Car Forum / Australian Car Forums / General Car Topics (Australian group) / May 2006
VL/RB30 "permacrud"
|
|
Thread rating:  |
budgie - 30 Nov 2005 03:37 GMT My son's VL Commode came with a legacy of insufficient oil changes apparently. The sump (which I removed for an inspection - bugger of a job) was full of crud - about 1cm thick. After cleaning it out and a further 30,000km or so, it is again full of crud.
Apart from routine oil/filter changes, is there any way to avoid this permacrud buildup short of pulling the sump periodically? Last time it had nearly blocked the pickup screen completely.
Constructive suggestions welcomed.
Brenden Will - 30 Nov 2005 03:49 GMT 5000k oil changes will solve it. The only reason oil gets dirty so quick is the rings are letting compression past.
> My son's VL Commode came with a legacy of insufficient oil changes > apparently. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Constructive suggestions welcomed. athol - 30 Nov 2005 06:03 GMT > 5000k oil changes will solve it. The only reason oil gets dirty so quick is > the rings are letting compression past. In that case, an LPG conversion will solve it. :-)
 Signature Athol <http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000 The state of infrastructure in New South Wales is a disgrace. I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.
Clockmeister - 30 Nov 2005 07:25 GMT >> 5000k oil changes will solve it. The only reason oil gets dirty so quick >> is >> the rings are letting compression past. > > In that case, an LPG conversion will solve it. :-) That particular engine doesn't lend itself very well for conversion because the heads crack.
athol - 30 Nov 2005 07:56 GMT >>> 5000k oil changes will solve it. The only reason oil gets dirty so quick >>> is the rings are letting compression past.
>> In that case, an LPG conversion will solve it. :-)
> That particular engine doesn't lend itself very well for conversion because > the heads crack. It was a joke... I really couldn't see anybody spending that much money on converting an RB30 in a VL to LPG - the conversion is worth more than the car.
It would mean cleaner blow-by, though. :-)
 Signature Athol <http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000 The state of infrastructure in New South Wales is a disgrace. I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.
D Walford - 30 Nov 2005 04:52 GMT > My son's VL Commode came with a legacy of insufficient oil changes apparently. > The sump (which I removed for an inspection - bugger of a job) was full of crud [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Constructive suggestions welcomed. How is the engine temp? Sounds to me like its too cold.
Daryl
atec - 30 Nov 2005 06:34 GMT >My son's VL Commode came with a legacy of insufficient oil changes apparently. >The sump (which I removed for an inspection - bugger of a job) was full of crud [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Constructive suggestions welcomed. > change the brand of oil and change it often I use and recommend Lubrimaxx full synth
Toby Ponsenby - 30 Nov 2005 08:53 GMT >>My son's VL Commode came with a legacy of insufficient oil changes apparently. >>The sump (which I removed for an inspection - bugger of a job) was full of crud [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > change the brand of oil and change it often > I use and recommend Lubrimaxx full synth More or less than Mobil 1?
 Signature Toby. quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Lord-Data - 30 Nov 2005 10:49 GMT >>My son's VL Commode came with a legacy of insufficient oil changes >>apparently. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > change the brand of oil and change it often > I use and recommend Lubrimaxx full synth Synthetic on a VL? you're gonna burn half the oil you put in it ...
atec - 30 Nov 2005 12:53 GMT > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > actually only until the 1st oil change , some of the best oil I have every used, it even slow the through flow to ground from the jag.
Clockmeister - 02 Dec 2005 00:46 GMT >>>>My son's VL Commode came with a legacy of insufficient oil changes >>>>apparently. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > actually only until the 1st oil change , some of the best oil I have every > used, it even slow the through flow to ground from the jag. Now I know you are lying...
Jason James - 30 Nov 2005 18:33 GMT > My son's VL Commode came with a legacy of insufficient oil changes apparently. > The sump (which I removed for an inspection - bugger of a job) was full of crud [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Constructive suggestions welcomed. That sounds a little unusual even for a 'breather'. I had a 245 hemi outa a shooting buggy (VG Val) for $100 yrs ago as cash was tight. It breathed heavily as I later found out it had a gutful of broken and/or stuck rings. Was run outa oil and overheated at one stage. It still went without much sludge build-up,..mind you it needed a pint-oil every 250 miles. So I'm thinking there maybe something else going on with yours. Maybe insufficient PCV or too little oil-changes? As someone else said, too cold? or no thermostat?
Jason
Mike - 06 Jan 2006 08:01 GMT >My son's VL Commode came with a legacy of insufficient oil changes apparently. >The sump (which I removed for an inspection - bugger of a job) was full of crud [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >buildup short of pulling the sump periodically? Last time it had nearly blocked >the pickup screen completely. Since I started using synthetic oil, I have never had crud buildup (full stop)
ps: I compared a head from a car with 150,000Kms of mineral oil vs mine of 200,000Kms of synthetic, mine was almost perfectly clean with only some discolouration. The other one had 3mm deep resin, carbon and sludge all over it !
 Signature Regards Mike VL Commodore, Calais VL Turbo FuseRail that wont warp or melt ! http://niche.iinet.net.au
D Walford - 06 Jan 2006 08:41 GMT >>My son's VL Commode came with a legacy of insufficient oil changes apparently. >>The sump (which I removed for an inspection - bugger of a job) was full of crud [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Since I started using synthetic oil, I have never had crud buildup > (full stop) Since day one of owning a car (1970) I've never had any crud build up in an engine and I've never used a drop of synthetic oil in a car engine. Changing oil at the recommended interval is all thats needed to keep an engine clean inside.
> ps: I compared a head from a car with 150,000Kms of mineral oil > vs mine of 200,000Kms of synthetic, mine was almost perfectly clean > with only some discolouration. The other one had 3mm deep resin, > carbon and sludge all over it ! Which won't happen if its maintained properly.
Daryl
Mike - 11 Jan 2006 02:01 GMT >> Since I started using synthetic oil, I have never had crud buildup >> (full stop) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Changing oil at the recommended interval is all thats needed to keep an >engine clean inside. For an ordinary car that might be true and depends on whether the oil is detergent quality. For a turbo motor however, there are several areas of engine that run much hotter even though overall engine temp might be the same, these areas can easily carbonise ordinary oils...
>> ps: I compared a head from a car with 150,000Kms of mineral oil >> vs mine of 200,000Kms of synthetic, mine was almost perfectly clean >> with only some discolouration. The other one had 3mm deep resin, >> carbon and sludge all over it ! > >Which won't happen if its maintained properly. For an ordinary engine sure, seems reasonable. Most of the top makers of performance vehicles however recommend synthetics,
>Daryl
 Signature Regards Mike VL Commodore, Calais VL Turbo FuseRail that wont warp or melt ! http://niche.iinet.net.au
D Walford - 12 Jan 2006 06:25 GMT >>>Since I started using synthetic oil, I have never had crud buildup >>>(full stop) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > of engine that run much hotter even though overall engine temp might > be the same, these areas can easily carbonise ordinary oils... Turbo's have been around for a lot longer than synthetic oil especially in trucks and they don't have any problem using mineral oils. Synthetic oils are excellent for extending oil change intervals but if the manufacturers specified oil is used and changed at the specified interval (which often means changing more frequently when the vehicle is used in extreme conditions) there is no significant advantage using synthetic oil.
>>>ps: I compared a head from a car with 150,000Kms of mineral oil >>>vs mine of 200,000Kms of synthetic, mine was almost perfectly clean [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > For an ordinary engine sure, seems reasonable. Most of the top > makers of performance vehicles however recommend synthetics, But not all of them and the ones that do probably get kickbacks from the oil companies.
Daryl
Mike - 16 Jan 2006 06:14 GMT >>>Since day one of owning a car (1970) I've never had any crud build up in >>>an engine and I've never used a drop of synthetic oil in a car engine. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Turbo's have been around for a lot longer than synthetic oil especially >in trucks and they don't have any problem using mineral oils. Sure, no problem, truck design isnt as closely constrained by cosmetics. Holden had to squeeze and ADR compliant motor (emissions) into a sloping body line with all sorts of concomittent thermal problems, engine cooling being the worst - see the plastic air dam to force extra air up into bay and the fuse rails melting. The left hand side of the engine bay on the turbo model suffers from many hot spots not least of those around the turbo, the top of the engine also has minimal clearance to the bonnet, all these issues means the cooling system is working harder and thermal distribution is not homegenous. This puts much more stress on the oil and the probability of carbonisation goes up around the turbo, synthetic gets around most of that however, still need to change at regular intervals.
Cars cant be that easily compared to trucks, especially when GMH rushed an engine swap as their variant of the VL motor just wasnt ready. The equivalent pressure on a truck manufacturer didnt happen 20 years ago, so therefore one cant equate thermal issues. Truck design for the most part from 40 to 10 years ago hasnt changed that much, the metastatic thermal issues in truck engine air flows have much less stress on oil, hence mineral oils are suitable for trucks. Also bear in mind that truck oil changes are compelled to take place more rigorously due simply to economics. Most trucks by far need to earn dollars, not so with your daily driver and the cars lower capital cost.
>Synthetic oils are excellent for extending oil change intervals but if >the manufacturers specified oil is used and changed at the specified >interval (which often means changing more frequently when the vehicle is >used in extreme conditions) there is no significant advantage using >synthetic oil. This experience needs to be tempered by manufacturer's intentions and problems when addressing emissions, not that much of an issue back then som 20 years ago for trucks. In the case of the VL, if you are intent on using an inferiour mineral oil then might be best to change oil twice as often as recommended and with a strong detergent blend.
Its way to simple to say that because trucks dont have problems then use same things in cars etc.
Sorry life isnt that simple. There are combinatorial issues with the VL especially that make it much more favourable to use synthetic for the normal engine oil change interval. Having taken apart many motors, those with synthetic have far far less build up etc
cheers
 Signature Regards Mike VL Commodore, Calais VL Turbo FuseRail that wont warp or melt ! Twin tyres for most sedans http://niche.iinet.net.au
>>>>ps: I compared a head from a car with 150,000Kms of mineral oil >>>>vs mine of 200,000Kms of synthetic, mine was almost perfectly clean [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Daryl D Walford - 16 Jan 2006 05:18 GMT > Sorry life isnt that simple. There are combinatorial issues with the > VL especially that make it much more favourable to use synthetic for > the normal engine oil change interval. Having taken apart many motors, > those with synthetic have far far less build up etc Sorry I still disagree, I know people that have owned VL turbos and other turbo cars that have had no problems using a mineral oil specified by their vehicles manufacturer and changed at the recommended interval. Its your money, if you wish to waste it on over priced oil thats your problem.
Daryl
Mike - 16 Jan 2006 12:21 GMT >> Sorry life isnt that simple. There are combinatorial issues with the >> VL especially that make it much more favourable to use synthetic for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Its your money, if you wish to waste it on over priced oil thats your >problem. Well this is the interesting thing, I've taken apart heaps of motors and the vast majority of those VL motors had lots of resin and carbon buildup. Are you discounting my experience or do you accept both our experiences form a decision making paradigm that is more complex than expecting every car user will always do the exact recommended service.
I'm taking a few factors into account:-
a. The VL (nissan) motor is jammed into a body line that doesnt give good airflow hence causing various hot spots, especially for turbos. b. One of the consequences of the Nissan in that body is the cooling system problems due to collecting air bubbles in the top part of the engine which doubtless will cause hot spots around the head, partly due to top of radiator being below upper water galleries in the manifold. c. There are various types of mineral oils each with various levels of effectiveness. Whereas all the synthetic oils (not the synthetic mixes) are more volatile and just dont carbonise at all.
If and only if the car owner were to use a quality mineral oil *and* rigorously changed it at or before the recommended intervals *and* didnt use any additives for the hell of it *and* attended to ensuring the cooling system was properly bled of air then I'm sure you'd be right in an ideal world.
Fact is your experience is - how do I say it "...narrow and an expectation, not a reality of most vehicle owners..."
The world isnt ideal however, people do stretch their oil change intervals and guess what (!) they dont use better mineral oils with good particulate suspension qualities they use cheapy stuff and they may not follow the manufacturer recommended procedure to properly bleed the cooling system. As a consequence you get a greater probability of resin and carbonisation.
So the choice is (for me) run various brands of mineral oil to settle on the best with the best particulate suspension plus attend to the cooling system issues or cut to the chase and use a synthetic oil which just doesnt carbonise.
mmm Is it that tough a decision... <rhetorical question>
The commercial choice in paying for a synthetic which you can stretch oil change intervals from time to time and not worry too much about cooling and pay extra or use mineral oils that *do* carbonise if not rigorously changed.
Having seen engines with bearing and head crud after 80,000 Kms versus my engine (and others) which has done almost 260,000Kms with no crud suggests to me its not just propoganda that synthetics dont carbonise.
You may want to believe the oil companies are lying and their demo when they heat up oil in a pan etc is a computer generated video and didnt happen, well I for one lean to the probability that their demo is based on some version of reality. My experience over a long period of time confirms that.
Your choice, not mine.
cheers
 Signature Regards Mike VL Commodore, Calais VL Turbo FuseRail that wont warp or melt ! Twin tyres for most sedans and sidecars. http://niche.iinet.net.au
>Daryl Noddy - 16 Jan 2006 23:21 GMT > Well this is the interesting thing, I've taken apart heaps of motors > and the vast majority of those VL motors had lots of resin and carbon > buildup. Are you discounting my experience or do you accept both our > experiences form a decision making paradigm that is more complex than > expecting every car user will always do the exact recommended service. I agree with Daryl :)
Synthetic oils, for the most part, are unneccessary on any street driven car that gets regularly serviced at normal intervals. They have some benefits, which are largely in extreme situations where the majority of street driven engines are never likely to find themselves.
> I'm taking a few factors into account:- > > a. The VL (nissan) motor is jammed into a body line that doesnt give > good airflow hence causing various hot spots, especially for turbos. Not enough of an airflow restriction for there to be any noticable difference in my humble opinion.
If you could look under the bonnet of just about any turbo car when it's working hard, you'd see the hair drier glowing red hot. The airflow of the engine bay doesn't make a whole heap of difference to this, aside from the ability to make the rest of the car hot (as in interior cabin temperatures).
> b. One of the consequences of the Nissan in that body is the cooling > system problems due to collecting air bubbles in the top part of > the engine which doubtless will cause hot spots around the head, partly > due to top of radiator being below upper water galleries in the > manifold. If the cooling system is bled properly they're fine. However, if they're not the cylinder head will fail in a god almightly hurry :)
This doesn't affect much other than the cylinder head.
> c. There are various types of mineral oils each with various levels > of effectiveness. Whereas all the synthetic oils (not the synthetic > mixes) > are more volatile and just dont carbonise at all. Yep.
If you use cheap K-mart engine oil you'll get cheap K-mart protection. However, in having said that the most important aspect of *any* oil is how often it's changed.
There are many mineral oils out there that offer excellent protection, even for turbocharged applications, that don't carry the heft price tag (or w.nk value) of synthetic oils.
> If and only if the car owner were to use a quality mineral oil *and* > rigorously > changed it at or before the recommended intervals *and* didnt use any > additives for the hell of it *and* attended to ensuring the cooling system > was properly bled of air then I'm sure you'd be right in an ideal world. Well, I don't think I'd go that far :)
The key to engine longevity is regular maintenance. That doesn't mean you have to follow a schedule like NASA does with the space shuttle.
> Fact is your experience is - how do I say it "...narrow and an > expectation, > not a reality of most vehicle owners..." What crap :)
You place *far* too much importance on the complexity of the RB-30 methinks
:) It's just a 6 cylinder engine with a hair drier stuck on the side of it. There's nothing super special about it that requires any complex maintenence regime or products. Properly serviced with regular quality mineral oil it will perform as well as with anything else, and will not suffer unduly.
Unless you cook it :)
> The world isnt ideal however, people do stretch their oil change intervals > and guess what (!) they dont use better mineral oils with good particulate > suspension qualities they use cheapy stuff and they may not follow the > manufacturer recommended procedure to properly bleed the cooling system. > As a consequence you get a greater probability of resin and carbonisation. This may be true, but it ain't the fault of the oil.
> So the choice is (for me) run various brands of mineral oil to settle on > the > best with the best particulate suspension plus attend to the cooling > system > issues or cut to the chase and use a synthetic oil which just doesnt > carbonise. Or buy a car with a decent engine...
> mmm Is it that tough a decision... <rhetorical question> If you want to fill your engine with the latest w.nk oil, that's fine. The rest of us will live.
> The commercial choice in paying for a synthetic which you can stretch oil > change intervals from time to time and not worry too much about cooling > and pay extra or use mineral oils that *do* carbonise if not rigorously > changed. Bullshit :)
A mineral oil will not suddenly carbonise because you happen to run over your scheduled service period by a couple of thousand kay's or so. Stretch it out to *way* beyond when you're supposed to change it and you'll have problems, but you'll be in the same boat with a synthetic as well when you're using a standard by-pass filter.
> Having seen engines with bearing and head crud after 80,000 Kms versus my > engine (and others) which has done almost 260,000Kms with no crud suggests > to me its not just propoganda that synthetics dont carbonise. I've been in the automotive industry for almost 30 years now, and probably reconditioned a few thousand engines, yet for the life of me I've never been able to look at the inside of an engine and say "Yep, the oil caused this".
Perhaps you could give me a few pointers.
> You may want to believe the oil companies are lying and their demo when > they heat up oil in a pan etc is a computer generated video and didnt [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Your choice, not mine. Here's the thing that you might find hard to believe.
If you were to get two identical brand new engines, one filled with synthetic oil and the other with a reasonable mineral (nothing special, just a known quality), and then run them on a dyno for the equivalent of half a million kilometers, I'd be more than a little surprised that when you pulled them down and miked everything up that you would notice any significant difference between them.
In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest you'd be more than a little lucky to notice any difference at all that could be attributed to the oil.
-- Regards, Noddy.
Dan--- - 16 Jan 2006 23:35 GMT > What crap :) > > You place *far* too much importance on the complexity of the RB-30 > methinks :) About as complex as a 3800 or a black 202 with EFI. ;-)
> It's just a 6 cylinder engine with a hair drier stuck on the side of it. > There's nothing super special about it that requires any complex [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Unless you cook it :) Indeed.
 Signature Regards Dan
D Walford - 17 Jan 2006 08:21 GMT > The key to engine longevity is regular maintenance. That doesn't mean you > have to follow a schedule like NASA does with the space shuttle. Fark, I hope my cars engine lasts longer and doesn't f.ck up as often as the space shuttle:-)
Daryl
John McKenzie - 18 Jan 2006 07:27 GMT replies to both below
> > If and only if the car owner were to use a quality mineral oil *and* > > rigorously [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The key to engine longevity is regular maintenance. That doesn't mean you > have to follow a schedule like NASA does with the space shuttle. Unless of course you want 1 in 4 of your cars to go up like a tinderbox on short notice.
> It's just a 6 cylinder engine with a hair drier stuck on the side of it. > There's nothing super special about it that requires any complex maintenence > regime or products. Properly serviced with regular quality mineral oil it > will perform as well as with anything else, and will not suffer unduly. I think the key word to focus on is _quality_ mineral oil.
> Unless you cook it :) > > > The world isnt ideal however, people do stretch their oil change intervals > > and guess what The correct response to the guess what is that anyone who stretches oil change intervals is a fuckwit, imho.
When i used to be heavily into minis, I used to get quite remarkable engine life (esp for an engine being thrashed like a 12 year old's dick when he sees his first playboy magazine) compared to others with similar builds. Of course I tended toward surgical conditions for the assembly (and also hardcore and thorough cleaning of the block after it was bored and honed to get rid of the microscopic debris), but most importantly, I actually changed the oil at closer to half the mileage interval compared to most (oil and filter every 5,000km if anyone cars). Remember it uses the same oil for the engine and box, so it is subject to more contamination and stress.
But that was the 'magic' difference.
(!) they dont use better mineral oils with good particulate
> > suspension qualities they use cheapy stuff and they may not follow the > > manufacturer recommended procedure to properly bleed the cooling system. > > As a consequence you get a greater probability of resin and carbonisation. Let's be honest here, leaving _any_ oil in too long is stupid, and the relative difference between stupid and not quite as stupid (for running synthetic for longer intervals)
> > mmm Is it that tough a decision... <rhetorical question> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Bullshit :) agreed. Thinking that better oil (and it's only better, as mentioned, under the most relentless and arduous operating conditions) will be a bandaid for cooling issues (which don't exist if properly maintained and purged etc) or anything else is not all that logical. The syth stuff is expensive, but it'd be better to change the oil more regularly with a decent mineral oil than doubling the interval to afford the full synth oil. Of course going to bargain basement oil, even if it was changed every 1000km wouldn't be ideal (especially so if the car is caned all the time)
> > You may want to believe the oil companies are lying and their demo when > > they heat up oil in a pan etc is a computer generated video and didnt [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > them down and miked everything up that you would notice any significant > difference between them. ESPECIALLY, if it was like one of those 'real world' tests where they ran a car on a test track, giving regular oil changes, and did all it's kms whilst warm, constant speed, so no stop start, perhaps 1/1000th as many cold starts as an engine in a car driven on the road. And one has to at least consider that the fact they are using such _clearly_ deceptive style tests (or have done) doesn't exactly inspire absolute confidence in their product (or at least the marketing thereof)
 Signature John McKenzie
tosspam@aol.com abuse@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@msn.com abuse@sprint.com abuse@earthlink.com fraudinfo@psinet.com sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov I never said I don't like religion; I just don't like TV admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost $LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost $USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost root@mailloop.com president@whitehouse.gov vice.president@whitehouse.gov abuse@iprimus.com.au abuse@cia.gov abuse@fbi.gov abuse@asio.gov.au abuse@federalpolice.gov.au
Scotty - 18 Jan 2006 08:08 GMT > replies to both below > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> The key to engine longevity is regular maintenance. That doesn't mean you >> have to follow a schedule like NASA does with the space shuttle. NASA NeedAnotherSevenAstronouts
Neil Fisher - 18 Jan 2006 20:58 GMT [...]
>A mineral oil will not suddenly carbonise because you happen to run over >your scheduled service period by a couple of thousand kay's or so. Stretch >it out to *way* beyond when you're supposed to change it and you'll have >problems, but you'll be in the same boat with a synthetic as well when >you're using a standard by-pass filter. My brother had a VL company car once (atmo). Got it "second hand" from another worker. Clicked over 60k, so he figured it was due for a service (which is about the limit of his mechanical sympathies, BTW). Turns out it hadn't had one since the 1500k look-over (and mostly driven in Sydney!). It apparently took several seconds for the first "drop" of oil to run out after sump plug removal <shudder>. Still, they washed all the crud out with kero or some such (no disassembly of engine AFAIK - maybe pulled the sump off, but that's all, 'cause it was all done in less than a day), did all the approriate mandated servicing (filters, pads etc) and with further regular servicing, it got to 130-odd ks with no dramas before he got a new co. car. Didn't blow smoke, didn't use oil or coolant, didn't make nasty noises, didn't overheat - just kept going. It's amazing how much abuse you can give some cars, and they just keep on keeping on. Luck plays some part too, I guess.
Neil --- Neil Fisher / Bob Young Thundercords personal opinion unless otherwise noted. Looking for spark plug leads? Check out http://www.magnecor.com.au
Chris VL Berlina - 19 Jan 2006 06:39 GMT holy crap! is that even legal?!?!
Fraser Johnston - 23 Jan 2006 03:29 GMT > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > give some cars, and they just keep on keeping on. Luck plays some part > too, I guess. I serviced my father in laws Hyundai Excel that hadn't had a service in 50,000ks. After the service it was no different. The thing still hasn't missed a beat.
Fraser
D Walford - 17 Jan 2006 08:15 GMT > You may want to believe the oil companies are lying and their demo when > they heat up oil in a pan etc is a computer generated video and didnt happen, > well I for one lean to the probability that their demo is based on some > version of reality. My experience over a long period of time confirms that. > > Your choice, not mine. I don't know the demo you are referring to but I do know that engines in the many cars I've owned over the last 35 yrs have never had a drop of synthetic oil in them yet all engines have lasted well beyond their normal use by dates. Most engines using good mineral oil will outlast the rest of the car if treated properly which is why I see no reason the spend the considerable extra on synthetic. It sounds to me you are talking about modified cars that are used for competition or thrashed on the street and not maintained properly, if thats the case then you may have a case for synthetic oil but its a waste of money in a normal street driven car thats treated and maintained properly.
Daryl
amber.2 - 02 Mar 2006 05:11 GMT I owned a vl calias turbo for about 10 years the best car i ever had in that time it never cost my one cent and had over 100,000km when i sold it . and i did all my own servicing the one thing i did do was install a franz oil filter . The oil stayed as clean as if it was just changed. and if you change the coolant dont forget to bleed the head.
 Signature amber.2
Mike - 01 Mar 2006 06:55 GMT >> Sorry life isnt that simple. There are combinatorial issues with the >> VL especially that make it much more favourable to use synthetic for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >other turbo cars that have had no problems using a mineral oil specified >by their vehicles manufacturer and changed at the recommended interval. Sure I also know people that have had little or no problems, and also quite a few that have had problems. Across the board all the synthetics are pretty much the same - in other words quite good, Whereas across the board for minerals there are huge variations. The cases where people have no problems with minerals is likely correlated with good mineral oils and frequent changes. The case where people have problems is conversely likely where minerals arent good and/or serice and treatment isnt frequent.
Do a simple set analogy and sythetics cover those outliner regions.
>Its your money, if you wish to waste it on over priced oil thats your >problem. Sure, and for the same reason I use it, so do BMW on their higher performance models as do a large number of performance car manufacturers who expect higher peak power, have higher bearing loads and higher peak temperatures...
 Signature Regards Mike * VL Commodore, Calais VL Turbo FuseRail that wont warp or melt ! * High grade milspec ignition driver electronics now in development http://niche.iinet.net.au
Noddy - 01 Mar 2006 09:31 GMT "Mike" <erazmus@iinet.net.au> wrote in message news:44054574$0$30881$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
> Sure, and for the same reason I use it, so do BMW on their higher > performance > models as do a large number of performance car manufacturers who expect > higher peak power, have higher bearing loads and higher peak > temperatures... And if you believe that sh.t folks, then the ponytail wearing, cocaine snorting advertising yuppies have earned their money :)
-- Regards, Noddy.
Mike - 01 Mar 2006 11:14 GMT >"Mike" <erazmus@iinet.net.au> wrote in message >news:44054574$0$30881$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader- [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >And if you believe that sh.t folks, then the ponytail wearing, cocaine >snorting advertising yuppies have earned their money :) <chuckle>
Couple of things are inescapable and rationalise easily why synthetic oils are used in preference to minerals for certain types of engines and the respective performance levels expecteD:-
a. Almost complete immunity to carbonisation result from exposure to engine hotspots. Testable, not a 'pony tail wearing, cocaine snorting advertising'
b. Complete freedom from sulphur and consequential chemical processes which result in sulphuric acid causing corrosion with mineral oils Testable, see a) footnote above
c. Greater oil shear resistance on high performance engines where tighter tolerances are employed. Testable, see a) footnote above.
Noddy, you seem like the same sort of guy and your argument is similar to those that lambasted unleaded fuels when they first came out, notwithstanding sulphur issues in our present low quality fuels...
*grin*
 Signature Regards Mike * VL Commodore, Calais VL Turbo FuseRail that wont warp or melt ! * High grade milspec ignition driver electronics now in development http://niche.iinet.net.au
Noddy - 01 Mar 2006 12:45 GMT "Mike" <erazmus@iinet.net.au> wrote in message news:44058206$0$30861$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
> <chuckle> Thought you might find that funny......
> Couple of things are inescapable and rationalise easily why synthetic > oils are used in preference to minerals for certain types of engines and > the respective performance levels expecteD:- Do tell?
> a. Almost complete immunity to carbonisation result from exposure to > engine hotspots. > Testable, not a 'pony tail wearing, cocaine snorting advertising' Cool.
What parts of the average engine get hot enough under normal conditions to carbonise mineral oil?
> b. Complete freedom from sulphur and consequential chemical processes > which result in sulphuric acid causing corrosion with mineral oils > Testable, see a) footnote above More cool stuff.
Can you tell me how long your average mineral oil would have to be left in the engine before it made the engine dissolve?
> c. Greater oil shear resistance on high performance engines where > tighter tolerances are employed. > Testable, see a) footnote above. I'm impressed.
You've got me genuinely interested now. Perhaps you could fill me in by answering these simple questions:
1: What's the nominal oil clearance on a Ferrari V12 big end compared to that of a Commodore V6? 2: What would the peak load be on the same components with the engines at their respective redlines? 3: At what point would your average mineral oil fail to perform it's basic function of maintaining a lubricating film between the crankshaft journal and the bearing material? 4: What would the failure figure difference be between your average mineral & synthetic oils. 5: Where would each engine's respective load rating be when those points were reached?
Of course, we both know that you haven't got a hope in hell of answering these questions accurately, but that won't stop you from swearing black & blue that synthetic oil is a must have :)
> Noddy, you seem like the same sort of guy and your argument is similar to > those that lambasted unleaded fuels when they first came out, > notwithstanding > sulphur issues in our present low quality fuels... I'm sorry, but you've lost me here.
Same sort of guy as whom?
-- Regards, Noddy.
Mike - 01 Mar 2006 17:22 GMT >"Mike" <erazmus@iinet.net.au> wrote in message >news:44058206$0$30861$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader- > >> <chuckle> > >Thought you might find that funny......
:) I was chuckling more at the tenuous relationship than the content.
>> Couple of things are inescapable and rationalise easily why synthetic >> oils are used in preference to minerals for certain types of engines and >> the respective performance levels expecteD:- > >Do tell? Yeah sure, these are points a to c below.
>> a. Almost complete immunity to carbonisation result from exposure to >> engine hotspots. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >What parts of the average engine get hot enough under normal conditions to >carbonise mineral oil? (Note: Before you jump in, bear with this preface and take note of para ##-1 later on as hte synthetic/mineral outcome is not binary, its probabilistic.)
Well there are several, engine design is a compromise at best, coolant flows arent necessarily optimum - in any case lets not limit occurence of hot spots to an operating engine, to be fair one should include the effect of heat soak in the period after an engine stops. Also, its clear you would need professional tools to gauge exactly where, the size of and how discontinuous the exact hotter spots would be but from my experience of engines. I'd say the following might well be of interest, in a more or less descending level of effect:-
1. Oil ring and at lower part of piston skirt where blowby and shear are a combinatorial accelerant to the breakdown oils. 2. Valve guides, particularly exhaust, base of exhaust valve springs ie WHere an oil film is held under base of exhaust valves and subject to combination of compression, heat and shear as springs rotate. 3. Galleries and bearings in the turbo housing. 4. Hydraulic lifters. 5. Cam gear etc <shrug>
If you assume the engine thermal profile is homogenous then there wouldnt be others (in an ideal world). As engine design is a compromise there are bound to be any number of issues that dont allow as much heat to be removed from one part of the engine as another *especially* when driven hard as thermal gradients rise and the cooling system is at the threshold of its limits - this is probably why F1 is almost exclusively synthetic so they dont have to worry about the combinatorial issues anywhere near as much.
##-1 In any case, the 3 primary points above shouldnt be taken to mean we will get huge globs of carbon clumps. We get a probabilisitic distribution, if the basic part of engine design is even passable then a number of resultant carbonisations are suspended and carried away to the filter though some may well occlude onto surfaces, especially those where there are cooling system inadequacies which are only presented under high load, such as between cylinders 5 and 6 on a RB30 head - which happens to be the point where some cam tunnel cracks start to appear etc The occlusion I have seen on a few engines with resin, carbon and sludge is the case with some lower grade mineral oils and higher grade ones where service isnt optimum, I have never seen yet an engine with sludge or carbon buildup that ran synthetic - especially where service intervals were stretched.
>> b. Complete freedom from sulphur and consequential chemical processes >> which result in sulphuric acid causing corrosion with mineral oils [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Can you tell me how long your average mineral oil would have to be left in >the engine before it made the engine dissolve? I guess if one had figures for Ph derived from SO2 and SO3 it would be possible to work out. However, which would you prefer, an oil long term which has a sulphur content or one which doesnt. Do you need proof that Sulphur Oxides produce acidic complexes which cause corrosion (?) I dont, I'm choosing an oil which doesnt have Sulphur anywhere near as much as mineral oils. In any case a "good" mineral oil costs almost as much as a cheap synthetic. By choosing the Sulphur free one (synthetic) I avoid that issue almost entirely - as far as I know... :o)
Provocative choice of words to say "engine dissolve" <doh> it does that already to a small degree each time it runs, the question is do you choose an oil long term that makes it lesser or greater and what is the iteration, ie How many micrograms on what critical surfaces over what period...
>> c. Greater oil shear resistance on high performance engines where >> tighter tolerances are employed. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >You've got me genuinely interested now. Perhaps you could fill me in by >answering these simple questions: I'll preface my comments below by first stating that as a general rule it is much harder to control the much larger occasional long chain mineral oil compounds then synthesize an oil which doesnt have such distribution. Its a Statistical Process Control issue as much as in preparation as in outcome...
>1: What's the nominal oil clearance on a Ferrari V12 big end compared to >that of a Commodore V6? I'm guessing not much difference, I didnt go below 0.020mm for my big ends. I know a chap who built a performance Vdub motor some 20 years ago who regularly went 0.005 to 0.010 - suffice it to say his oil he chose had rather low viscosity and I have no idea if the engine survived thermally over its life to produce enough power to overcome surface tension - LOL ;-) This issue is not why I chose synthetic as I've already described, so I dont know why you ask me. I'm guessing you are a mechanic and already know this precise figure for a particular model. I'm an engineer looking at this from a number of issues, least of which is the long term probabilistic mean by reducing incidence of things like Sulphur and Carbonisation...
>2: What would the peak load be on the same components with the engines at >their respective redlines? Again, probably not that much difference if I recall my 1st year mech studies many moons ago, in any case I went on to Electronics not mechanical design. I didnt choose to use synthetic by comparing peak loads between a ferrari and some V6 - preresumably you mean the Buick V6 mistake.
>3: At what point would your average mineral oil fail to perform it's basic >function of maintaining a lubricating film between the crankshaft journal >and the bearing material? By 'point' do you mean compressive stress in MPa, or thermal point or the resultant thermal gradient from having exceeded the compressive strength (?) Then you have to ask what the metal to metal friction would be to gauge isntantaneous thermal rise. In any case such a pointed technical question doesnt concern me, I chose an oil for issue of sulphur, carbonisation etc.
>4: What would the failure figure difference be between your average mineral >& synthetic oils. Do you mean a failure index in terms of the intersection of compressive stress in MPa curve and the thermal gradient curve. In any case is this for a fresh clean oil change, or after an equivalence period where both oils have broken down to some degree in the last 10% of their usable life before the recommended change interval ?
>5: Where would each engine's respective load rating be when those points >were reached? Not having all the relevant precise detail I couldnt say and even if I had all the relevant background *and* you had answered the context of the test in respect of 4 above then I'd say its not relevant. Please explain then why it is relevant in terms of the choices I made vis a vis Sulphur and comparative resistance to carbonisation... ?
>Of course, we both know that you haven't got a hope in hell of answering >these questions accurately, but that won't stop you from swearing black & >blue that synthetic oil is a must have :) Well, this isnt a particularly good dialectic tactic, you have loaded the base or missed the point totally. None of the questions you have asked, two of which are specific to a particular pair of engines and one which has no context for a comparison are relevant or appropriate.
>> Noddy, you seem like the same sort of guy and your argument is similar to >> those that lambasted unleaded fuels when they first came out, >> notwithstanding >> sulphur issues in our present low quality fuels... > >I'm sorry, but you've lost me here. Thats alright - it wasnt hard...
>Same sort of guy as whom? Some block a few years back making tangential comments re value of unleaded fuels, he was of the mindset its just propoganda as to why unleaded is so much better. Your dissertation as to propoganda re synthetics was of a similar ilk, suggesting there is no technical basis at all - even if compressive stress capacity were comparable etc etc.
You would I hope concede a couple of points though:-
a. If indeed a mineral oil has some sulphur then is it not logical and a probabilistic outcome that some of this sulphur is oxidised by the crankcase environment to corrosive SO2 and SO3 ? By my choice of synthetic I (hopefully) avoided this issue completely.
b. If indeed a mineral oil has even a 20% greater chance of carbonisation over its life space and this resulted suspension of carbon particulates too small for the conventional filter then wouldnt a synthetic oil have less chance of releasing these carbon particles to scour soft big end and crank bearings ?
In closing, I'm not saying the difference between mineral and synthetic is binary in terms of its outcome. I'm adopting the probabilistic model in terms of years of use, engine power, modification, occasional stretching of service intervals, cooling inadequacies etc etc
Clearly many mechanics have seen engines that have been regularly serviced with good to fair mineral oils on a regular basis and report no difference. I am covering the base which that is not the only criteria and am prepared to pay more for an oil that doesnt have Sulphur and is hugely resistant to carbonisation.
What would be of interest is to get two engines similarly treated but one with synthetic and the other mineral over several years and measure the wear on cam lobes, lifters, big ends etc
Does one really need to do this when one engine is going to suffer from the much greater cumulative effect of exposure to Sulphurous compounds from the oil versus both being exposed to similar compounds as a result of our poor fuels, that part is purely academic for me at moment.
Cheers, time for another Emu MidStrength ;)
 Signature Regards Mike * VL Commodore, Calais VL Turbo FuseRail that wont warp or melt ! * High grade milspec ignition driver electronics now in development http://niche.iinet.net.au
Noddy - 02 Mar 2006 02:43 GMT "Mike" <erazmus@iinet.net.au> wrote in message news:4405d85d$0$30914$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
> 1. Oil ring and at lower part of piston skirt where blowby and shear > are a combinatorial accelerant to the breakdown oils. These areas would get nowhere near hot enough to carbonise a mineral oil, nor is the load imparted on these areas sufficient to cause a premature breakdown.
> 2. Valve guides, particularly exhaust, base of exhaust valve springs > ie WHere an oil film is held under base of exhaust valves and subject > to combination of compression, heat and shear as springs rotate. Unless you're running different inlet & exhaust valve springs specifically (which not many people would I expect), the load on inlet & exhaust springs is the same. Not all valve springs are speficically designed to rotate, and those that do almost always use a stainless steel shim between the spring and it's seat to assist in the rotation without damaging the spring seat in the head.
None that I know of rely on an oil film to prevent damage.
As far as valve guides go, the material of the guide and the valve stem itself has the greatest impact on wear rates. Phospher bronze or copper inserted guides are exceptionally good with next to no oil required to keep them happy, while stainless or titanium valves have the best resistance to stem wear.
Plain old cast iron guide bores are the worst, and will wear pretty quickly no matter how much oil (or of what type) you can throw down them. Fortunately, they're not used very often these days.
> 3. Galleries and bearings in the turbo housing. John McKenzie is well versed in this area, and I'd be interested to hear his opinion.
My experience with turbochargers is somewhat limited, but of the people I have known with some quite radical ones the oil type hasn't been as important as the viscosity or the correct changing interval.
> 4. Hydraulic lifters. What part in particular?
> 5. Cam gear etc <shrug> As in chains? Gears? Rocker arms etc?
> If you assume the engine thermal profile is homogenous then there wouldnt > be others (in an ideal world). As engine design is a compromise there are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > limits - this is probably why F1 is almost exclusively synthetic so they > dont have to worry about the combinatorial issues anywhere near as much. The demands on an F1 engine @ close to 20,000rpm are just *slightly* different to your average street driver, don't you think? :)
> ##-1 > In any case, the 3 primary points above shouldnt be taken to mean we will > get huge globs of carbon clumps. In points 1 and 2 above, the carbon usually found in these areas is due almost entirely to *fuel*, in particular the side effects of burning petrol, not oil. Burning Petrol in the majority of engines is always an incomplete process, and the residue left behind from this imcomplete burning is what you see stuck to the piston crown, the valves, the ring grooves and the like. Some engines are better than others obviously, but if you burn petrol for your heat sourse there's no getting away from it.
Other fuels, such as LPG for example, are very clean in this regard, and it's not at all unlikely to pull down an engine that's done a couple hundred thousand kilometers and is identical to a petrol burning version apart from the fuel it has used and find it to be in quite remarkably good condition with very little wear.
As for Turbochargers, I've never seen one that's suffered from an carbon related problems. That's not to say they're not out there, but if they are I don't know what the people who have them are doing.
> We get a probabilisitic distribution, if > the basic part of engine design is even passable then a number of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > have never seen yet an engine with sludge or carbon buildup that ran > synthetic - especially where service intervals were stretched. The two biggest causes of sludge buildup in any engine are incorrect operating temperature, and too infequent a period of oil change. If you get these correct, then sludge won't be a problem.
If you decide to use a synthetic oil to address this issue, then you're not correcting the problem and are only applying a bad-aid fix.
> I guess if one had figures for Ph derived from SO2 and SO3 it would be > possible to work out. However, which would you prefer, an oil long term > which has a sulphur content or one which doesnt. I prefer *no* long term oil of any kind thanks very much :)
Oil has a finite life in terms of the protection it can offer your engine. For your average quality mineral oil, that life is *way* beyond what most people would consider to be an acceptable service interval. A fully synthetic may offer a somewhat longer useful life period (and exactly how much longer is anyone's guess), but it's a completely moot point if you service youre car regularly and don't leave the oil in the engine long enough for *either* oil to be a problem.
As for the sulpher content, I personally couldn't care less.
In 25+ years in the automotive industry, and God knows how many rebuilt engines, I honestly can't remember a single one where it caused any damage.
> Do you need proof that Sulphur Oxides produce acidic complexes which cause > corrosion (?) No, I don't.
However, I certainly *do* need proof that for the average Joe Public who services his vehicle on a regular basis that it's going to cause him a speck of fly sh.t's worth of trouble.
> I dont, I'm choosing an oil which doesnt have Sulphur anywhere near as > much as > mineral oils. You're worrying about nothing :)
If you're this deep into things, then I suspect that you service your own vehicle pretty religeously. If you do, then the amount of damage your engine is exposed to which is directly related to sulphur content is absolutely immeasurable. Opting to use a more expesive oil which has slightly less sulphur won't make any difference.
> In any case a "good" mineral oil costs almost as much as > a cheap synthetic. What's a "cheap" fully synthetic to you?
Most places I buy from, a good mineral oil is two and a half times cheaper than the cheapest fully synthetic they sell.
> By choosing the Sulphur free one (synthetic) I avoid > that issue almost entirely - as far as I know... :o) Change your oil on a regular basis and you'll also avoid the issue. And save money to boot.
> Provocative choice of words to say "engine dissolve" <doh> it does > that already to a small degree each time it runs, the question is do you > choose an oil long term that makes it lesser or greater and what is > the iteration, ie How many micrograms on what critical surfaces over > what period... This is what I was asking you.
How many times have you seen a crankshaft journal that has worn 10 thousandths *universally* over the entire running face of the journal? I never have, and I must have ground a good couple thousand crankshafts in my day.
I've seen *plenty* of cranks that needed .010, .020, or even .030 to clean up a journal to remove a deep scratch caused by some crap floating around in the oil that became embedded into the bearing shell, and I've seen a few that had a few thou of taper or ovailty, but never have I seen one that has eroded across the board.
The point being that what you're talking about here affects engines to such a minute degree across their entire life that trying to guard against it is futile. You're never going to know if all that effort you've put in has had any effect at all.
> I'll preface my comments below by first stating that as a general rule > it is much harder to control the much larger occasional long chain mineral > oil > compounds then synthesize an oil which doesnt have such distribution. > Its a Statistical Process Control issue as much as in preparation as > in outcome... Go ahead....
> I'm guessing not much difference, I didnt go below 0.020mm for my big > ends. I'm sorry, but you'll have to speak English when talking precision measurements to me. Metric is for amateurs :)
0.020mm is like 7 tenths of a thou isn't it? How's your oil pressure? :)
> I know a chap who built a performance Vdub motor some 20 years ago > who regularly went 0.005 to 0.010 - suffice it to say his oil he chose > had rather low viscosity and I have no idea if the engine survived > thermally > over its life to produce enough power to overcome surface tension - LOL > ;-) There is no benefit whatsoever in running clearances that tight, and in fact the opposite is true. It's detrimental. It produces more heat, drastically increases the demands on the oil and has a very high probability of a bearing failure.
For absolutely no gain at all.
> This issue is not why I chose synthetic as I've already described, so I > dont know why you ask me. I'm guessing you are a mechanic and already know > this precise figure for a particular model. I'm an engineer looking at > this > from a number of issues, least of which is the long term probabilistic > mean by reducing incidence of things like Sulphur and Carbonisation... No, I don't know the precise figure, but could probably guess to within cooee if I had to.
The reason I asked (this question and the others) was in reply to your claims that a fully synthetic oil is better in severe duty applications (or words to that effect), and off the top of my head I thought of those two examples at opposite ends of the scale.
Basically, I wanted to find out what difference you thought a synthetic would make in such circumstances, and it appears to be nothing :)
<snip>
> Well, this isnt a particularly good dialectic tactic, you have loaded the > base or missed the point totally. None of the questions you have asked, > two of which are specific to a particular pair of engines and one which > has no context for a comparison are relevant or appropriate. Yes they are.
You mentioned in your previous post that a synthetic offers more protection than a mineral, and which is why some manufacturers use them in their up spec performance models. The questions I asked you related to that, and in effect your conclusion is that the difference is bugger all.
> Some block a few years back making tangential comments re value of > unleaded > fuels, he was of the mindset its just propoganda as to why unleaded is > so much better. Your dissertation as to propoganda re synthetics was of a > similar ilk, suggesting there is no technical basis at all - even if > compressive stress capacity were comparable etc etc. Not entirely.
I do indeed believe that synthectic oils have better properties than minerals on average. However, the additional benefits they offer are outside the realms of normal operation for your average Joe, and by using them you are highly unlikely to see any difference.
The short answer is that if you owned a full blown racing car and were chasing the last poofteenth of a horsepower with some additional protection benefits, then a synthetic would be worth your while. However, for a street driver, and even one that sees a bit of "spirited" driving, you're doing very little other than adding to the oil company's profit margins.
As far as unleaded petrol goes, there was a very distinct benefit of having lead in petrol, and that was as a lubricant. It affects exhaust valve seat lubrication, and those cylinder heads with cast iron seats in particular. Some 20 years after the introduction of lead free petrol the issue isn't of any significance these days, but in the period immediately following it's introduction the number of valve seat recession faliures in cast iron heads rose dramatically.
> You would I hope concede a couple of points though:- > > a. If indeed a mineral oil has some sulphur then is it not logical > and a probabilistic outcome that some of this sulphur is oxidised > by the crankcase environment to corrosive SO2 and SO3 ? > By my choice of synthetic I (hopefully) avoided this issue completely. Yes and no.
I agree that oxidisation can take place, however the extent to which it does and the damage it can cause is so small that it would be impossible to quantify if the vehicle is serviced regularly. Even in a vehicle that was severely abused for it's entire life the effects of oxidisation damage would be relatively minor in the grand scheme of things.
> b. If indeed a mineral oil has even a 20% greater chance of > carbonisation over its life space and this resulted suspension of > carbon particulates too small for the conventional filter then > wouldnt a synthetic oil have less chance of releasing these > carbon particles to scour soft big end and crank bearings ? Possibly.
As I mentioned earlier, the biggest problem from carbon relates to the fuel you burn, not the oil you use. You can run the best fully synthetic oil in the world, but if you burn petrol and your engine suffers from irregular combustion (for whatever reason), then it's going to create shitloads of carbon, and that carbon is going to find it's way into all areas of the engine and act like the world's best abrasive.
If you're genuinely worried about carbon and the damage it can cause (and believe me it can be *very* destructive), then you'd be *far* better off by looking at superior oil filtering methods rather than relying on a hopeless 10 dollar by-pass oil filter.
> In closing, I'm not saying the difference between mineral and synthetic > is binary in terms of its outcome. I'm adopting the probabilistic model > in terms of years of use, engine power, modification, occasional > stretching > of service intervals, cooling inadequacies etc etc I understand that.
However even taking that into account, I'm yet to see any evidence that a synthetic will make any difference over the life of the average engine.
At all.
> Clearly many mechanics have seen engines that have been regularly > serviced with good to fair mineral oils on a regular basis and report > no difference. I am covering the base which that is not the only criteria > and am prepared to pay more for an oil that doesnt have Sulphur and > is hugely resistant to carbonisation. That's your free choice.
My advice, for what it's worth, is that if you want your engine to live a long time would be that you stop wasting money on synthetic oil and put that money to a better use. Princpally, I would advise you do the following:
Use a reasonable quality mineral oil, and change it every 5000km's. Get rid of the standard by-pass oil filter and fit a micro screen unit like those made by Oberg. Ensure that your air intake system is tight and is not sucking unfiltered air from anywhere, and change the standard paper element filter often. Avoid anything made by "K&N", or anything with the name "Pod" on the packet. Ensure that the cooling system is in excellent condition, with the hottest thermostat your engine can stand while avoiding molecular seizure. Convert the fuel system to LPG, and avoid carbon problems forever.
> What would be of interest is to get two engines similarly treated > but one with synthetic and the other mineral over several years and > measure the wear on cam lobes, lifters, big ends etc The only people interested in doing that would be the people who make & sell synthetic oil, as they're the ones who would be directly affected by the results.
However, that's precisely why they're *not* doing it :)
> Does one really need to do this when one engine is going to suffer from > the much greater cumulative effect of exposure to Sulphurous compounds > from the oil versus both being exposed to similar compounds as a result > of our poor fuels, that part is purely academic for me at moment. Short answer: If you service your car regularly, or even semi regularly, then no, you don't need to do it :)
> Cheers, time for another Emu MidStrength ;) Bleah :)
Gimme a Cascade light anyday thanks :)
-- Regards, Noddy.
John McKenzie - 03 Mar 2006 06:11 GMT > These areas would get nowhere near hot enough to carbonise a mineral oil, > nor is the load imparted on these areas sufficient to cause a premature > breakdown. I've got a theory on that, that I'm currently seeking the opinion of others on, specifically as applies to hemis. their oil pump is in a word. sh.t. VERY prone to seizing at higher rpm, and/or if you try to get more oil pressure out of it. I think it's so shitful that it can lead to vicosity index improvers (if that is the right term) breaking down). some middle of the road mineral oils will show reduced oil pressure after 45 seconds of high rpm use (so basically by the end of a ridiculous burnout and 1/4mile run. or more likely during circuit racing)
Sythetics and quality mineral oils (often semi synth) tend to do better there, but none of them last forever. And really it's an issue with the engines oiling system (a severe one imho, and I've written about some of the things that can be done to fix it. You can also get a new pump from Steve Elliot who makes a new housing with ford gears that works well for some group nc racers, perhaps the ultimate test. My personal feeling is an even better option would be to make _yet_ another housing and convert it to use SBchev internals, they are far less stressful to the cam drive gear/driven gear and deliver twice as many little pulses vs 4 'jolts' per revolution, and furthermore are imho almost impossible to seize, at least relatively speaking. In fact, if you have a mill in your shed still, I'd be interested in making one from a lump of alum to try)
> > 2. Valve guides, particularly exhaust, base of exhaust valve springs > > ie WHere an oil film is held under base of exhaust valves and subject [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > None that I know of rely on an oil film to prevent damage. jags - of course their aim is poor and the oil film ends up on the road wherever the car goes, or is towed.
> As far as valve guides go, the material of the guide and the valve stem > itself has the greatest impact on wear rates. Phospher bronze or copper > inserted guides are exceptionally good with next to no oil required to keep > them happy, while stainless or titanium valves have the best resistance to > stem wear.
> Plain old cast iron guide bores are the worst, and will wear pretty quickly > no matter how much oil (or of what type) you can throw down them. > Fortunately, they're not used very often these days. Some people in aus seem dead set against using anything but them in bmc a series engines - any reason why that you can think of. I'm honestly starting to think it's so they can get work twice as frequently.
> John McKenzie is well versed in this area, and I'd be interested to hear his > opinion. There's guys on the jyturbo list who are engineers, and they would stake their left testicle on the fact that the water jacketing in t03s (which I think is in the vl, or is it a t3, whichever) ius there in name only, and they are still oil cooled. So yes there will be an issue of sorts. But what it really means is that you need to look at a decent mineral oil or a synthetic, i.e. not the lowest grade bargain basement oil in the world, as that's hardly a fair comparison.
I used to run mobil one in all the stroked turbo holden 6s I ran, because the turbos were worth as much as the engine almost in those days, and they were only doing around 10,000km per year, the extra cost of the oil (and I changed it and the filter every 5,000 or every 3 months) didn't faze me whatsoever. But I never thought I 'needed' it as much as a case of 'might as well' I did end up finding that some of my early turbo failures (exhaust ran so hot it coked the oil in the housing) were actually because the exhaust housing spec of the garret kits was way too restrictive, and the cam specs originally either supplied or suggested with the kits (I never bought a kit new, I have found a shitload s/hand way back when, just sold my last one in 2005 with the engine it was setup for) were shitful and caused air and fuel to be spat out the exhaust at mid/low rpms, where the heat of the turbo ignited it. Meaning that the traditional 'cool down' idle period before switch off was doing the bloody opposite. After tracing that and making amends I never had a problem again, and eventually I tried using decent mineral oil. The turbo bearing/shaft play was like new when I sold the combo, after 12 months and 15,000km on mineral oil with the previous change frequency (previously I was having trouble getting _to_ 5000km - and thought the oil made a difference, but it was the issues above, and a couple more I couldn't be bothered going into)..
So basically my take is unless there's something completely f.cked about the engine or it's oiling system, that shows up equally on NA rb30s then there's no evidence I can point to to suggest that a quality mineral based oil is any concern whatsoever on an rb30t.
I will say I'm adamant that it's retarded (and then some) to stretch oil change frequency beyond factory specs. I've had a shitload of minis over the years, and the one thing I did differently (and I do have a few examples of my engines in other peoples hands where they didn't follow my advice on this issue) was changed the oil every 5000km and filter. And my engines tended to last double the kms - often more. No oil in the world is meant to be left in there indefinitely, and it's simply insane to think that it will somehow act as a bandaid. I don't think _the_ most bargain based oil changed on time will be better than synthetic changed 1,000km late, but I _definitely_ think that quality mineral or semi synth changed on time (or a little sooner) is a country mile ahead of thinking there's some safety net built into full synthetic. The engine is still going to put contaminants into the oil at around the same rate (most of which would likely be combustion related, not wear related, though one would lead to the other) so a synthetic is still going to be just as compromised at a given point.
I'd also add that no oil will get around a blocked or compromised oil return line from turbo to sump. that's the source of more stuffed turbo bearings that I could count.
> My experience with turbochargers is somewhat limited, but of the people I > have known with some quite radical ones the oil type hasn't been as > important as the viscosity or the correct changing interval. exactamundo.
> The demands on an F1 engine @ close to 20,000rpm are just *slightly* > different to your average street driver, don't you think? :) yep, they are much lower.
In all seriousness, the slant 6 has a stroke of 4.125" and it will handle 5000rpm for decent extended periods, and those engines are known to last 'forever' I seriously doubt many modern smaller capacity engines would have near the intertial loads at tdc and bdc even pushed to their redline all day, and yet the slants last exceptionally on mineral oil (as they 'gained' their reputation in an era where that's all that was available)
 Signature John McKenzie
tosspam@aol.com abuse@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@msn.com abuse@sprint.com abuse@earthlink.com fraudinfo@psinet.com sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov I am the angel of jute, vengeance will be twine admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost $LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost $USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost root@mailloop.com president@whitehouse.gov vice.president@whitehouse.gov abuse@iprimus.com.au abuse@cia.gov abuse@fbi.gov abuse@asio.gov.au abuse@federalpolice.gov.au
atec77 - 03 Mar 2006 06:22 GMT > jags - of course their aim is poor and the oil film ends up on the road > wherever the car goes, or is towed. Total lose is the best , now I raises me index finger and mutter f.ck you
John McKenzie - 03 Mar 2006 14:38 GMT > Total lose is the best , now I raises me index finger and mutter > f.ck you it's safe to raise your finger, in fact take both hands off the wheel, since obviously the jag isn't mobile, so no risk in doing so.
boom tish
 Signature John McKenzie
tosspam@aol.com abuse@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@msn.com abuse@sprint.com abuse@earthlink.com fraudinfo@psinet.com sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov I am the angel of jute, vengeance will be twine admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost $LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost $USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost root@mailloop.com president@whitehouse.gov vice.president@whitehouse.gov abuse@iprimus.com.au abuse@cia.gov abuse@fbi.gov abuse@asio.gov.au abuse@federalpolice.gov.au
atec77 - 03 Mar 2006 15:46 GMT >> Total lose is the best , now I raises me index finger and mutter >> f.ck you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > boom tish Is that the best you have , bitch
John McKenzie - 04 Mar 2006 02:30 GMT > Is that the best you have , bitch no, it's the minimally required effort to one up your previous.
Next you'll be threatening to come around and sort me out, so I'll keep looking out for the cab.
 Signature John McKenzie
tosspam@aol.com abuse@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@msn.com abuse@sprint.com abuse@earthlink.com fraudinfo@psinet.com sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov I am the angel of jute, vengeance will be twine admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost $LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost $USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost root@mailloop.com president@whitehouse.gov vice.president@whitehouse.gov abuse@iprimus.com.au abuse@cia.gov abuse@fbi.gov abuse@asio.gov.au abuse@federalpolice.gov.au
atec77 - 04 Mar 2006 06:09 GMT >> Is that the best you have , bitch > > no, it's the minimally required effort to one up your previous. > > Next you'll be threatening to come around and sort me out, so I'll keep > looking out for the cab. cab ? I don't know any cab drivers down your bottom end of the world , as for effort you get an "f" for sfa .Why would I visit you ?, maybe I am suffering under a misapprehension but unless your sister is considerably better looking than you dwarf I aint interested ( so does she and how much ?)
John McKenzie - 04 Mar 2006 23:57 GMT > >> Is that the best you have , bitch > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > cab ? well it's not like the jag would make it (2 hits from the same joke, Kaboom)
> I don't know any cab drivers down your bottom end of the world , as > for effort you get an "f" for sfa .Why would I visit you ?, maybe I am > suffering under a misapprehension but unless your sister is considerably > better looking than you dwarf from the man who won't post up a pic? The only thing my sisters have in common with me is mental illness.
> I aint interested ( so does she and how > much ?) like any jag owner has 'spare' cash (3s a charm)
 Signature John McKenzie
tosspam@aol.com abuse@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@msn.com abuse@sprint.com abuse@earthlink.com fraudinfo@psinet.com sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov I am the angel of jute, vengeance will be twine admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost $LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost $USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost root@mailloop.com president@whitehouse.gov vice.president@whitehouse.gov abuse@iprimus.com.au abuse@cia.gov abuse@fbi.gov abuse@asio.gov.au abuse@federalpolice.gov.au
atec77 - 05 Mar 2006 02:05 GMT >>>> Is that the best you have , bitch >>> no, it's the minimally required effort to one up your previous. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > well it's not like the jag would make it (2 hits from the same joke, > Kaboom) which one are you chatting about ?
>> I don't know any cab drivers down your bottom end of the world , as >> for effort you get an "f" for sfa .Why would I visit you ?, maybe I am >> suffering under a misapprehension but unless your sister is considerably >> better looking than you dwarf > > from the man who won't post up a pic? I did once , anyway enough have met me to know I just ordinary looking . The only thing my sisters have in
> common with me is mental illness. so they may be useful for a vent ? answer the other question
>> I aint interested ( so does she and how >> much ?) > > like any jag owner has 'spare' cash (3s a charm) have you forgotten how many of them I own ? that certainly says something about me and finances . ( let alone the other 5 cars and 3 bikes)
John McKenzie - 06 Mar 2006 04:50 GMT > > like any jag owner has 'spare' cash (3s a charm) > have you forgotten how many of them I own ? that certainly says > something about me and finances . yes, you're a millionaire playboy, living on a trust fund. winters in the swiss alps with the smythington-smythes, summers in the carribean with captain kidd, I couldn't be bothered with autumn and winter, but probably flying joyrides over your mining empire in lightning ridge, showing it off to japanese investors.
> ( let alone the other 5 cars and 3 bikes) You need a few running ones to be able to cover the logistical needs of the jags breaking down of course - can't be left with only 2 tow cars, it's sometimes not enough>?
 Signature John McKenzie
tosspam@aol.com abuse@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@msn.com abuse@sprint.com abuse@earthlink.com fraudinfo@psinet.com sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov I am the angel of jute, vengeance will be twine admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost $LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost $USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost root@mailloop.com president@whitehouse.gov vice.president@whitehouse.gov abuse@iprimus.com.au abuse@cia.gov abuse@fbi.gov abuse@asio.gov.au abuse@federalpolice.gov.au
atec77 - 06 Mar 2006 07:38 GMT >>> like any jag owner has 'spare' cash (3s a charm) >> have you forgotten how many of them I own ? that certainly says [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > probably flying joyrides over your mining empire in lightning ridge, > showing it off to japanese investors. WTF are you on about ? ( let go of your manly member ? )
>> ( let alone the other 5 cars and 3 bikes) > > You need a few running ones to be able to cover the logistical needs of > the jags breaking down of course - can't be left with only 2 tow cars, > it's sometimes not enough>? I am a little surprised at you , these public displays of mindless babbling your displaying need to be drugged out of existence , take the blue and white ones again .
Ron - 06 Mar 2006 08:43 GMT >>>> like any jag owner has 'spare' cash (3s a charm) >>> have you forgotten how many of them I own ? that certainly says [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > babbling your displaying need to be drugged out of existence , take the > blue and white ones again . I love all this crap about Jaguars breaking down :-) I have never seen one on a tow truck (other than mine when I sent it in for a motor rebuild), or one on the side of the road... Funny that!
Lots of discarded Magna's, misc asian cars on tow trucks and quite a few Falcodores, but NO Jaguars.
OzOne - 06 Mar 2006 09:14 GMT >>>>> like any jag owner has 'spare' cash (3s a charm) >>>> have you forgotten how many of them I own ? that certainly says [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >Lots of discarded Magna's, misc asian cars on tow trucks and quite a few >Falcodores, but NO Jaguars. That's because they're already in the workshop where they stay for weeks at a time!
Oz1...of the 3 twins.
I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.
Ron - 06 Mar 2006 20:35 GMT >>>>>> like any jag owner has 'spare' cash (3s a charm) >>>>> have you forgotten how many of them I own ? that certainly says [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > That's because they're already in the workshop where they stay for > weeks at a time! Jaguars idiot, not mitseeshit!
feral - 06 Mar 2006 09:32 GMT > I love all this crap about Jaguars breaking down :-) > I have never seen one on a tow truck (other than mine when I sent it in for > a motor rebuild), or one on the side of the road... Funny that! You will now. :-) Or is it yours? ;-)
> http://www.dvsmith.net/auto-galleries/jeff500_crash/pages/IMG_3304.html
 Signature Take Care. ~~ Feral @..@ (\-- Ü--/) ((.>______<.)) ^^^ ^^^
Ron - 06 Mar 2006 20:36 GMT feral <plonked@home.ru> wrote in news:440c012d$0$493$61c65585@uq-127creek- reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au:
> http://www.dvsmith.net/auto-galleries/jeff500_crash/pages/IMG_3304.html A "Rally Car", how nice :-)
John McKenzie - 08 Mar 2006 06:45 GMT > I love all this crap about Jaguars breaking down :-) we have to do something to keep the troops morale up :)
 Signature John McKenzie
tosspam@aol.com abuse@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@msn.com abuse@sprint.com abuse@earthlink.com fraudinfo@psinet.com sweep.day@accc.gov.au Beaker was a tweaker uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost $LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost $USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost root@mail
|
|