More on Thin Oils, A Used Oil Analysis

Here is the latest analysis of my wife’s 2004 Murcielago with a total of 9,700 mi on the unit and 1,800 mi on the RLI oil. This oil was in for a year and a half. It is their 0W-20. At the same time the new RLI oil was put in I also changed the spark plugs (based on time) and used some anti-seize grease on the threads. Terry said this added to the analysis.

My wife loved the RL oil and did not want me to change brands. After I put the RLI oil in she noted that the engine was more smooth and quiet and took me out to dinner.

Commentes from Terry Dyson include:
Keep in mind that wear particle numbers can be several fold higher in his analysis compared to others because of methodology.
Still breaking in.
There is some left over Red Line 5W-20 in this sample (the previous oil to this was in fact RL 5W-20. This is the first use of RLI in this engine).
The oil is a little wet from water and fuel. A few hours on the road at speed would help.

...............Renewable Lubricants Inc. 1,800 on oil, 9,700 on the car.
.................................................................................
Iron___________ 7
Chromium _____ 1
Nickel ________ 1
Aluminum _____ 1
lead __________ 4
Copper _______ 56
Tin ___________ 0
Silver _________ 0
Titanium ______ 0
Silicon ________ 5
Boron ________ 16
Sodium _______ 14
Potassium _____ 0
Molybdenum __ 123
Phosphorus ___ 911
Zinc _________ 920
Calcium _____ 1871
Barium _______ 3
Magnesium ____ 12
Antimony _____ 139
Vanadium _____ 0
Fuel %Vol _____ 1.16
Wtr %vol _____ 882 KF
Vis CS 40C ___ 39.6
Vis CS 100C __ 7.9
SAE Grade ____ 20
Gly test ______ Neg
TBN _________ 6.4
TAN ________ 1.48
Flash ________ 335
Oxid ________ 156
Nit __________ 9
Soot _________ 0
VisIndex _____ 177
Sulfate by product _117

Who says you cannot put a 7 Cs oil in a 600 BHP engine and not burn it up?

aehaas

 

that is very good to know ... i used Rl oil in my old vw tranny way back when and i knew it was far better just by how nice it felt shifting though the gears ..


i have not read you entire oil right up yet but i was wondering your thought and how you felt about Enos oil ...sorry im new here you may have answered that somewhere allready


Ian

 

I have no knowledge of Enos oils, sorry. But ask here:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=postlist&Board=1&page=1

I have used Red Line motor and gear oils for years and like them a lot but have gone to Renewable Lubricants Inc (RLI) for motor oils in recent years.

aehaas

 

Ali, Im not v familiar with these tests. Are those results in ppm or ppb? If ppm, some of those elements are close to a gram per liter, right? Ca is almost 2!!! Sounds like a lot......

 

'Long Answer -

Mostly PPM.

Here is a partial list of multifunctional additives and their functions. Notice the same chemicals and compounds perform more than one function.


Multifunctional Additives (in Alphabetical Order) listed as to Functional Agent, additive category, general or specific chemical compound, and how it works, respectively.

Antifoamants or foam inhibitors (Protective Additive): polymers such as silicone polymers and organic copolymers of the silaxane's; creates a lens that reduces the bubble's surface tension.

Antioxidants or oxidation inhibitors (Protective Additive): ZDDP, ZTDC, Moly TDC, Antimony TDC, aromatic amines such as organic tolutriazoles, thiadiazoles, diphenylamines, olefin sulfides, carboxylic acids; decomposes peroxides and terminates free radical reactions. Increases temperature of base oil at which base oil may tend to oxidize. Oxidation of oil promotes polymerization of sludge particles and increases viscosity.

Anti-Wear and Extreme Pressure Additives (Surface Protective Additive):
ZDDP, ZTDC, Moly TDC, Antimony TDC, Organic Sulfur-Phosphorus-Nitrogen compounds, Borates and Borate Esters, Tricresyl Phosphates, amine phostphates, and other phosphate esters, Chlorine compounds, and lead diamylcarbamates, lead and barium naphthenates, sulfurized olefins; protective film interacts at various temperatures and pressures to provide either a plastic interface or to provide a compound which shears at the surface.

Demulsifier (Performance Additive): hydroxyalkyl carboxylic esters, alkenlycarboxylic esters; keeps water separated from lubricant.

Detergents (Surface Protective Additive): metallo-organic compounds of sodium, calcium, magnesium, boron phenolates, phosphates and sulfonates such as alkylbenzene sulfonic acids, alkylphenol sulfides, alkylsalacyclic acids; Lift deposits from surfaces to keep them suspended.

Dispersants (Surface Protective Additive): Alkylsuccinimides, alkylsuccinic esters (alkenyl succinimides); chemical reaction with sludge and varnish precursors to keep them acid neutralized and to keep them soluble. Detergent-dispersants often are the same chemical or come in compounds to accomplish the combined function(s).

Emulsifiers (Protective Additive): Polyisobutylenesuccinimides, alkenylsuccinate ester/salts. polyester amides, alkyl aminoesters; promotes a stable emulsion or mixture of oil and water.

Friction Modifiers or Friction Reducers (Performance Additive): Organic fatty acids and amides, lard oil, high molecular weight organic phosphorus and phosphoric acid esters such as Tricresyl Phosphates, ZDDP, ZTDC, Moly TDC, Antimony TDC, family of diphenylamines and amides, and olefin sulfides. Reduces coefficient of friction formulated lubricant in the boundary lubrication regime. Some VII's also provide friction reduction.

Metal Deactivator (Protective Additive): ZDDP, ZTDC, Moly TDC, Antimony TDC, family of diphenylamines and amides, and olefin sulfides, heterocyclic sulfur-nitrogen compounds; inhibits corrosive effects of oxygen with metals and decreases metal interaction with oxygen compounds to reduce oxidation of oil.

Oxidation Inhibitors (See Antioxidants).

Rust Inhibitor (Surface Protective Additive): Barium sulfonates, amine phosphates, phosphordithioates, sodium thizoles (for coolants),

Pour Point Depressant (Performance Additive): polymethacrylates (PMA's); reducing wax crystal formation and increases solvency of oil at low temperatures. May be part of VII package.

Seal Swell (Performance Additive): nitriles, specific esters, organic phosphates and aromatic hydrocarbons. Increases volume of elastomeric seals.

Surfactants or Surface Active Agents (Protective Additive): family of diphenylamines and amides; usually part of the antioxidant package. Also provides enhanced friction reduction and allows oils to "climb" or spread on and over surfaces. Decreases but does not destroy surface tension

Soot Control or Soot Inhibitor (Protective Additive for diesels): Organic Barium compounds; keeps soot in suspension. Usually part of the dispersant package in diesel formulations.

Tackifiers (Performance Enhancement): copolymers of ethylene and propylene; helps oil cling to surfaces. Very useful in geared machines such as transmissions, differentials, and chains.

Viscosity Index Improver or Viscosity Modifier (Performance Additive): Olefin copolymers (OCP's), hydrogentated styrene-diene copolymers, styrene esters, polymetharylates (PMA's), mixed alkyl methacrylate-vinyl-pyrrolidines, aminated ethylene propylene, mixed alkylmethacrylate ethylene/propylenes; reduces viscosity change with temperature. Increases viscosity of base oil as temperature rises when base oil tends to thin. Some VII's may also act as dispersants by incorporating dispersant compounds.

 

The actual data:
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Your flash point is only 335F. I personally do not want an oil with a flash point under 400F.

The other question is why copper and antimony are so high. Both metals are associated with rods and main bearings. But its got low miles, may just be residuals filtering out.

 

Thanks, Ali, for the dedicated detailed explanation. Sure is a lot of chem here. Only thing Im kinda puzzled on is this:

Antioxidants or oxidation inhibitors (Protective Additive): ZDDP, ZTDC, Moly TDC, Antimony TDC, aromatic amines such as organic tolutriazoles, thiadiazoles, diphenylamines, olefin sulfides, carboxylic acids; decomposes peroxides and terminates free radical reactions. Increases temperature of base oil at which base oil may tend to oxidize. Oxidation of oil promotes polymerization of sludge particles and increases viscosity.


I dont understand why it is an advantage to add the above compounds which you explain as increasing temps and promoting oxidation. I thought as oil gets old and breaks down, its viscosity decreases, offering less protection. Am I reading this wrong?

Also, just a tech point.....That is the first certificate of analysis Ive seen that (apparently) does not indicate units (ppm,ug/ml, ppb, etc). I know I could never get away with offering that kind of cert.........

 

The answer to the unit question is here directly from Terry Dyson:

"Ali, feel free to tell that person or persons that the Atomic Absorption emission elemental spectral analysis on the first line of data is all PPM.

The second and third line of data varies because of the breadth of testing varies, meaning you have to be a customer to understand the units when I tell you via audio what it means.

I am not in the business of setting up a generic instructional presentation PDF, I am using science to tune and sustain proactively my paying customers tested application."

Terry gives an extensive audio tape with each analysis that goes far beyond a list of raw numbers. He will also ask you questions where answers may alter the interpretation. I am not sure what he is currently charging for an analysis but I am sure it is well worth the price.

Regarding copper. There are many sources. Some engines have high levels for their entire normal life span. In others it is a sign of trouble. The trend has been going down, as high as 100 PPM earlier. In any event the other wear numbers are relatively low so it is not from wear and probably cleaning copper oxides and pure copper from the oil cooling circuit leaching a small amount.

Next:
" I thought as oil gets old and breaks down, its viscosity decreases, offering less protection. Am I reading this wrong?"

Viscosity decreases only in oils that use viscosity index improvers, VII. Synthetic oils use little or none and that is the main reason they last longer. Decreasing, or thinning of the oil is also effected by fuel dilution among other things. In the short term, many oils thin initially. In the long term, however, ALL oils eventually thicken with time. This is the main limiting factor for the long term use of oils.

Antimony is many things but used in many oils as an additive and therefore not measured as one of the wear metals.

aehaas

 

Me.
You are handing out HORRIBLE advice. By your own admission you idle the car around with the engine making all of about 20hp and never getting up to temperature then you claim the oil is acceptably in a 600hp engine. It’s not.

You’ve already helped at least one person damage an engine, it's probably best if you don’t help any more..........

 

And Lycoming, and Continental, and Ferrari, and Lamborghini, and.......

 

It is ... for HIS application. And for any application of a 600 Lamborghini motor that is used likewise.

It would be unwise to use this particular motor oil in that particular kind of car on a race track running the snot out of the car.

It might or might not be suitable for heavy back road driving, depending on the temperature achieved in the oil.

 

The problem is in this thread as in all his threads the disclaimer about unusually mild use being require to obtain the result is NEVER given. The reader is always left with the impression that a very light weight oil is a fine substitute the OEM recommended oil when nothing could be further from the truth. Dr. Haas is dispensing the most dangerous type of advice, what can only be called a lie cloaked in the appearance of science.

“Who says you cannot put a 7 Cs oil in a 600 BHP engine and not burn it up?”

I call bull**** because that is what it is.

An engine capable of 600hp was tested at an output of about 20hp….so we can conclude that an engine running at 3% designed load can safely run a thinner oil than specified by the manufacturer and nothing more. The man is intentionally and completely misrepresenting both the tests he’s done and his credentials to perform or even understand how to perform the required tests.

 

There is very little point in using a 600hp engine to produce 20hp. It is incredibly in-efficient.

As I have said in one of the other threads, it is like putting S-rated tyres on a 300km/h supercar.

Although maybe nice as an experiment, it shouldn't be put forward as a generally appliccable practice, which should be made abundandly clear.

What's the next step, put water with a rust-inhibitor in the sump?

 

The same cam be said about you shoving in a V-12 into a 308 chassis or making your own ECU.

If a person goes all in without looking at all of the variables, risk factors, Etc. You are risking a very big failure.

Dr. Haas is taking a methodological approach by using oil analysis, and stepped approach. Anyone else attempting anything radical with an engine or car needs to take the same approach. If a person goes all the way at the first attempt and has a big failure that is there problem.

JMHO

 

Apples and oranges.

I do the projects I do because I enjoy a challenge. There is no question that my projects carry a high risk, that is in fact the point. I expect the V12 I’m building to have a full power life of about 12 hours if everything works exactly as intended. I also actively discourage anyone who asks from trying this at home….because I will very likely have multiple failures before my car is working properly if in fact I ever get it working properly.

Dr. Haas on the other hand goes very far out of his way to convince anyone reading his threads that what he is doing is perfectly safe…which is a complete and told lie and he knows it. When pressed he will back peddle and start adding the appropriate disclaimers, but he never provides the risk information unless pressed.

There is no question that at very low power the where rate can be reduced by the use of lighter weight oil among other things. Dr’ Haas’s data is a confirmation of this, but there honestly was never any question about it to begin with so nothing has actually been learned.

The problem is there is also no question that during extended high power use with oil much thinner that recommended by the manufacturer the engine will spin the rod bearings and possibly the main bearings resulting in catastrophic engine failure. I’ve seen dozens of engines spin rod bearings over the years and I promise you the best way to cause it is to reduce the oil viscosity either by starting with an oil that is too thin or by letting the correct oil get too hot. You can also do very serious damage to the valve train, but that is just parts money as the engine normally can be salvaged.

The questions we now have is at what load profile does thin oil go from helping to hurting wear rate and at what point does catastrophic failure occur? Dr. Haas has no answer nor any intention of finding out. Now compare that to the factory where without question a team of engineers at the factory spend years on the dyno running engines with various weight oils before a number was picked and printed in the owner’s manual.

It’s your engine, pour whatever you want in it….just don’t expect Dr. Haas to buy you a new one when you have a problem.....

 

In my own personal experience of driving exotic engines over 500K miles including many high speed, high temperature, high rev, track miles I believe that anyone using lighter weight oil than recommended by the manufacture is inviting disaster to visit them.

I would also point out that anyone that finds condensed water in their oil should stop short tripping their car and get their oil up to proper operating temperature.

I would add that during these 500K miles I have never had an oil related engine issue.

 

Just for the record, I have run my F355B at TWS in the midst of texas summers (103dF) with a 10W-30 oil in the tank. It ran just fine, with maybe a tad more power.

Now the caveats: This particular 10W-30 oil has an HTHS of 3.8 compared to the HTHS of the Shell UH oil of 4.2. Ferrari puts a redline on the oil temp gauge at 305dF. If you understand how oil actually works, you can use these 3 previous numbes to figure out that the 10W-30 oil is operating at a 4.2 cP viscosity at 285dF. I knew this, so I allowed the oil to get up into the 285dF range. Had the oil gotten any hotter, I would have left the track. It actually ran 2-3dF cooler than the 10W-40 oil that has an HTHS of 4.2.

Your point is one should follow the manufactures recomendations. If you carefully read the above paragraph, you will see that at all times I was within the manufactures recommendations--viscosity wise not oil-weight wise.

However, there are "scads" of oils out there right now with 10W-40 ratings that will fail the HTHS requirement of these engines. Luckily, none of these failing oils are full synthetics. However, there are 10W-40 oils that are full synthetic with anemic HTHS viscosities--and these oils should not be allowed to be used on race tracks above 285dF or so.

Thus, we have a basic problem: Oils should be defined by viscosity but are sold by weight. Thus, if you are going to operate in an extreme environment, you have to know somethings about oil that are not necessarily easy to come by. The bigest of these things is the relationship between oil temperature and oil viscosity. Ali understand this.

Oil temperature will give you needed information to compute this answer. A 7cSt oil operating at 180dF temperatures has the same actual operating viscosity as the recommended 12cSt oil at 215dF. But since the 12 cSt oil is allowed to be used up to 305dF on the oil temp gauge (the red line on the gauge) it is operating near 4.0cP. Thus, that 7cSt oil is safe up and until the temperature at which it drops below 4.0cP. I can compute this--those who cannot compute this (or don't want to understand oil at this level) should not use this oil {above 235dF temperatures}.

 

Everything you are saying is of course completely correct, but is really missing the 2 points.

The first point is not the Dr. Haas doesn’t understand the temp/viscosity relationship because he clearly does understand. The point is his posts are completely misleading about the risks of switching to a thinner oil and the diligence required by the driver when such a switch is made. He made a statement about a 600hp engine working just fine when in fact he’s never operated the engine anywhere near 600hp. He says the car is “peppier” when in fact it would be nearly impossible to measure a hp change even on a dyno and the change would only exist at full power where he’s never operated his engines. So I call bullsh*t.

For the second point let’s try this. I remember reading a post of yours some years ago regarding the effects of lower the ride height of a 355. As I recall you did an excellent job of demonstrating why it really wasn’t a very good idea because although the suspension could be adjusted back to factory specification (thinner oils at lower temps do have the correct viscosity), the operating window where the correct specifications are maintained is dramatically reduced (you need to much more careful about temperature) resulting in what is most likely a net loss.

I’m not arguing that a thinner oil can’t be used, it certainly can. The problem is that the oil system is more than just oil. In you case, the oil never went below the minimum specification…but it was sitting on the line it sounds like, and for what around a 3 hp gain? You make the point you can just pull in, but why even think about it? Don’t you have enough to think about out on the track without needing to watch another gauge so you know the engine isn’t about to explode?

In the stock oil system, if the water isn’t boiling over the oil temp is good. That is the standard way oil systems are designed….because oil out of spec causes catastrophic failure. The cooling system can boil to keep the engine temp safe giving you both a huge cloud of billowing stream and plenty of time to realize the problem and react. Changing to a thinner oil defeats this safety mechanism. And for what?

 

Mark- I tend to agree with you. I have learned a lot about oil reading Dr Haas' and Mitch's posts and papers and understand exactly what both are saying. From my point of view, I will stick with the original recommended oil weight, but using the best widely available full synthetic oil I can find, which I now understand much better thanks to those two. For me right now that is Valvoline SynPower 5W-40, since the Shell/QS oil fares poorly in comparison tests. I would switch to the same oil in 0W-40, also recommended by Ferrari, but Valvoline does not produce that particular weight SynPower oil.

My car is driven 12 months of the year. Even though it gets cold here at 6000' or so, it is normally bone dry (6" total precip so far this year), even in the winter. Do not want to take a chance on damaging my engine in the heat or cold.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

I hadn’t really given this part any thought, but now that I have I’m quite certain you what you are saying and the way you are doing your calculation is incorrect because you don’t actually know what the oil temperature is at the critical locations nor do you actually know the factory specification for the oil at the critical location. What you get on the gauge, depending where the pickup is located is either the temp of the oil going into the engine or the temp in the pan or tank which means it's an average and not the temp of the oil at the critical location, which is most likely the bearings.

So no, without additional information about temperature profiles within the engine you cannot accurately know the viscosity specification and therefore you cannot safely calculate the critical temperature for different weight oils to allow you to stay within the factory specification.

Putting thin oil in a sports car engine is just a very bad idea.

BTW, in collecting Ti rods for my V12 project I obtained 6 355 rods. Why 6 you ask? Because the other 2 where destroyed when one of them spun a bearing of course. You’re playing with fire......

 

Finally, some good oil advice....

 

Thanks, Ali, for the reply on the ppm question re the cert. Next time i will know.......

 

If I remember correctly, Ali's PHD was in tribology--you know, how fluids behave under various conditions of pressure and temperature.

 

What you say is actually correct, however with the specifies Shell UH oil you don't know what the temperatures are at those points either. What you do know is that SHU has a particular HTHS spec at 305dF, and that the oil I was using has another particular spec at 305dF, and there is a simple function (straight on a log graph) connecting the two based on temperature. Thus, I operate with absolute no more uncertanty about what the viscosity of the oil at my bearrings at 285dF are than you do using the factory oil at 305dF.

But it is the same average as you get using the factory spec oil, with all the same uncertainties.