Oil Pressure Seems Low????
07-04-2006, 11:47 AM
#31
Rennlist Member
Like i said, my basis for preferring Amzoil or redline. I was using redline first for years and then switched when i bought into their shear tests, aviation applications, and thermal break down numbers, vs mobil 1, and others.
the main reason for my opinion. (and it is an opinion) is for the track experience ive had with mobil 1 on the 79 racer.ONLY under track conditions, and a hot one at that, did the mobil 1 fail and give us sub-1 bar pressures during racing conditions. normal driving it was fine, unless it was really hot out.
yes, the marketing of amzoil is kind of hoakey, but there are a lot of companies that poorly market themselves. Mobil 1 is my favorite for marketing success. their partnership with porsche is classic. "oh, i only use mobil 1 as it is 'approved" by porsche" like porsche spent time testing oils with their enigines, VS other oils. yeah, right. all oils for street cars are pretty darn good now. Im sure they all do the same thing for the most part.
now, there are MANY racers and they are not "hoakey", for taking "unknown" engines out to race. In fact, mine (the holbert car) is a classic example of this! (talk about unknown!!) most engines on the track are something like salvage cars, that still run, have an oil change, some minor checks and they are off racing. Personally, ive seen more purpose built race engines blow and oil the track, and then have driven through THIER oil and endangered my life, than any "unknown" history engines and their "hoakey" drivers.
Generally, when real racers get an engine alone, they will rebearing it, sometimes if the engine is suspect for issues. (filter has stuff in it, oil pan is full of sludge, etc) But, if they get an entire car and the engine looks fine, they will run it for a while, change the oil, do some compression tests, dyno runs, etc, and race it. this is the mode for most racer. Again, the most suspect engine was the holbert engine, and its raced over 75 race days!
Back to the topic, yes this guy is not a racer and most of the group is not, so i agree, it's as superstious as folks that have to buy cheveron surpreme vs rotton robbie , or think their car is faster with supreme gas! and while we are mentioning it, gearing, air filters, sparkplugs, wires, etc. all have marketing hype , and psydo physics associated with them, yet all of us at some point, fall into it and buy into them to make ourselves feel better. feeling better is a good thing as long as it doesnt cost us too much.
Mk
the main reason for my opinion. (and it is an opinion) is for the track experience ive had with mobil 1 on the 79 racer.ONLY under track conditions, and a hot one at that, did the mobil 1 fail and give us sub-1 bar pressures during racing conditions. normal driving it was fine, unless it was really hot out.
yes, the marketing of amzoil is kind of hoakey, but there are a lot of companies that poorly market themselves. Mobil 1 is my favorite for marketing success. their partnership with porsche is classic. "oh, i only use mobil 1 as it is 'approved" by porsche" like porsche spent time testing oils with their enigines, VS other oils. yeah, right. all oils for street cars are pretty darn good now. Im sure they all do the same thing for the most part.
now, there are MANY racers and they are not "hoakey", for taking "unknown" engines out to race. In fact, mine (the holbert car) is a classic example of this! (talk about unknown!!) most engines on the track are something like salvage cars, that still run, have an oil change, some minor checks and they are off racing. Personally, ive seen more purpose built race engines blow and oil the track, and then have driven through THIER oil and endangered my life, than any "unknown" history engines and their "hoakey" drivers.
Generally, when real racers get an engine alone, they will rebearing it, sometimes if the engine is suspect for issues. (filter has stuff in it, oil pan is full of sludge, etc) But, if they get an entire car and the engine looks fine, they will run it for a while, change the oil, do some compression tests, dyno runs, etc, and race it. this is the mode for most racer. Again, the most suspect engine was the holbert engine, and its raced over 75 race days!
Back to the topic, yes this guy is not a racer and most of the group is not, so i agree, it's as superstious as folks that have to buy cheveron surpreme vs rotton robbie , or think their car is faster with supreme gas! and while we are mentioning it, gearing, air filters, sparkplugs, wires, etc. all have marketing hype , and psydo physics associated with them, yet all of us at some point, fall into it and buy into them to make ourselves feel better. feeling better is a good thing as long as it doesnt cost us too much.
Mk
Originally Posted by Rich9928p
Mark,
I've seen several 944 throw rods at events and they were using Amzol and Royal Purple - and I don't go around trashing Amzol (although I hate their marketing strategy and the goons that push that stuff). Racing engines blow up for many reasons - not just oil. Many hoakey racers take an engine with unkown service and high miles and just go out on the track and risk everyone's life when they blow a rod and dump oil all over the track or blow a hose and dump antifreeze in corners - as a minimum when buying a race car rod bearings and hoses should be changed before tracking a car. To blame all engine failures on one type of oil has no factual backing ... just superstition.
This guy isn't a racer - he is very unlikely to experience the g-cornering at > 5500 RPM that is associated with 2-6 rod bearing failure.
Here is a fact ... the earlier Mercedes had oil pressure gauges that only went to 3 bar. In the mid 80s when I was in Germany visiting Mercedes Benz I asked an engineer why Porsche shows 5 bar and they only show 3 bar on the gauges. He said there were too many customer questions/complaints so they just changed the scale so it would always show at the top .... happy customers and nothing else changed.
I've seen several 944 throw rods at events and they were using Amzol and Royal Purple - and I don't go around trashing Amzol (although I hate their marketing strategy and the goons that push that stuff). Racing engines blow up for many reasons - not just oil. Many hoakey racers take an engine with unkown service and high miles and just go out on the track and risk everyone's life when they blow a rod and dump oil all over the track or blow a hose and dump antifreeze in corners - as a minimum when buying a race car rod bearings and hoses should be changed before tracking a car. To blame all engine failures on one type of oil has no factual backing ... just superstition.
This guy isn't a racer - he is very unlikely to experience the g-cornering at > 5500 RPM that is associated with 2-6 rod bearing failure.
Here is a fact ... the earlier Mercedes had oil pressure gauges that only went to 3 bar. In the mid 80s when I was in Germany visiting Mercedes Benz I asked an engineer why Porsche shows 5 bar and they only show 3 bar on the gauges. He said there were too many customer questions/complaints so they just changed the scale so it would always show at the top .... happy customers and nothing else changed.
07-04-2006, 12:02 PM
#33
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA!!!
Posts: 1,407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IcemanG17
MK
http://www.blackstone-labs.com/
Here is an oil analysis place.....others have used it in the past with good results. Reasonably priced too.
http://www.blackstone-labs.com/
Here is an oil analysis place.....others have used it in the past with good results. Reasonably priced too.
07-04-2006, 07:22 PM
#34
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Airlie Beach, Australia
Posts: 870
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Mark
thanks for your replies
So the failure was in a 944!
What viscosity oil was used? Please tell
And sorry Mark - yes it was Scot's engine (you mentioned that at the time) but as you suggest now, the oil's flow was impaired by the sludge. So it was a lubrication failure and not the oil!!!
As for "Corporations", well believe me I do have some exposure - some at Board level - and over many years.
Including with four Oil Companies and four engine/vehicle makers!!
In the Euro (and now US) Auto Industry and in my experience, the rate of warranty and durability claims are just some factors in the engine maker's oil choice and their continuing Engineering support for it. Whatever the brand may be!!
As an example, MB withdrew their Approval for a version of Delvac 1 (SHC) some years ago because it failed one aspect of their Approvals system. Mobil had to repackage some conserable volume of that product!
Marketing will always play a role too but I respectfully suggest not at the risk of exposing the engine or lubricant maker to a loss of profitability! But that is just my experience at Corporations level, others may have dissimilar experiences
I have found ExxonMobil to be a very poor Marketer - especially here in nAustralia. Their public image here (and in New Zealand) is quite bad for a variety of reasons. Their Truck Stops are the worst around, they are ruthless Account managers and I have repeatedly taken them to task at the highest levels for various availability issues. Some of their Engineers are however amongst the best around in the Oil Industry
However Mobil 1 (the bane of your life) is indeed a very good product - and so are many others too! I use Castrol and Shell synthetic products too and have done so for many years
And contrary to your comments Mobil1 is used by many race teams throughout the world. So is Shell, Castrol, Motul, Repsol and FUCHS to name just a few. Redline and your beloved Amsoil are nowhere to be seen at those levels. That does not make them better or worse - but in the empirical failure results data they may appear more regularly than the others do considering the low number of users! If only we knew!!!
Engine - Manufacturer testing for Approval & Listing
Contrary to your thoughts Mark, the official Approval systems in place with Euro (and now US) Manufacturers go way beyond the ACEA (and APIs) test regimes. Those of BMW, MB, Porsche, VW, MAN and etc are very rigorous. The Boutique oils that state they "Meet" or "Recommended for use in...." and are NOT LISTED by the Manufacturer have NOT been tested!! Those that ARE LISTED actually have to be certified as participating in and meeting the Manufacturer's test parameters!!!
MTU-Detroit Diesel clearly state (Bulletin - Lubricating oil.... 7SE270)
"Beware that some Marketers may indicate that their products "meet" API requirements. This is NOT adequate."
Porsche's oil Approvals for instance have to pass the ACEA's A3/B3 tests and then meet or exceed these in-house requirements (at least);
- minimum of 11 mm2/s kinematic viscosity (SAE 30) at 100C
- max 12 % evaporation loss (the NOACK test is done at 250C)
- Porsche test: volume of air bubbles in the oil (foaming control)
- 120 hours engine test of oil stability in case of 0W-40
Shear testing is done to rigid standards and is especially mandated by Porsche at both 100C and 150C. Their additional tests are durability based over an extended period and carefully monitor the viscosity issue
And as a matter of interest, permanent and temporary shearing is still not understood by many people and is a source of much mis-information amongst end users when using the word "shear"
The synthetic oils perfom much better in both types of shear tests - believe it or not!
Amsoil and Redline do not submit their oils for testing so we don't know how they really perform. They are probably and generally very good products but do we just believe their advertising like 4 ball tests etc....really? The 4 ball test is used for testing GREASE Mark!
Amsoil do have MB Approval for their Euro formulated 5w-40 lubricant
And have no doubt that you will see a higher OP at hot idle from a 20w-50 NON APPROVED mineral oil (with a viscosity of 21.9cSt) than a 5w-50 APPROVED synthetic oil with a viscosity of 17.2cSt). Both meet the SAE50 viscosity range requirement at 100C!!
The big question is which oil is flowing better? - well surely the answer is very obvious
My view is that loss of oil pressure caused by "starvation" is a major cause of engine failure (especially bearings) where high "G" forces are prevalent. Fuel dilution can play a huge part too of course
And the engine oil pump's pressure has very little affect at the bearing journal! The "oil dam" affect here creates more pressure here than will EVER be generated by the oil pump! What is critically important is FLOW! Critical for supply volume and cooling
So Mark don't forget to always consider the relevance of the pressure/flow relationship. It appears to me that you often forget this aspect in your deliberations - pressure is the resistance to flow of course
As for doing a Used Oil Analysis (UOA), there are many Labs in NA and they charge about $20-25. In your case I would be doing it after each race meeting!
Hi Rich
I can confirm you comments about MB and oil pressure at 3bar.
This was the subject of many interesting discussions at Worth, Sindelfingen and Unterturkheim for me
They now no longer fit an OP gauge at all to most of their range! They also don't get nervous of coolant temperatures up to 120C and oil temperatures (localised) up to around 140C
As for feeling better - well I wish it for all of us. I feel even better when we don't allow a good story to stand in the way of the facts
Regards
Doug
Mark
thanks for your replies
So the failure was in a 944!
What viscosity oil was used? Please tell
And sorry Mark - yes it was Scot's engine (you mentioned that at the time) but as you suggest now, the oil's flow was impaired by the sludge. So it was a lubrication failure and not the oil!!!
As for "Corporations", well believe me I do have some exposure - some at Board level - and over many years.
Including with four Oil Companies and four engine/vehicle makers!!
In the Euro (and now US) Auto Industry and in my experience, the rate of warranty and durability claims are just some factors in the engine maker's oil choice and their continuing Engineering support for it. Whatever the brand may be!!
As an example, MB withdrew their Approval for a version of Delvac 1 (SHC) some years ago because it failed one aspect of their Approvals system. Mobil had to repackage some conserable volume of that product!
Marketing will always play a role too but I respectfully suggest not at the risk of exposing the engine or lubricant maker to a loss of profitability! But that is just my experience at Corporations level, others may have dissimilar experiences
I have found ExxonMobil to be a very poor Marketer - especially here in nAustralia. Their public image here (and in New Zealand) is quite bad for a variety of reasons. Their Truck Stops are the worst around, they are ruthless Account managers and I have repeatedly taken them to task at the highest levels for various availability issues. Some of their Engineers are however amongst the best around in the Oil Industry
However Mobil 1 (the bane of your life) is indeed a very good product - and so are many others too! I use Castrol and Shell synthetic products too and have done so for many years
And contrary to your comments Mobil1 is used by many race teams throughout the world. So is Shell, Castrol, Motul, Repsol and FUCHS to name just a few. Redline and your beloved Amsoil are nowhere to be seen at those levels. That does not make them better or worse - but in the empirical failure results data they may appear more regularly than the others do considering the low number of users! If only we knew!!!
Engine - Manufacturer testing for Approval & Listing
Contrary to your thoughts Mark, the official Approval systems in place with Euro (and now US) Manufacturers go way beyond the ACEA (and APIs) test regimes. Those of BMW, MB, Porsche, VW, MAN and etc are very rigorous. The Boutique oils that state they "Meet" or "Recommended for use in...." and are NOT LISTED by the Manufacturer have NOT been tested!! Those that ARE LISTED actually have to be certified as participating in and meeting the Manufacturer's test parameters!!!
MTU-Detroit Diesel clearly state (Bulletin - Lubricating oil.... 7SE270)
"Beware that some Marketers may indicate that their products "meet" API requirements. This is NOT adequate."
Porsche's oil Approvals for instance have to pass the ACEA's A3/B3 tests and then meet or exceed these in-house requirements (at least);
- minimum of 11 mm2/s kinematic viscosity (SAE 30) at 100C
- max 12 % evaporation loss (the NOACK test is done at 250C)
- Porsche test: volume of air bubbles in the oil (foaming control)
- 120 hours engine test of oil stability in case of 0W-40
Shear testing is done to rigid standards and is especially mandated by Porsche at both 100C and 150C. Their additional tests are durability based over an extended period and carefully monitor the viscosity issue
And as a matter of interest, permanent and temporary shearing is still not understood by many people and is a source of much mis-information amongst end users when using the word "shear"
The synthetic oils perfom much better in both types of shear tests - believe it or not!
Amsoil and Redline do not submit their oils for testing so we don't know how they really perform. They are probably and generally very good products but do we just believe their advertising like 4 ball tests etc....really? The 4 ball test is used for testing GREASE Mark!
Amsoil do have MB Approval for their Euro formulated 5w-40 lubricant
And have no doubt that you will see a higher OP at hot idle from a 20w-50 NON APPROVED mineral oil (with a viscosity of 21.9cSt) than a 5w-50 APPROVED synthetic oil with a viscosity of 17.2cSt). Both meet the SAE50 viscosity range requirement at 100C!!
The big question is which oil is flowing better? - well surely the answer is very obvious
My view is that loss of oil pressure caused by "starvation" is a major cause of engine failure (especially bearings) where high "G" forces are prevalent. Fuel dilution can play a huge part too of course
And the engine oil pump's pressure has very little affect at the bearing journal! The "oil dam" affect here creates more pressure here than will EVER be generated by the oil pump! What is critically important is FLOW! Critical for supply volume and cooling
So Mark don't forget to always consider the relevance of the pressure/flow relationship. It appears to me that you often forget this aspect in your deliberations - pressure is the resistance to flow of course
As for doing a Used Oil Analysis (UOA), there are many Labs in NA and they charge about $20-25. In your case I would be doing it after each race meeting!
Hi Rich
I can confirm you comments about MB and oil pressure at 3bar.
This was the subject of many interesting discussions at Worth, Sindelfingen and Unterturkheim for me
They now no longer fit an OP gauge at all to most of their range! They also don't get nervous of coolant temperatures up to 120C and oil temperatures (localised) up to around 140C
As for feeling better - well I wish it for all of us. I feel even better when we don't allow a good story to stand in the way of the facts
Regards
Doug
07-05-2006, 12:04 AM
#35
Rennlist Member
Ill send my race oil there after this next event. it will have 5 races on it by that time.
how much do you send, and how do you send it. test tube, jar or something?
be interesting to see what they see.
thanks,
Mk
how much do you send, and how do you send it. test tube, jar or something?
be interesting to see what they see.
thanks,
Mk
Originally Posted by deliriousga
I use them for all of my cars to analyze the engine and differential oils. Great guys and only $20 for each analysis.
07-05-2006, 12:25 AM
#36
Rennlist Member
Doug,
the 944 was running 15-50 mobil 1. Scots engine was never mentioned in the oil discussions. I was referring to my 79 which had the low oil pressure under hot , racing conditions. Scots engine was sent from us from a previous owner that didnt know where it came from. supposed to be a race engine, barely used, but by the look of the 1" of sludge that we ingored as "normal for a car sitting around for a few years", it was an issue. it siezed after a day of racing , but short shifting under 5800rpm. it was doomed from the start. the oil wasnt a factor.
as far as the comparitive facts, i dont have anything but the marketing hype of both and even the 4 ball test (yes ive heard its a standard for grease, but are running it at some substantial rpms. if its true, the amzoil has 1/4 of the size of the wear scars and that could be a good thing i guess)
I also understand pressure and flow. As oil gets hot and its viscosity goes down, this can reduce the pressure and subsequentialy the flow. this is what ive seen with the older mobil 1. some say, its improved now, but ive not taken the chance. I think many engines could run on some very thin oil. i think the ones that have issues like ours at high g loading and dont have drilled cranks and drysumps, would benefit from oils with better film strength, and other high performance qualities. does Amzoil's oil have better qualities under extreme conditions? I dont know. it would be interesting to really know.
I dont know what the oil analysis will tell, but it will be interesting none the less.
I guess im spending 8 bucks a quart when i could be spending 2-3 bucks for Mobil 1. For some reason, at the track, you cant even find mobil one. I dont see too many that use it. most are redline, amzoil, royal purple, and other of the Boutique oils. If mobil 1 was really as good as its porsche endorsement it would put the other guys out of business. I know Amzoil also has roots in the aviation world which generally has more strict requirements. if it was so bad, im sure it wouldnt be used there as well.
You sound like you have some good experience on the topic. However, i wonder if anyone really knows the truth. so many factors, escpecially with regards to the design, construction and operation range of the engine concerned!
MK
the 944 was running 15-50 mobil 1. Scots engine was never mentioned in the oil discussions. I was referring to my 79 which had the low oil pressure under hot , racing conditions. Scots engine was sent from us from a previous owner that didnt know where it came from. supposed to be a race engine, barely used, but by the look of the 1" of sludge that we ingored as "normal for a car sitting around for a few years", it was an issue. it siezed after a day of racing , but short shifting under 5800rpm. it was doomed from the start. the oil wasnt a factor.
as far as the comparitive facts, i dont have anything but the marketing hype of both and even the 4 ball test (yes ive heard its a standard for grease, but are running it at some substantial rpms. if its true, the amzoil has 1/4 of the size of the wear scars and that could be a good thing i guess)
I also understand pressure and flow. As oil gets hot and its viscosity goes down, this can reduce the pressure and subsequentialy the flow. this is what ive seen with the older mobil 1. some say, its improved now, but ive not taken the chance. I think many engines could run on some very thin oil. i think the ones that have issues like ours at high g loading and dont have drilled cranks and drysumps, would benefit from oils with better film strength, and other high performance qualities. does Amzoil's oil have better qualities under extreme conditions? I dont know. it would be interesting to really know.
I dont know what the oil analysis will tell, but it will be interesting none the less.
I guess im spending 8 bucks a quart when i could be spending 2-3 bucks for Mobil 1. For some reason, at the track, you cant even find mobil one. I dont see too many that use it. most are redline, amzoil, royal purple, and other of the Boutique oils. If mobil 1 was really as good as its porsche endorsement it would put the other guys out of business. I know Amzoil also has roots in the aviation world which generally has more strict requirements. if it was so bad, im sure it wouldnt be used there as well.
You sound like you have some good experience on the topic. However, i wonder if anyone really knows the truth. so many factors, escpecially with regards to the design, construction and operation range of the engine concerned!
MK
Originally Posted by Doug Hillary
Hi,
Mark
thanks for your replies
So the failure was in a 944!
What viscosity oil was used? Please tell
And sorry Mark - yes it was Scot's engine (you mentioned that at the time) but as you suggest now, the oil's flow was impaired by the sludge. So it was a lubrication failure and not the oil!!!
As for "Corporations", well believe me I do have some exposure - some at Board level - and over many years.
Including with four Oil Companies and four engine/vehicle makers!!
In the Euro (and now US) Auto Industry and in my experience, the rate of warranty and durability claims are just some factors in the engine maker's oil choice and their continuing Engineering support for it. Whatever the brand may be!!
As an example, MB withdrew their Approval for a version of Delvac 1 (SHC) some years ago because it failed one aspect of their Approvals system. Mobil had to repackage some conserable volume of that product!
Marketing will always play a role too but I respectfully suggest not at the risk of exposing the engine or lubricant maker to a loss of profitability! But that is just my experience at Corporations level, others may have dissimilar experiences
I have found ExxonMobil to be a very poor Marketer - especially here in nAustralia. Their public image here (and in New Zealand) is quite bad for a variety of reasons. Their Truck Stops are the worst around, they are ruthless Account managers and I have repeatedly taken them to task at the highest levels for various availability issues. Some of their Engineers are however amongst the best around in the Oil Industry
However Mobil 1 (the bane of your life) is indeed a very good product - and so are many others too! I use Castrol and Shell synthetic products too and have done so for many years
And contrary to your comments Mobil1 is used by many race teams throughout the world. So is Shell, Castrol, Motul, Repsol and FUCHS to name just a few. Redline and your beloved Amsoil are nowhere to be seen at those levels. That does not make them better or worse - but in the empirical failure results data they may appear more regularly than the others do considering the low number of users! If only we knew!!!
Engine - Manufacturer testing for Approval & Listing
Contrary to your thoughts Mark, the official Approval systems in place with Euro (and now US) Manufacturers go way beyond the ACEA (and APIs) test regimes. Those of BMW, MB, Porsche, VW, MAN and etc are very rigorous. The Boutique oils that state they "Meet" or "Recommended for use in...." and are NOT LISTED by the Manufacturer have NOT been tested!! Those that ARE LISTED actually have to be certified as participating in and meeting the Manufacturer's test parameters!!!
MTU-Detroit Diesel clearly state (Bulletin - Lubricating oil.... 7SE270)
"Beware that some Marketers may indicate that their products "meet" API requirements. This is NOT adequate."
Porsche's oil Approvals for instance have to pass the ACEA's A3/B3 tests and then meet or exceed these in-house requirements (at least);
- minimum of 11 mm2/s kinematic viscosity (SAE 30) at 100C
- max 12 % evaporation loss (the NOACK test is done at 250C)
- Porsche test: volume of air bubbles in the oil (foaming control)
- 120 hours engine test of oil stability in case of 0W-40
Shear testing is done to rigid standards and is especially mandated by Porsche at both 100C and 150C. Their additional tests are durability based over an extended period and carefully monitor the viscosity issue
And as a matter of interest, permanent and temporary shearing is still not understood by many people and is a source of much mis-information amongst end users when using the word "shear"
The synthetic oils perfom much better in both types of shear tests - believe it or not!
Amsoil and Redline do not submit their oils for testing so we don't know how they really perform. They are probably and generally very good products but do we just believe their advertising like 4 ball tests etc....really? The 4 ball test is used for testing GREASE Mark!
Amsoil do have MB Approval for their Euro formulated 5w-40 lubricant
And have no doubt that you will see a higher OP at hot idle from a 20w-50 NON APPROVED mineral oil (with a viscosity of 21.9cSt) than a 5w-50 APPROVED synthetic oil with a viscosity of 17.2cSt). Both meet the SAE50 viscosity range requirement at 100C!!
The big question is which oil is flowing better? - well surely the answer is very obvious
My view is that loss of oil pressure caused by "starvation" is a major cause of engine failure (especially bearings) where high "G" forces are prevalent. Fuel dilution can play a huge part too of course
And the engine oil pump's pressure has very little affect at the bearing journal! The "oil dam" affect here creates more pressure here than will EVER be generated by the oil pump! What is critically important is FLOW! Critical for supply volume and cooling
So Mark don't forget to always consider the relevance of the pressure/flow relationship. It appears to me that you often forget this aspect in your deliberations - pressure is the resistance to flow of course
As for doing a Used Oil Analysis (UOA), there are many Labs in NA and they charge about $20-25. In your case I would be doing it after each race meeting!
Hi Rich
I can confirm you comments about MB and oil pressure at 3bar.
This was the subject of many interesting discussions at Worth, Sindelfingen and Unterturkheim for me
They now no longer fit an OP gauge at all to most of their range! They also don't get nervous of coolant temperatures up to 120C and oil temperatures (localised) up to around 140C
As for feeling better - well I wish it for all of us. I feel even better when we don't allow a good story to stand in the way of the facts
Regards
Doug
Mark
thanks for your replies
So the failure was in a 944!
What viscosity oil was used? Please tell
And sorry Mark - yes it was Scot's engine (you mentioned that at the time) but as you suggest now, the oil's flow was impaired by the sludge. So it was a lubrication failure and not the oil!!!
As for "Corporations", well believe me I do have some exposure - some at Board level - and over many years.
Including with four Oil Companies and four engine/vehicle makers!!
In the Euro (and now US) Auto Industry and in my experience, the rate of warranty and durability claims are just some factors in the engine maker's oil choice and their continuing Engineering support for it. Whatever the brand may be!!
As an example, MB withdrew their Approval for a version of Delvac 1 (SHC) some years ago because it failed one aspect of their Approvals system. Mobil had to repackage some conserable volume of that product!
Marketing will always play a role too but I respectfully suggest not at the risk of exposing the engine or lubricant maker to a loss of profitability! But that is just my experience at Corporations level, others may have dissimilar experiences
I have found ExxonMobil to be a very poor Marketer - especially here in nAustralia. Their public image here (and in New Zealand) is quite bad for a variety of reasons. Their Truck Stops are the worst around, they are ruthless Account managers and I have repeatedly taken them to task at the highest levels for various availability issues. Some of their Engineers are however amongst the best around in the Oil Industry
However Mobil 1 (the bane of your life) is indeed a very good product - and so are many others too! I use Castrol and Shell synthetic products too and have done so for many years
And contrary to your comments Mobil1 is used by many race teams throughout the world. So is Shell, Castrol, Motul, Repsol and FUCHS to name just a few. Redline and your beloved Amsoil are nowhere to be seen at those levels. That does not make them better or worse - but in the empirical failure results data they may appear more regularly than the others do considering the low number of users! If only we knew!!!
Engine - Manufacturer testing for Approval & Listing
Contrary to your thoughts Mark, the official Approval systems in place with Euro (and now US) Manufacturers go way beyond the ACEA (and APIs) test regimes. Those of BMW, MB, Porsche, VW, MAN and etc are very rigorous. The Boutique oils that state they "Meet" or "Recommended for use in...." and are NOT LISTED by the Manufacturer have NOT been tested!! Those that ARE LISTED actually have to be certified as participating in and meeting the Manufacturer's test parameters!!!
MTU-Detroit Diesel clearly state (Bulletin - Lubricating oil.... 7SE270)
"Beware that some Marketers may indicate that their products "meet" API requirements. This is NOT adequate."
Porsche's oil Approvals for instance have to pass the ACEA's A3/B3 tests and then meet or exceed these in-house requirements (at least);
- minimum of 11 mm2/s kinematic viscosity (SAE 30) at 100C
- max 12 % evaporation loss (the NOACK test is done at 250C)
- Porsche test: volume of air bubbles in the oil (foaming control)
- 120 hours engine test of oil stability in case of 0W-40
Shear testing is done to rigid standards and is especially mandated by Porsche at both 100C and 150C. Their additional tests are durability based over an extended period and carefully monitor the viscosity issue
And as a matter of interest, permanent and temporary shearing is still not understood by many people and is a source of much mis-information amongst end users when using the word "shear"
The synthetic oils perfom much better in both types of shear tests - believe it or not!
Amsoil and Redline do not submit their oils for testing so we don't know how they really perform. They are probably and generally very good products but do we just believe their advertising like 4 ball tests etc....really? The 4 ball test is used for testing GREASE Mark!
Amsoil do have MB Approval for their Euro formulated 5w-40 lubricant
And have no doubt that you will see a higher OP at hot idle from a 20w-50 NON APPROVED mineral oil (with a viscosity of 21.9cSt) than a 5w-50 APPROVED synthetic oil with a viscosity of 17.2cSt). Both meet the SAE50 viscosity range requirement at 100C!!
The big question is which oil is flowing better? - well surely the answer is very obvious
My view is that loss of oil pressure caused by "starvation" is a major cause of engine failure (especially bearings) where high "G" forces are prevalent. Fuel dilution can play a huge part too of course
And the engine oil pump's pressure has very little affect at the bearing journal! The "oil dam" affect here creates more pressure here than will EVER be generated by the oil pump! What is critically important is FLOW! Critical for supply volume and cooling
So Mark don't forget to always consider the relevance of the pressure/flow relationship. It appears to me that you often forget this aspect in your deliberations - pressure is the resistance to flow of course
As for doing a Used Oil Analysis (UOA), there are many Labs in NA and they charge about $20-25. In your case I would be doing it after each race meeting!
Hi Rich
I can confirm you comments about MB and oil pressure at 3bar.
This was the subject of many interesting discussions at Worth, Sindelfingen and Unterturkheim for me
They now no longer fit an OP gauge at all to most of their range! They also don't get nervous of coolant temperatures up to 120C and oil temperatures (localised) up to around 140C
As for feeling better - well I wish it for all of us. I feel even better when we don't allow a good story to stand in the way of the facts
Regards
Doug
07-05-2006, 12:31 AM
#37
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Airlie Beach, Australia
Posts: 870
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Mark,
the Lab will usually send you a small plastic container (around 200ml), and outer container and their instructions.
It is best to catch the oil in a VERY clean container immediately after the drain plug is removed.
I normally use a small suction pump via the dipstick hole unless the oil is being drained.
The sample is more accurate if taken warm - I aim for around 50C or so
It is wise to pay a little more and get a "TBN" reading as well
I am pleased that you are doing this, it is well worth the effort!
Regards
Doug
the Lab will usually send you a small plastic container (around 200ml), and outer container and their instructions.
It is best to catch the oil in a VERY clean container immediately after the drain plug is removed.
I normally use a small suction pump via the dipstick hole unless the oil is being drained.
The sample is more accurate if taken warm - I aim for around 50C or so
It is wise to pay a little more and get a "TBN" reading as well
I am pleased that you are doing this, it is well worth the effort!
Regards
Doug
07-05-2006, 01:50 AM
#39
Burning Brakes
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Don Hanson broke an oil line, that's Mobils fault too?
compared to Hanson, Shaw, and the countless others that have raced less often and have blown in months of rebuilds or of the beginnings their track activity. the common denominator, Mobil 1. thats enough for me!
Mk
Originally Posted by mark kibort
compared to Hanson, Shaw, and the countless others that have raced less often and have blown in months of rebuilds or of the beginnings their track activity. the common denominator, Mobil 1. thats enough for me!
Mk
07-05-2006, 01:56 AM
#40
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Airlie Beach, Australia
Posts: 870
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Larry - Naaaaahhhhhh...
I'd send them in just to confuse the Lab. Techs.
I'd count them though, I've met a few Lab. techs who are really a bit viscous!!
Mark, you said;
"If mobil 1 was really as good as its porsche endorsement it would put the other guys out of business."
I don't think so Mark. Any lubricant obtaining Porsche's Approval and being Listed by them would perform just the same as another on their List. It does't really matter if it is called Mobil, FUCHS, Motul, Shell or Castrol. There are over 100 lubricants from about 30 "Blenders" (Brands) on their List
Missing are Amsoil, Redline and Royal Purple. This does not mean they are lessor porducts - we just don't know why they have not been tested! Or maybe they have been tested and failed - I don't know!!
I have never bad mouthed a product from these boutique blenders or any others - except for the original German sourced Castrol Formula SLX 0w-30 from 1996 - this ester based synthetic oil certainly did not cut the mustard in some applications. It was withdrawn from sale in OZ by 2000 and had some failure questions to answer on the way!!!
Keep smiling
Doug
Larry - Naaaaahhhhhh...
I'd send them in just to confuse the Lab. Techs.
I'd count them though, I've met a few Lab. techs who are really a bit viscous!!
Mark, you said;
"If mobil 1 was really as good as its porsche endorsement it would put the other guys out of business."
I don't think so Mark. Any lubricant obtaining Porsche's Approval and being Listed by them would perform just the same as another on their List. It does't really matter if it is called Mobil, FUCHS, Motul, Shell or Castrol. There are over 100 lubricants from about 30 "Blenders" (Brands) on their List
Missing are Amsoil, Redline and Royal Purple. This does not mean they are lessor porducts - we just don't know why they have not been tested! Or maybe they have been tested and failed - I don't know!!
I have never bad mouthed a product from these boutique blenders or any others - except for the original German sourced Castrol Formula SLX 0w-30 from 1996 - this ester based synthetic oil certainly did not cut the mustard in some applications. It was withdrawn from sale in OZ by 2000 and had some failure questions to answer on the way!!!
Keep smiling
Doug
Last edited by Doug Hillary; 07-05-2006 at 02:13 AM.
