WRX - encouraging

[simwah]

Just got my very first analysis back for my 2002 WRX.

I'm pretty excited, and I really think taking the time to break the engine in properly has paid off:

2002 WRX
32,600m on car
4,888m on oil
Subaru filter
Mobil1 5W/30

Aluminum 3
Chromium 1
Iron 7
Copper 1
Lead 2
Tin 1
Molybdenum 71
Nickle 0
Manganese 0
Silver 0
Titanium 0
Potasium 0
Boron 175
Silicon 6
Sodium 9
Calcium 2840
Magnesium 15
Phosphorus 747
Zinc 971
Barium 0

viscosity@210F 58.5
flashpoint 385F
fuel Antifreeze 0
Water Insolubles .4

I have intake, exhaust and ECU mods, and I consistently get 26mpg on 93 octane.

 

[Al]

Great report. The solids arr maybe a tad high for that milage, but probably MI winters account for that. Or maybe some idling. Anyway great report

 

[Patman]

Very nice report! Mobil 1 5w30 is an oil that I often am not too impressed with, but then I see reports like this and it amazes me! To see such low wear metals in a hard driven (I'm assuming) turbo application shows how well built this oil is. And at 9.78cst, it hasn't thinned out either.

Nice silicon level too, your air filter is doing a great job.

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patman:
Very nice report! Mobil 1 5w30 is an oil that I often am not too impressed with, but then I see reports like this and it amazes me! To see such low wear metals in a hard driven (I'm assuming) turbo application shows how well built this oil is. And at 9.78cst, it hasn't thinned out either.

---

Yeah, but the "Mobil 1 naysayers" will read this report and come out with something like "Well, those WRX turbo engines must be really easy on oil." It has to be that, right? I mean what else could explain a GOOD report on Mobil 1?

 

[Patman]

What is the oil capacity on the WRX engine anyways?

 

[Drstressor]

simwah -- Interesting that you mention that the engine was carefully broken in. In my own experience, this is a huge factor in determining future wear patterns. You rarely see this mentioned on this board.

 

[nicrfe1370]

Simwah,
That's a great report. Since I bought my WRX new, I broke it in very carefully like you, but I practice a different start-up procedure. I let the car warm almost completely before I drive the car. But hey, you had awesome results with your technique, so who am I to argue!!
I don't know how you get 26mpg with all those mods, even with my car being bone stock I struggle to reach that if I spend a whole tank in fifth gear! Did your mpg increase with the mods?
How is your oil consumption? Over 3000 miles(the longest I have gone before changing the oil), I have yet to notice any oil consumption, which pleases me a great deal. I think it must be partially good engineering and partially my careful break-in, I'm interested to hear if your car consumes any oil.
At what total mileage on your car did you switch to synthetic?
I have created a spreadsheet with the oil analysis numbers from all the Subaru's I could find on the web, check out http://home.earthlink.net/~jabrande/oilanalysis/SubaruTrend.xls

[ May 23, 2003, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: nicrfe1370 ]

 

[buster]

quote:

---

Yeah, but the "Mobil 1 naysayers" will read this report and come out with something like "Well, those WRX turbo engines must be really easy on oil." It has to be that, right? I mean what else could explain a GOOD report on Mobil 1?

---

I'm still waiting for some excuse as to why it's this good.

I think M1 naysayers are blind. I see more consistancy with M1 then any other oil. Schaeffer's too.

 

[Pablo]

Great report!!

Not sure what/who a Mobil 1 naysayer is - but an Fe of 7 ppm in a turbo car at 5k is in "signature" oil range. We know the names of most of these oils. No turbos are "easy" on oils. (Speaking of which, this may be where the insolubles are from - very slight turbo coking)

 

[quadrun1]

Excellent report!

Simwah, gotta agree with your break-in technique, I do the same thing and have yet to have a car with oil consumption between oil changes... also been a big Mobil 1 fan for a long time.

Nicrfe1370, it's generally best to start the car and allow it to idle 20-30 seconds (generally the time it takes to buckle your seatbelt, tune the radio, and check your mirrors) and then drive gently (below < 3500 rpm, no wide-open throttle) until the engine is warmed up. This allows a quick warm-up.

Allowing a car to idle for more than a minute or two after a cold start causes it to take longer to warm up, which means you're running in a "rich" condition for a longer time, which is bad for your oil, and bad for your engine.

Jason

 

[simwah]

This forum is the most informative for its subject matter I've come across, and thanks for the feedback.

I got my car with 22 miles on it and kept it below 4,000rpm for about 1,500 miles. I progressively bumped it up 1,000 rpm's per 1,000 miles. I redline thru the gears (7K) about 2 days a week, and otherwise rarely drive WOT. (I do have fun, though)

I still don't go above 3,500 until the engine is warmed up a little, which only takes 5 or 10 miles, except in the dead of winter. It's garaged year-rond, and I drive off as soon as I put on my seatbelt and raise the stupid manual antenna.

I went with Mobil1 on the second change, and have stuck with it since.

'Mobil1 naysayers' please take note that 'Super Syn' adds about 40hp and also makes your car look a hell of a lot better

I also have a 1995 Chrysler Cirrus with 146,000 miles on it on which I used a similar break-in technique. If I can find it, I'll post my 96,000 DuraLube analysis, which was also quite good. Otherwise, I'll be sending in a sample for that in about a month.

Also, WRX = 5 qts w/filter

Again, you guys are great and thanks a lot.

 

[metroplex]

quote:

---

Allowing a car to idle for more than a minute or two after a cold start causes it to take longer to warm up, which means you're running in a "rich" condition for a longer time, which is bad for your oil, and bad for your engine.

---

That's interesting because I found if I idle my car for a longer time and when the engine is HOT, it won't suck as much fuel.

If I drive right away, it will run in a rich condition for a shorter time but during that time it will most likely suck more fuel than if you just let it idle to become fully warm. Is this making sense?

My 2000 Crown Vic doesn't suck as much gas if you idle it for say 3-5 minutes and then take off slowly than if you went off after 30 seconds of idling and started sub-3500 RPM driving. If you do the latter, the gas needle will immediately start dropping 1-2 mm's.