New formulation for the Enzo

Just wanted to subscribe. I don't want to miss this. It has the making Scooby Snack level of entertainment.

GT

 

Hi Jon,

Since many of us have the older style engines 1960 -1980s [flat tappet-ZDDP-lower tolerances etc] I suspect we may have more issues than the 1990s-present style engines. Do you subscribe to the following notions:

A. Older flat tappet engines require 1200 ppm ZDDP as a last line of defense when the
oil shear limit is breached.

B. Approx. 70%-80% of engine wear/tear occurs during start up due to viscosity[10W]
being to high to properly lubricate the engine, therefore a 0W should be used.

C. A 10W-50 oil that was required back in the 1970s is equivalent to a 0W-40 synthetic oil.

D. Once an engine is properly warmed 185F-195F the ratio of oil pressure to engine rpms
should follow something approximating this sequence 30psi/2000rpm, 40psi/3000rpm,
50psi/4000rpm

As a side note, I have used a 0W-40 full synthetic and 15W-50 full synthetic, and have not seen a big difference in terms of oil pressure. My 1980 Merak calls for 10W-50 dino oil as per 1980 factory requirements. I have not been able to find that weight oil here in the States. Not to be flippant, but would viscosities average out if I mixed the two above mentioned synthetic oils in a 50/50 blend?

Your thoughts please.

Caio,
George

 

A) The majority of modern day Ferraris are still using flat tappet followers as opposed to a roller design (roller followers unlikely to be able to go to as high speeds) so in that respect the anti-wear requirements are probably fairly similar to the older cars. The main change has been to Ferrari designing hydraulically lash adjusted followers capable of operating at the high engine speeds instead of having to use shims to provide the correct clearances.

B) Wear under cold startup conditions should not be underestimated. I only use my F355 during the warm spring and summer months, hence the reason I'm willing to use a 10W. The pumpability of a 10W under relatively warm ambient cold starts should be fairly reasonable. However, if I was using the car during the winter I would be using a 0W 40 as you suggest. In fact I use a full synthetic 0W 40 in my everyday car.

C) I'm not too sure what you mean by this George but I suspect you are asking whether a modern 0W 40 fully synthetic oil is a sensible substitute for a 10W 50 that was originally specified for the car. I would say as long as you aren't using the car too hard or under very hot conditions it should be fine.

D) I don't really have any particular input on this I'm afraid. I know there are general guidelines that people talk about but so much of it depends on the engine design, the oil pump specification, relief valve etc.

Under normal operating conditions I'm not too surprised that you haven't seen a large difference between the two viscosity grades you have tried, however I'd expect a fairly big difference under warmup (cold start) conditions. I wouldn't recommend mixing two different oil formulations in order to try and end up at a viscosity mid-way between. There are many complicated chemical interactions within a lubricant that could potentially become antagonistic when different (unknown) chemistries are mixed. The risk of a major problem is probably slim, but I still wouldn't advise it.

Hope this helps.

 

These are some good answers I can go along with, if you are one of my followers.

aehaas

 

Dr.,

There are some (many) good answers whatever your belief/knowledge is.

I follow your threads, but I am certainly not your follower, au contraire..

Whilst I applaud the way you are delving into the wisdoms of lubricants, I totally agree with the criticism that is evident on the way it is presented.

That is not criticism on what you are doing, and I hope that notwithstanding the negative responses, you keep publishing the findings of your experiments, but may I suggest you do so under a subject-title that discribes the experimental caracter of your activities?

 

What on earth does "if you are one of my followers" mean? Are you some sort of god?!

 

Why do you spend much time and money on samples of other cars? The outcome of 1 example doesnt tell you anything, only a trend analasis over a longer period from the same engine will tell you what is going on inside the engine. Every engine is unique, so comparing the outcome of diffrent cars doesn't proof your formulation is better.
I am sure you will keep on gathering more data points to proof your point but I think it's a bit too early right now.

Peter

 

+1

The fact of the matter is it seems as if the OP is a pitch man for RLI. The fact of the matter is if the oil is so good then how come it is not on the shelves of every auto parts store and Wal Mart coast to coast considering the push for "Green" technologies.

 

Ali

As an aside someone has hacked your AOL email account and is using it to spam for discount electronics.

 

People still use AOL?

 

mostly Toyota Supra owners...


(seriously)

 

<from RedLine>
That 10W in a 10W-30 oil has a cost start viscosity of 70 cSt
That 10W in a 10W-40 oil has a cold start viscosity of 93 cSt
while
That 10W in a 10W-60 oil has a cold start viscosity of 173 cSt
Over in the 20W column
A 20W in 20W-50 oil has a cold start viscosity of 148 cSt.

So you think 173 is approximately equal to 93? or that 173 is less than 148?

<RedLine again>
00W-40 oil has a cold start viscosity of 84 cSt HTHS 4.0
05W-40 oil has a cost start viscosity of 94 cSt HTHS 4.6
10W-40 oil has a cost start viscosity of 93 cSt HTHS 4.7

Thus, the difference in pumpability at cold startup is insignificantly different (especially when compared to the 173 versus 93 above) and yet you are sacrificing a lot of high temp high stress protection at the same time.

And you are the tribologist?

 

I am a tribologist and you obviously aren't! You clearly don't even have a grasp of the basics of SAE viscosity ratings! I very clearly stated that under cold temperature conditions I would rather use a 0W 40 than a 10W 60. What is the problem with that statement? I'm struggling to understand exactly what point you are trying to make in your post, but here is a little lesson for you:

If you knew what you were talking about you would know that quoting kinematic viscosity values in relation to cold start pumpability is not of a great deal of interest. That is why W grades are primarily defined by CCS and MRV DYNAMIC VISCOSITY tests. The kinematic viscosity of the oil sat in the sump under low temperature conditions is of little interest!

If you honestly believe there is no difference in low temperature pumpability between a 0W, 5W and 10W viscosity grade, why do you think the standards exist!?

 

I don't have a problem with that statement,

and clearly you did not understant that in section 1 I was comparing the '10W' numerics and showing that this end of the SAE system is screwed up, while in section 2 I was showing how an oil of a given operating grade (-40) had not-so-different properties even though there were several different xxW numbers attached.

However, I strenuously disagree with choosing a 10W-60 oil for the F355 engine, it is just way to thick all of the time. I speak from the experience of 5,000 track miles (and 60K street miles) on my F355. While all of the track miles have taken place in Texas, there were a couple of times I was using a 10W-30 oil in 103dF temperatures and running within a couple of second of record pace. 20K miles later, this engine (with the bronze valve guides that everyone else has a problem with) still has good leak down numbers.

The oil recommended by Ferrari (Shell UH 10W-40) has an operating viscosity of 14.6 cSt at 100dC (212dF) and an HTHS of 4.2 cP (back in 2003 when my notes were assembled). Ferrari has set a redline oil temp of 305dF (=150dC where HTHS is measured).

So what is wrong with the following statements:

If the Ferrari recommended oil (SHU 10W-40) has an HTHS of 4.2 cP at 305dF then Ferrari is taking the position that wear has not reached unacceptable levels with an oil operating at 4.2 cP.

Now go on to explain why an oil with a viscosity of 4.2 cP (at say 285dF) is not protecting the engine just as well when that engine is at 285dF as the oil having an HTHS of 4.2 cP at 305dF protects that same engine at 305dF?

Now expalin why, if I never see oil temperatures above 285dF, that I need an oil that has an HTHS greater than 4.2 cP at 285dF.

Finally, explain why you ned an oil with an HTHS above 4.2 cP at whatever temperatures you see with you vehicle (and note the actual oil temp readings.)

My point is: A: choosing an oil is about viscosity not about weights and grades, B: you don't know the viscosity if you don't know the temperature of the oil, C: the rest of the package is probably as important as the oil molecules themselves {Things like ZDDP levels, acid-neutralizers, detergents and dispersants,...depending on how the vehicle is sued} butthis is a story for another time.

 

I will reiterate once again (and for the final time) that the kinematic viscosities you were comparing are not the most appropriate way of assessing cold temperature pumpability of a lubricant. If you disagree then you are also disagreeing with the SAE!

Concerning a 10W 60 being too thick - I don't have evidence to prove you are incorrect but neither have you presented any information to prove your view point either. You only state that a 10W 30 hasn't given you any problems to date and that doesn't automatically mean therefore that a thicker grade cannot be used and that lower wear wouldn't have been experienced if you had used a higher viscosity. I'd be interested in any direct experience you have of using a 10W 60 fully synthetic oil in racing conditions and why this has been a negative experience for you?

Why do you think a 10W 60 is too thick under all operating conditions? The engine may run slightly hotter but the added benefit of a much higher viscosity in all component contacts more than compensates for this. For track use Ferrari specify a 10W 60 for the 360 Modena and it is the only approved grade for the Enzo full stop. The only approved oil on a Bugatti Veyron is 10W 60 and the same for all BMW M series engines for the last decade. Bit of a pattern here don't you think ....? Why do you think they aren't using the lower visocsity grades?

I'm sure there is nothing wrong with the Ferrari approved oil for a F355 but I choose to use a higher viscosity oil as I doubt this has any disadvantages and ensures that a higher percentage of the engine is operating in hydrodynamic / mixed lubrication under high loads. I believe that the flow of this oil is satisfactory whilst providing added oil film thickness benefits in all key areas of the engine. Don't forget that the oil temperatures you are talking about relate only to the temperature in the lubricant circuit. I can assure you the temperatures in a bearing and the piston ring pack at 8500 rpm are a lot higher!

 

Could you just answer the three questions about the statements that were made.
After you answer we can come back to thick versus thin.

If the Ferrari recommended oil (SHU 10W-40) has an HTHS of 4.2 cP at 305dF then Ferrari is taking the position that wear has not reached unacceptable levels with an oil operating at 4.2 cP.

Now go on to explain why an oil with a viscosity of 4.2 cP (at say 285dF) is not protecting the engine just as well when that engine is at 285dF as the oil having an HTHS of 4.2 cP at 305dF protects that same engine at 305dF?

Now expalin why, if I never see oil temperatures above 285dF, that I need an oil that has an HTHS greater than 4.2 cP at 285dF.

 

Mitch,
This is what I was trying to tell you before....the temp you see on the gauge is certainly not the max oil temp and you can't know the max temp without adding a ton of temp sensors throughout the engine.....so you are almost certainly not comparing the correct points on the charts and are much much closer to catastrophic engine failure than you realize and have left yourself no margin for error.

 

Stop wasting my time. I've spent too long explaining things to you already.

 

Hi Jon,

Very interesting, thanks for sharing. Higher oil temps are offset by an increased margin of protection of component contacts...works for me. In my case 10W-50 is what was called for back in 1980 and 10W-50 is what I need to use now. BTW, I did find a Euro spec 10W-50 synthetic [Elf- Synthetic -previously recommended] that appears to have gotten good reviews on BTOG. Not looking to race the SS, but want to know I can redline it once in a while when the engine has proprerly warmed over a 15-20 min. ride.

Would it be fair to say for folks living in warm weather places [relatively speaking of course] like Atlanta, Ga. [where temps hit a whopping 40 F/4.4 C in the dead of winter], need not be concerned with cold starts using a 10w-50 or even a 15W-50 [60w vs 65w at startup]. Put another way, if an oil pours out of the bottle like maple syrup on a hot summer day, then pumpability is not an issue as it relates to a cold start during wintertime, or otherwise. Maybe, just for good measure during winter, I should turn the engine over just a time or two before firing it up.

Just trying to get a frame of reference not based on all those viscosity numbers.

Ciao,
George

 

How is this oil 5w50 for a 308QV, So Cal weather, is there something I should be concern about? Originally calls for 10w50 Agip as most of you knows. Here is the spec from Redline.

API Service Class SM/SL/SG/CF
SAE Viscosity Grade (Motor Oil) 5W50
Vis @ 100°C 20.5
Vis @ 40°C 128
Viscosity Index 185
CCS Viscosity, Poise, @*C 60@-30
Pour Point, °C -45
Pour Point, °F -49
Flash Point, °C 268
Flash Point, °F 514
NOACK Evaporation Loss,1hr @ 482°F (250°C), % 6
HTHS Vis, cP @150°C, ASTM D4741 5.9
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Where does this BIO oil come from?

If it comes from growing plants then this is NOT green at all. Currently in Indonesia old and important forests are being clear felled to grow oil palms.

Now with our supposed CO2 problem the obvious solution (well it's obvious if you are NOT Al Gore or Richard Branson) is to maintain our forests and infact grow far more trees, but this so called BIO fuel and oil is causing the opposite.

On top of that is the clear felling of forests means more animals are endangered.

Again people need to think of the full implications before considering something green and good for our planet. I personally think BIO fuel does more harm than just using oil out of the ground. It is miss-labelled!
Pete
ps: More interesting reading:
New study demonstrates Biofuels negative impact on poverty, hunger and environment
Enviromental negatives of some bio fuel
Newsday calls biofuels supporters &#8220;Biofools&#8221; in Science magazine article aftermath

 

I don't remember if it was the Toltec or Mayan Indians [may have been neither] whose empires, it is hypothesized, collapsed in part as a result of changed weather patterns [read extended drought] that were brought on by massive deforestation. Might need to start a nontechnical thread on this one! LOL

Ciao,
George

 

I went to the RLI website and it states they use bio-based lubricants from "soy, corn, canola, sunflower". Your posts mentions oil palms. Furthermore, your links discuss bio-fuels. This thread is discussing a bio-based lubricant.

 

Same situation. Forests are destroyed to grow crops. This is not about using the left over to make fuels and oils it is dedicated crops.

I also think I'd rather plants were grown to feed people not run cars. Think of that, hundreds of starving people through out the world but we are not selling them the crops but instead using it for expensive oil and fuel to power the rich peoples cars.

Also returning to destroying forests, the Sydney Zoo has on just about every animal cage paragraphs on the loss of habitat caused by this UNgreen BIOfuel and general BIO products push.

It is NOT the answer at all. Infact if we focused our attention on electric cars instead, our need for oil to lubricate combustion engines would drop drastically as we would no longer need to replace engine oil due to petrol contamination, etc. because it just would not happen. Would be the same as a gearbox or differential.

And many stupid governments are supporting these BIO products ... oh how the miss-informed and stupid become politicians.
Best
Pete
ps: Another thing to think about ... using water to create oil, and yes much of the world has water issues, ie. too much or in most cases not enough. Thus I'm not supportive of using water to grow crops yet again to just make lubrication oils ... and on top of that what about all the farming equipment and electricity used to havest and process the crops, how green is that?

 

A top quality 5W 50 for an engine that was originally specified to have a 10W 50 should be fine. You can't really obtain any better cold weather pumpability without sacrificing high temperature viscosity. Hence a 5W 50 is a good compromise and should provide startup benefits over the original viscosity specified.