Which oil for Turbo DI
- Thread starter Brolly
- Start date
- Status
Redline 0w20 or 0w30
Originally Posted By: Brolly
I think the idea is to run rich or to spray extra(maybe not the best word) to keep the engine cool and to try to prevent LSPI but in doing so this creates blow by or fuel dilution. Some 1.5T owners by using premium fuel have noticed a decrease in dilution through oil sampling. Others have noticed changing to certain Dexos 1 Gen 2 oils a decrease in dilution on top of those that have noticed a decrease by using low Cal packages and some high in boron. I think there a multiple variables playing here on these DI and DI turbo engines. Car companies are saying it’s fine it’s just dilution blah blah blah. Maybe the best thing would be performing step by step changes and see what works and what doesn’t. I think turbo engines alone should have premium gas anyways. That I have already done. Odd that Honda went the way they did. Is there a Decos 1 Gen 2 oil with a low cal package and a high boron count?
How does the engine mixture control know if there is Ca in the oil then? You've asserted that the presence of high Ca somehow affects engine control.
This could only happen if the knock sensors were picking up some LSPI (pinging, detonation) from high-Ca oiled engines, and retarding timing, which then leads to high blow-by.
{Background about LSPI: High Ca in oils does cause LSPI. All the new dexos1 Gen2 and SN+ oils have low Ca to quench LSPI events.}
High Ca oils ----> cause LSPI ----> knock sensors hear it -----> timing is retarded ----> then, this causes more fuel dilution in the oil.
Greater fuel dilution from retarding timing could be caused from poorer atomization of fuel from late DI+spark.
That could be the mechanism, and someone can come along and comfirm or deny this sequence of events, with some solid reasoning please.
You're saying Hondas already run rich when in the LSPI torque/RPM area to help prevent LSPI, fair enough, true. Although this rich stuff creates emissions and MPG problems obviously to some extent.
Mild knock from using low-octane fuel will cause timing to be retarded slightly, using the old knock sensors, and this is somehow connected with greater fuel dilution.
I think the idea is to run rich or to spray extra(maybe not the best word) to keep the engine cool and to try to prevent LSPI but in doing so this creates blow by or fuel dilution. Some 1.5T owners by using premium fuel have noticed a decrease in dilution through oil sampling. Others have noticed changing to certain Dexos 1 Gen 2 oils a decrease in dilution on top of those that have noticed a decrease by using low Cal packages and some high in boron. I think there a multiple variables playing here on these DI and DI turbo engines. Car companies are saying it’s fine it’s just dilution blah blah blah. Maybe the best thing would be performing step by step changes and see what works and what doesn’t. I think turbo engines alone should have premium gas anyways. That I have already done. Odd that Honda went the way they did. Is there a Decos 1 Gen 2 oil with a low cal package and a high boron count?
How does the engine mixture control know if there is Ca in the oil then? You've asserted that the presence of high Ca somehow affects engine control.
This could only happen if the knock sensors were picking up some LSPI (pinging, detonation) from high-Ca oiled engines, and retarding timing, which then leads to high blow-by.
{Background about LSPI: High Ca in oils does cause LSPI. All the new dexos1 Gen2 and SN+ oils have low Ca to quench LSPI events.}
High Ca oils ----> cause LSPI ----> knock sensors hear it -----> timing is retarded ----> then, this causes more fuel dilution in the oil.
Greater fuel dilution from retarding timing could be caused from poorer atomization of fuel from late DI+spark.
That could be the mechanism, and someone can come along and comfirm or deny this sequence of events, with some solid reasoning please.
You're saying Hondas already run rich when in the LSPI torque/RPM area to help prevent LSPI, fair enough, true. Although this rich stuff creates emissions and MPG problems obviously to some extent.
Mild knock from using low-octane fuel will cause timing to be retarded slightly, using the old knock sensors, and this is somehow connected with greater fuel dilution.
I’m not saying that the engine can sense a increase in CA. I’m wondering is there a connection between engines that are tuned to decrease the occurrence of LSPI by “spraying more fuel” as a preventative measure and high CA. I found this paper from SAE maybe I am over thinking this.
SAE
“The Impact of Lubricant Volatility, Viscosity and Detergent Chemistry on Low Speed Pre-Ignition Behavior 2017-01-0685
The impact of additive and oil chemistry on low speed pre-ignition (LSPI) was evaluated. An additive metals matrix varied the levels of zinc dialkyldithiophosphate (ZDDP), calcium sulfonate, and molybdenum within the range of commercially available engine lubricants. A separate test matrix varied the detergent chemistry (calcium vs. magnesium), lubricant volatility, and base stock chemistry. All lubricants were evaluated on a LSPI test cycle developed by Southwest Research Institute within its Pre-Ignition Prevention Program (P3) using a GM LHU 2.0 L turbocharged GDI engine. It was observed that increasing the concentration of calcium leads to an increase in the LSPI rate. At low calcium levels, near-zero LSPI rates were observed. The addition of zinc and molybdenum additives had a negative effect on the LSPI rate; however, this was only seen at higher calcium concentrations. Displacing some or all of the calcium with magnesium reduces the LSPI rate relative to an all-calcium lubricant. There was a minor impact of volatility, but the statistical analysis concluded it was insignificant. The impact of viscosity was significant with lower LPSI rates observed with the low viscosity oil at high magnesium concentrations.It is clear that even with the relatively simple formulation changes studied in these test matrices, the LSPI rate of the engine can be significantly impacted. It can be expected that other common oil additive chemistries would also impact the LSPI rate based on these results. Given these results, there is no indication that the general trend towards lower viscosities will prove problematic for LSPI. There is also the potential for improving LSPI rates without reducing detergent concentrations if the observed magnesium result can be confirmed. In the long term, it will still be critical to develop a fundamental understanding of the chemistry which makes the detergent an active part of the LSPI process.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4271/2017-01-0685
Citation: Kocsis, M., Briggs, T., and Anderson, G., "The Impact of Lubricant Volatility, Viscosity and Detergent Chemistry on Low Speed Pre-Ignition Behavior," SAE Int. J. Engines 10(3):1019-1035, 2017, https://doi.org/10.4271/2017-01-0685.
Download Citation
Author(s): Michael Clifford Kocsis, Thomas Briggs, Garrett Anderson
Affiliated: Southwest Research Institute
Pages: 17
Event: WCX™ 17: SAE World Congress Experience
Also in: SAE International Journal of Engines-V126-3EJ, SAE International Journal of Engines-V126-3”
SAE
“The Impact of Lubricant Volatility, Viscosity and Detergent Chemistry on Low Speed Pre-Ignition Behavior 2017-01-0685
The impact of additive and oil chemistry on low speed pre-ignition (LSPI) was evaluated. An additive metals matrix varied the levels of zinc dialkyldithiophosphate (ZDDP), calcium sulfonate, and molybdenum within the range of commercially available engine lubricants. A separate test matrix varied the detergent chemistry (calcium vs. magnesium), lubricant volatility, and base stock chemistry. All lubricants were evaluated on a LSPI test cycle developed by Southwest Research Institute within its Pre-Ignition Prevention Program (P3) using a GM LHU 2.0 L turbocharged GDI engine. It was observed that increasing the concentration of calcium leads to an increase in the LSPI rate. At low calcium levels, near-zero LSPI rates were observed. The addition of zinc and molybdenum additives had a negative effect on the LSPI rate; however, this was only seen at higher calcium concentrations. Displacing some or all of the calcium with magnesium reduces the LSPI rate relative to an all-calcium lubricant. There was a minor impact of volatility, but the statistical analysis concluded it was insignificant. The impact of viscosity was significant with lower LPSI rates observed with the low viscosity oil at high magnesium concentrations.It is clear that even with the relatively simple formulation changes studied in these test matrices, the LSPI rate of the engine can be significantly impacted. It can be expected that other common oil additive chemistries would also impact the LSPI rate based on these results. Given these results, there is no indication that the general trend towards lower viscosities will prove problematic for LSPI. There is also the potential for improving LSPI rates without reducing detergent concentrations if the observed magnesium result can be confirmed. In the long term, it will still be critical to develop a fundamental understanding of the chemistry which makes the detergent an active part of the LSPI process.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4271/2017-01-0685
Citation: Kocsis, M., Briggs, T., and Anderson, G., "The Impact of Lubricant Volatility, Viscosity and Detergent Chemistry on Low Speed Pre-Ignition Behavior," SAE Int. J. Engines 10(3):1019-1035, 2017, https://doi.org/10.4271/2017-01-0685.
Download Citation
Author(s): Michael Clifford Kocsis, Thomas Briggs, Garrett Anderson
Affiliated: Southwest Research Institute
Pages: 17
Event: WCX™ 17: SAE World Congress Experience
Also in: SAE International Journal of Engines-V126-3EJ, SAE International Journal of Engines-V126-3”
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Camprunner
The way I look at it all Ford Ecoboost motors were upgraded from 20 weight to 30 weight oil and that's enogh reason for me not to play with 20 weight oils with any new turbocharged engine from any make without proof that it is ok from a UOA.
Were they all upgraded by a requirement from Ford, or by a choice option, as stated in the manuals?
The way I look at it all Ford Ecoboost motors were upgraded from 20 weight to 30 weight oil and that's enogh reason for me not to play with 20 weight oils with any new turbocharged engine from any make without proof that it is ok from a UOA.
Were they all upgraded by a requirement from Ford, or by a choice option, as stated in the manuals?
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: Camprunner
The way I look at it all Ford Ecoboost motors were upgraded from 20 weight to 30 weight oil and that's enogh reason for me not to play with 20 weight oils with any new turbocharged engine from any make without proof that it is ok from a UOA.
Not all Ecoboost went to 5w30. The smaller ones (1.5T, 1.6T, 1.0T) are 5w20.
The '17 Fiesta ST (1.6T EcoBoost GDI for those who don't know) supplemental manual gives an option for a 5W-30 choice, but we're not sure that was not a misprint since they also say it has to have the Ford 945-A spec, which supposedly NO 5W-30s can carry, not even Motorcraft's OWN full synthetic version.
Originally Posted By: Camprunner
The way I look at it all Ford Ecoboost motors were upgraded from 20 weight to 30 weight oil and that's enogh reason for me not to play with 20 weight oils with any new turbocharged engine from any make without proof that it is ok from a UOA.
Not all Ecoboost went to 5w30. The smaller ones (1.5T, 1.6T, 1.0T) are 5w20.
The '17 Fiesta ST (1.6T EcoBoost GDI for those who don't know) supplemental manual gives an option for a 5W-30 choice, but we're not sure that was not a misprint since they also say it has to have the Ford 945-A spec, which supposedly NO 5W-30s can carry, not even Motorcraft's OWN full synthetic version.
Run what the shop wants to under warranty, then afterward switch to Redline or Amsoil.
Originally Posted By: mehullica
Redline 0w20 or 0w30
Everyone keeps suggesting Red Line for turbo GDI engines, but aren't the calcium and sodium levels WAY WAY TOO HIGH in their products for use in these power plants?
Yes, their (relatively) low NOACK levels, due to their base stocks, and their high moly and ZDDP levels help out with LSPI reduction, but isn't ALL of that 'countered' by those sky high ca levels (which ironically enough, do NOT result in high starting TBNs for these oils)?
This is NOT a bash on them, since I really like Red Line's products, and have used them extensively in port injected, NA engines in the past.
But I would NOT run them in my current EcoBoost setup, unless they drastically reduced the calcium and sodium in their formulations, and replaced those with boron and magnesium.
.
Redline 0w20 or 0w30
Everyone keeps suggesting Red Line for turbo GDI engines, but aren't the calcium and sodium levels WAY WAY TOO HIGH in their products for use in these power plants?
Yes, their (relatively) low NOACK levels, due to their base stocks, and their high moly and ZDDP levels help out with LSPI reduction, but isn't ALL of that 'countered' by those sky high ca levels (which ironically enough, do NOT result in high starting TBNs for these oils)?
This is NOT a bash on them, since I really like Red Line's products, and have used them extensively in port injected, NA engines in the past.
But I would NOT run them in my current EcoBoost setup, unless they drastically reduced the calcium and sodium in their formulations, and replaced those with boron and magnesium.
I like Redline for turbocharged port-injected but not for engines prone to LSPI due to the medium-high calcium concentration. For the first 20k miles or so, I’d use an oil that meets dexos 1 gen 2, and change if fairly frequently, like maybe every 5k miles. Later, I’d probably extend OCI and use Amsoil Signature Series in viscosity grade meant for dexos 1 gen 2 applications.
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: mehullica
Redline 0w20 or 0w30
Everyone keeps suggesting Red Line for turbo GDI engines, but aren't the calcium and sodium levels WAY WAY TOO HIGH in their products for use in these power plants?
"Group V formulations are very resistant to auto-ignition"--http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/jun-2017/lspi-and-lubricant-auto-ignition Redline has POE Group V in some significant percentage. Add high ZDDP and moly, and Redline likely is anti-LSPI.
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
........ unless they drastically reduced the calcium and sodium in their formulations, and replaced those with boron and magnesium.
.
Sodium is only around 15 ppm in Redline, not high like the old Valvoline synth formulas which were around 200 ppm.
Originally Posted By: mehullica
Redline 0w20 or 0w30
Everyone keeps suggesting Red Line for turbo GDI engines, but aren't the calcium and sodium levels WAY WAY TOO HIGH in their products for use in these power plants?
"Group V formulations are very resistant to auto-ignition"--http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/jun-2017/lspi-and-lubricant-auto-ignition Redline has POE Group V in some significant percentage. Add high ZDDP and moly, and Redline likely is anti-LSPI.
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
........ unless they drastically reduced the calcium and sodium in their formulations, and replaced those with boron and magnesium.
Sodium is only around 15 ppm in Redline, not high like the old Valvoline synth formulas which were around 200 ppm.
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: mehullica
Redline 0w20 or 0w30
Everyone keeps suggesting Red Line for turbo GDI engines, but aren't the calcium and sodium levels WAY WAY TOO HIGH in their products for use in these power plants?
"Group V formulations are very resistant to auto-ignition"--http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/jun-2017/lspi-and-lubricant-auto-ignition Redline has POE Group V in some significant percentage. Add high ZDDP and moly, and Redline likely is anti-LSPI.
YES, I know all about the PAO/POE rich base stocks keeping the NOACK low, and therefore the risk of LSPI events low (WHY I seek the Ravenol DXG so desperately, since that is the makeup of it's base stock, resulting in a 6.0% NOACK, along with a high content trimer moly and tungsten anti-wear/anti-friction add pack and a LOW SA detergent/disperant add pack
).
But, are those high moly and ZDDP levels (combined with the high POE content base stock) in most of Red Line's line up enough to 'counteract' the sky high calcium levels in all but their very few low-mid SAPS Euro oil offerings, in helping to reduce the LSPI events?
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: mehullica
Redline 0w20 or 0w30
Everyone keeps suggesting Red Line for turbo GDI engines, but aren't the calcium and sodium levels WAY WAY TOO HIGH in their products for use in these power plants?
"Group V formulations are very resistant to auto-ignition"--http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/jun-2017/lspi-and-lubricant-auto-ignition Redline has POE Group V in some significant percentage. Add high ZDDP and moly, and Redline likely is anti-LSPI.
YES, I know all about the PAO/POE rich base stocks keeping the NOACK low, and therefore the risk of LSPI events low (WHY I seek the Ravenol DXG so desperately, since that is the makeup of it's base stock, resulting in a 6.0% NOACK, along with a high content trimer moly and tungsten anti-wear/anti-friction add pack and a LOW SA detergent/disperant add pack
But, are those high moly and ZDDP levels (combined with the high POE content base stock) in most of Red Line's line up enough to 'counteract' the sky high calcium levels in all but their very few low-mid SAPS Euro oil offerings, in helping to reduce the LSPI events?
Originally Posted By: JAG
Later, I’d probably extend OCI and use Amsoil Signature Series in viscosity grade meant for dexos 1 gen 2 applications.
Can someone PLEASE explain to me HOW Amsoil has 12 TBN, low LSPI and D1G2 Sig Series oils?
Is it all 'smoke and mirrors', or do they overbase it with crazy boron and magnesium levels to replace the calcium in order to accomplish this feat?
(Or is it their exceptionally low NOACKs doing the bulk of this accomplishment?)
Later, I’d probably extend OCI and use Amsoil Signature Series in viscosity grade meant for dexos 1 gen 2 applications.
Can someone PLEASE explain to me HOW Amsoil has 12 TBN, low LSPI and D1G2 Sig Series oils?
Is it all 'smoke and mirrors', or do they overbase it with crazy boron and magnesium levels to replace the calcium in order to accomplish this feat?
(Or is it their exceptionally low NOACKs doing the bulk of this accomplishment?)
I can't say what Amsoil is doing, but you can get some very high initial TBN values without a whack of calcium.
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: JAG
Later, I’d probably extend OCI and use Amsoil Signature Series in viscosity grade meant for dexos 1 gen 2 applications.
Can someone PLEASE explain to me HOW Amsoil has 12 TBN, low LSPI and D1G2 Sig Series oils?
Is it all 'smoke and mirrors', or do they overbase it with crazy boron and magnesium levels to replace the calcium in order to accomplish this feat?
(Or is it their exceptionally low NOACKs doing the bulk of this accomplishment?)
Just want to point out that the Amsoil SS oils do not actually have d1G2 licenses, Amsoil claims that they pass the d1G2 LSPI and timing chain tests (and I certainly trust them on those points) but they also state that the SA levels are too high for d1G2.
I believe that the fine BITOG poster Molakule also shared with us some time ago that he used organic additives to raise the TBN of an LSPI-resistant oil he was working on (apologies to him if I am putting false words in his mouth).
You can also look at M1 5W30 for an oil that has a fairly high TBN (almost 10 per the PQIA) with low calcium levels as well as a fairly low SA level of 0.8%...been like that for years.
Originally Posted By: JAG
Later, I’d probably extend OCI and use Amsoil Signature Series in viscosity grade meant for dexos 1 gen 2 applications.
Can someone PLEASE explain to me HOW Amsoil has 12 TBN, low LSPI and D1G2 Sig Series oils?
Is it all 'smoke and mirrors', or do they overbase it with crazy boron and magnesium levels to replace the calcium in order to accomplish this feat?
(Or is it their exceptionally low NOACKs doing the bulk of this accomplishment?)
Just want to point out that the Amsoil SS oils do not actually have d1G2 licenses, Amsoil claims that they pass the d1G2 LSPI and timing chain tests (and I certainly trust them on those points) but they also state that the SA levels are too high for d1G2.
I believe that the fine BITOG poster Molakule also shared with us some time ago that he used organic additives to raise the TBN of an LSPI-resistant oil he was working on (apologies to him if I am putting false words in his mouth).
You can also look at M1 5W30 for an oil that has a fairly high TBN (almost 10 per the PQIA) with low calcium levels as well as a fairly low SA level of 0.8%...been like that for years.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: parshisa
SA for new signature series formulation is 1.2% as opposed to 1.4% with old formula. At least that's what I've been told by amsoil tech support
So, if the finished product has a low enough NOACK, both the calcium level and the SA do not matter all that much as far as LSPI prevention goes?
SA for new signature series formulation is 1.2% as opposed to 1.4% with old formula. At least that's what I've been told by amsoil tech support
So, if the finished product has a low enough NOACK, both the calcium level and the SA do not matter all that much as far as LSPI prevention goes?
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: JAG
Later, I’d probably extend OCI and use Amsoil Signature Series in viscosity grade meant for dexos 1 gen 2 applications.
Can someone PLEASE explain to me HOW Amsoil has 12 TBN, low LSPI and D1G2 Sig Series oils?
Is it all 'smoke and mirrors', or do they overbase it with crazy boron and magnesium levels to replace the calcium in order to accomplish this feat?
(Or is it their exceptionally low NOACKs doing the bulk of this accomplishment?)
Just want to point out that the Amsoil SS oils do not actually have d1G2 licenses, Amsoil claims that they pass the d1G2 LSPI and timing chain tests (and I certainly trust them on those points) but they also state that the SA levels are too high for d1G2.
I believe that the fine BITOG poster Molakule also shared with us some time ago that he used organic additives to raise the TBN of an LSPI-resistant oil he was working on (apologies to him if I am putting false words in his mouth).
You can also look at M1 5W30 for an oil that has a fairly high TBN (almost 10 per the PQIA) with low calcium levels as well as a fairly low SA level of 0.8%...been like that for years.
YES, I know all about their lack of actual D1G2 certification, but yes, as you have also stated they DO claim that these new formulations of Sig Series ARE in fact geared towards a reduction of LSPI events.
Even though the starting TBN is down a bit (@ 8.3), the 0.77 SA, 6.0 NOACK, Ravenol DXG is looking better and better all the time for MY purposes than anything else out there, AND it will only be slightly costlier than the much revered on here, similar NOACK level, M1 5W-30 ESP which I have NEVER EVER seen sold for less than ~$9.25/quart, or in 5 gallon jugs anywhere, for ANY price (and yes, I DO realize that you are referring to old 'plain Jane', but D1G2 certified, M1 5W-30, and NOT their ESP
).
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: JAG
Later, I’d probably extend OCI and use Amsoil Signature Series in viscosity grade meant for dexos 1 gen 2 applications.
Can someone PLEASE explain to me HOW Amsoil has 12 TBN, low LSPI and D1G2 Sig Series oils?
Is it all 'smoke and mirrors', or do they overbase it with crazy boron and magnesium levels to replace the calcium in order to accomplish this feat?
(Or is it their exceptionally low NOACKs doing the bulk of this accomplishment?)
Just want to point out that the Amsoil SS oils do not actually have d1G2 licenses, Amsoil claims that they pass the d1G2 LSPI and timing chain tests (and I certainly trust them on those points) but they also state that the SA levels are too high for d1G2.
I believe that the fine BITOG poster Molakule also shared with us some time ago that he used organic additives to raise the TBN of an LSPI-resistant oil he was working on (apologies to him if I am putting false words in his mouth).
You can also look at M1 5W30 for an oil that has a fairly high TBN (almost 10 per the PQIA) with low calcium levels as well as a fairly low SA level of 0.8%...been like that for years.
YES, I know all about their lack of actual D1G2 certification, but yes, as you have also stated they DO claim that these new formulations of Sig Series ARE in fact geared towards a reduction of LSPI events.
Even though the starting TBN is down a bit (@ 8.3), the 0.77 SA, 6.0 NOACK, Ravenol DXG is looking better and better all the time for MY purposes than anything else out there, AND it will only be slightly costlier than the much revered on here, similar NOACK level, M1 5W-30 ESP which I have NEVER EVER seen sold for less than ~$9.25/quart, or in 5 gallon jugs anywhere, for ANY price (and yes, I DO realize that you are referring to old 'plain Jane', but D1G2 certified, M1 5W-30, and NOT their ESP
- Status