used oil analysis are for testing oil, not engines. You're wasting your money to do that. Begone, knave!"
used oil analysis Break in shows more wear, usually in the single digits in PPM. But oil brand changes can show this after break in, and should now therefore be wholly and completely ignored? Why is that?
Please let's discuss. Let's see if this goes further than it has in the past, and I don't get locked out of the thread.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Thank you.
Are you planning on using a borescope or something to take a look at the change in cleanliness?
"Break-in" is done when the general trend in the measurement "settles", so, if it's still trending down (like many/most of those), you are going to observe that same trend in a subsequent sample. There is no set mileage at which this stops happening, it will vary greatly depending on engine design, surface finish...etc.
Big gaps (like 30,000 miles) are also a big problem, as I mentioned.
Yes, I thought you'd find it funny that folks came out to defend Valvoline Restore and Protect the same way you claimed others (could be the same people? I don't know, you didn't list them) defended boutiques. I thought you might also get a chuckle out of it, as I did, and, since it was germane to the conversation in this thread, I thought it appropriate to tag you so you could see it.
I have my criteria, which I outlined, and why I intentionally omitted samples that didn't meet them. You appear to ascribe more value to the ones I omitted than I do, otherwise I assume you wouldn't have listed them.
I don't think we are going to agree on this, because my overarching philosophy on used oil analysis differs from yours and is informed by different inputs.
It's all in the trending. That's why so many used oil analysis on this site are useless. They are snapshots in time, often with unknown factors influencing what may be "seen". @TiGeo's extensive trending, across many lubes, shows all kinds of small, insignificant changes, but due to that extensive trending, he was able to pick-up when something was changing; when something deviated from the trend (which was a guide failing).Now, the break-in "thing":
If the $30 used oil analysis we all look at can be used and are used frequently, and without question, to surmise that an engine might still be breaking in based on the wear metals present, how does then the same used oil analysis cease being useful showing wear metal changes based on changing oils?
used oil analysis Guy: "Hmm. Iron is high. Based on mileage engine is likely still breaking in."
BITOG: "Huzzah, and here, here. Truth!"
used oil analysis Guy: "Hmm. Iron is high. Might be because of the brand change I did, I'll run and sample again."
BITOG: "You can't determine that from a $30 used oil analysis. used oil analysis are for testing oil, not engines. You're wasting your money to do that. Begone, knave!"
used oil analysis Break in shows more wear, usually in the single digits in PPM. But oil brand changes can show this after break in, and should now therefore be wholly and completely ignored? Why is that?
Please let's discuss. Let's see if this goes further than it has in the past, and I don't get locked out of the thread.
So, if you've got a series of say 5 used oil analysis and iron is still trending down on run #5, it's pretty reasonable to conclude that the iron uptake rate is still in decline, which I'd ascribe to break-in, but even if we want to call it something else like "post break-in settling", it's a trend. You add another variable (changing to VRP for example) on top of that trend, how do you determine that the oil was the reason for yet another reduction in a subsequent sample and not just continuation of the trend? You can't.
That's why one of my criteria was higher mileage engines, because we should be past the point where that trend is still in play.
As we know, used oil analysis also can't differentiate between chemical and mechanical origins, so when you change chemistry, again, talking a few PPM variances, you don't actually know if you've impacted the WEAR rate, which is what people are typically trying to minimize when they are bouncing around between oils doing uncontrolled used oil analysis, vs more aggressive detergent chemistry or base oils. Compounds like esters...etc. can influence what the spectrograph "sees", and this is represented in the numbers, but you don't know where it came from.
My position is that most of the used oil analysis people do are are of very limited utility. Sure, you can (as long as you don't use Blackstone) get a feel for how much fuel dilution you have going on, but unless you are willing to spend the money to properly trend, it's unlikely you are going to catch something going sideways (@TiGeo, @wwillson are both people that have spent big money on used oil analysis where that has actually happened). Taken for their actual utility (not what we want to believe, this isn't the X-Files), most used oil analysis are wholly unremarkable, which mirrors their value. Most people are running an approved lube of sufficient quality and the used oil analysis tells them that the oil is fine and the equipment is healthy. The rest of it is herding cats, and don't get me started on the absurdity of summing up metals and trying to ascertain a performance level from the total.
It's a lot like the audiophile game or other hobbies where there's lack of control, a massive list of variables, OCD and a whole lot of perception. I'm thankful that, thanks to voices like @Doug Hillary and @dnewton3, that there's a whole lot less used oil analysis bench racing going on than there was when I first joined almost 20 years ago.
Last edited:
Similar threads
