# oil analysis



## skier45 (Jul 27, 2009)

some elses blackstone report is just that, someone elses report. it is not your car, it's not you driving, it's not your climate and it's your type of driving.

oil analysis is very usefull for fleets, over the road truckers, heavy equipement users and railroads. people who push there oil to the absolute limit. railroads put more miles on their oil than we put on our cars, they need to know exactly where there at, as an example. for the rest of us its just a happy toy, sorry audijunk.

there is no better lubricant than oil, be petrolium based or synthetic. the thing tthat seperates synthetic from petroium based oil, is in synthetic the molicules are the same size and shape, uniform. in petrolium based oil they are random. because of this synthetics can be uniform in viscosity and have better resistance to heat. additives are used to enhance viscosity, detergents keep contamination in suspension so they can be picked up in the filter. there are addatives to prevent oxidation, enhance lubrication on start up and on and on. oil does not wear out, it gets contaminated

vw does not tell you to go 10k on an oil change, they tell you not to exceed it. trip length, key cycles, cold temperature, hard driving, idleing etc all play into the interval. heat from outside is not a big factor as the oil is always cooled with water from the block at 190f. heat from loads is a factor.
use vw accredited or acea a3 in your vw, change the filter and you'll be fine. i'm sure there are other oils that work great but thats your choice.

i'm sure we'll see a 3 page responce comlete with charts and graphs telling me how wrong i am. but thats ok


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

I don't like the style of how Audie Junkie writes in this forum. It seems designed to inflame or at the least be condescending. That is why I stay out of these threads usually. All that emotionalism and fighting just gets in the way of the facts and trying to learn. But some of the content he posts is correct, such as VW oils performing poorly in an FSI engine. Using 502 oils at VW's recommended intervals in a VW/audi 2.0 FSI is not just fine IMO, but I understand teh frustration after seeing so many inflamatory posts that make a person just sick and tired of it. 

Anyway, to try to get back to facts and real world experiences...if 502 oils were adequate with the fuel-diluting U.S. FSI engines (that don't run in lean-burn mode) and our fuels, we wouldn't have tons of cam followers wearing out at 30,000 miles. Cam follower wear is directly related to lubrication.

And we wouldn't have valve deposit issues as bad as this one who ran 502 oils at VW's recommended 10k intervals:










We now have over 100 UOAs on the FSI in the database and it clearly shows that PAO based 502 oils can't go much beyond 5k miles except in cases of nearly all highway driving. M1 0w40 for example has sheared out of grade on 23 of 24 samples and the one that was in grade was only by .03 cst (11.53 where cutoff for 40 weight is 11.5). That is irregardless of mileage. Some of these M1 0w40 UOAs are on oils with 3000 miles or so.

We also have the expert opinions from people such as Terry Dyson, of Dyson Analysis who have said almost 3 years ago now exactly what we are seeing in the data: That PAO-based 502 oils aren't cutting it in these DI turbocharged engines at longer intervals. He further extrapolated that to say they contribute to premature wear and valve deposit problems. Dyson is about the best non-VW source out there for independent information.

So in this case don't reject the message just because of the messenger. Get all the info. you can and don't just take it on authority from VW. Perhaps VW oils are adequate for the FSI in countries where they run in lean burn mode but we don't have UOAs to know that. Here we have the cam follower issue, the valve deposit issue, expert independent opinion, and the large UOA database that all show something different than what VW says. If you choose to just take it on authority from VW, that is your choice. But for my car I am going to use all the information available and question whether VW is right or not, lest I end up with a follower that looks like this one below or valves that look like those above. Note I am only talking about VW oils and recommended intervals for the FSi engine here not others.


----------



## rhouse181 (Apr 13, 2008)

saaber2 said:


> I don't like the style of how Audie Junkie writes in this forum. *It seems designed to inflame or at the least be condescending.... *
> 
> So in this case don't reject the message just because of the messenger. Get all the info. you can and don't just take it on authority from VW. *Perhaps VW oils are adequate for the FSI in countries where they run in lean burn mode* but we don't have UOAs to know that. Here we have the cam follower issue, the valve deposit issue, expert independent opinion, and the large UOA database that all show something different than what VW says. If you choose to just take it on authority from VW, that is your choice. But for my car I am going to use all the information available and question whether VW is right or not, lest I end up with a follower that looks like this one below or valves that look like those above. Note I am only talking about VW oils and recommended intervals for the FSi engine here not others.


:beer:


----------



## skier45 (Jul 27, 2009)

i did say it's your choice on oil , i use vw spec but thats me. i changed my follower at 62k and it was fine. i think its more a design issue than oil. i agree with 4-5k being the limit on oil changes unless its 100% over the road driving.

as for the deposits on the intake valves, that an issue that all direct injection engines have. it does not mater whos brand it is. there is no gas in the intake track, with detergent, to keep the valves clean. if you've ever taken a port injected engine apart you know that the intake track is dirty right up to the injectors, then it shiny clean.

a civil descussion


----------



## rhouse181 (Apr 13, 2008)

skier45 said:


> as for the deposits on the intake valves, that an issue that all direct injection engines have. it does not mater whos brand it is. there is no gas in the intake track, with detergent, to keep the valves clean. if you've ever taken a port injected engine apart you know that the intake track is dirty right up to the injectors, then it shiny clean.


True, no matter what oil is used in an DI motor, the intake values will experience build up with the current crankcase ventilation system... The absence of fuel in the intake stream isn't the problem, its the volatilized oil being reintroduced upstream of the intake valves. This wasn't a problem when you had fuel to "wash" the intake valves. 

The main struggle in US FSI motors is fuel dilution because we don't run lean stratified charge as Saaber mentioned above. This contributes heavily towards the pig rich running conditions that tuners have commented on when developing aftermarket flashes. All this extra fuel gets scraped off the cylinder wall by the rings and gets deposited in the oil. Fuel and oil like to mix, which lowers flashpoint and leads to more oil vapor in the crankcase. This vapor gets sucked back into the intake stream and washed across the valves, leading to deposit issue. 

High quality ester based oils have proven to combat fuel dilution better than vw502 approved oils. They just plain ol maintain viscosity better... which should reduce volatility and the amount of vapor washing across the intake valves. Does this completely remedy the issue.... no it does not. But it is an improvement over what was suggested by VW.

*Note: No charts or graphs were harmed in the making of this post*


----------



## skier45 (Jul 27, 2009)

maybe, from what i can gather, if there was gas that's not being burned there would be a problem cleaning up the emissions. thats true in any make. since the 70s ring packs have gotten progressively higher on the piston to reduce emission caused buy gas not being burned. also if they were pig rich wouldn't that toast the cat? i routinely get 30-35mpg in my 06 20t jetta so theres not too much gas not being burned.

the valve deposits are not exclusive to vw in direct injection engines. all manufacturers have issues with it. some have resorted to an extra injector firing fuel into the intake track, some have tried elaborate filters. so far i don't think anyone has been 100% successfull.

my car is stock, so maybe my experiences are different.


----------



## skier45 (Jul 27, 2009)

rhouse181 said:


> True, no matter what oil is used in an DI motor, the intake values will experience build up with the current crankcase ventilation system... The absence of fuel in the intake stream isn't the problem, its the volatilized oil being reintroduced upstream of the intake valves. This wasn't a problem when you had fuel to "wash" the intake valves.
> 
> The main struggle in US FSI motors is fuel dilution because we don't run lean stratified charge as Saaber mentioned above. This contributes heavily towards the pig rich running conditions that tuners have commented on when developing aftermarket flashes. All this extra fuel gets scraped off the cylinder wall by the rings and gets deposited in the oil. Fuel and oil like to mix, which lowers flashpoint and leads to more oil vapor in the crankcase. This vapor gets sucked back into the intake stream and washed across the valves, leading to deposit issue.
> 
> ...


i just reread your first paragraph, what are you trying to sa in the last 2 sentences


----------



## rhouse181 (Apr 13, 2008)

skier45 said:


> i just reread your first paragraph, what are you trying to sa in the last 2 sentences


My motor is bone stock too... Last two sentences of the first paragraph?

I'm try to make the point that the intake valve deposits are not caused by the absence of fuel upstream of the intake valves. if it was just air being sucked through the intake track, then you would not have any intake valve buildup. 

for emissions purposes, VW is required to reroute the crankcase vapor back into the cylinder so it can be burned instead of vented to the atmosphere (which would be preferable). they have not developed a means for dumping it directly into the cylinder, but choose to pipe it into the intake path and draw it across the intake valves. this is what leads to the deposits...

if you search for some of saabers posts, he came up with a good idea of rerouting the vented crankcase vapor directly to the exhaust instead of back into the intake track. also, this concept is the basis of the "marketed" PCV block off plates and catch cans. however, i'm skeptical of their effectiveness in general and the practicality of their implementation...


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

Another factor that keeps coming up in terms of the oils effect on intake valve deposits is the amount and quality of viscosity modifiers in the oil. As I understand it the long-chain modifiers are the first to break down and when they do they become highly volatile. One oil formulator told me these have a similar volatility to gasoline and make it out of the crankcase to the pcv system. 

So in the past when everyone used to look at the formation of sludge as the biggest danger from fuel dilution we have another factor to think about in DI engines. I think this is what Dyson was talking about when he said the DI manufacturers audi/BMW etc. know they have an issue but are contractually tied to M1/castrol etc. and can't say anything about it. Pennzoil is another manuf. that has said on BITOG that viscosity modifiers are the biggest factor for DI engines. I have also been told that Fuchs and castrol are actively working on it in their labs. But I would assume all the manufacturers are. 

The bottom line is that if the oil has less viscosity modifiers (and/or higher quality ones) the oil is less likely to shear and less of these volatile components are available to the pcv system. The ester-based oils, because of their natural multigrade capability, usually require less viscosity modifiers. As said by rhouse above the amount of deposits due to volatilized oil through the pcv system is part of the problem but not all of it.


----------



## skier45 (Jul 27, 2009)

positive crankcase ventilation has been with us since the early 60s. it was the first emission standard, every car sold has been required to have it for nearly 50 years. i'm old enough to have had cars without it, don't know if thats good or bad, depends on the day i guess.

i find all of this interesting and agree with most of it. wouldn't have check my cam follower (replaced it because i had one, not out of need) if not for the forum. i don't care for those who aren't smart enough to know they don't know everything.


----------



## gehr (Jan 28, 2004)

skier45 said:


> *some elses blackstone report is just that, someone elses report*. it is not your car, it's not you driving, it's not your climate and it's your type of driving.
> 
> i'm sure we'll see a 3 page responce comlete with charts and graphs telling me how wrong i am. but thats ok


Exactly! :thumbup: 



saaber2 said:


> I don't like the style of how Audie Junkie writes in this forum. It seems designed to inflame or at the least be condescending. That is why I stay out of these threads usually. All that emotionalism and fighting just gets in the way of the facts and trying to learn. But some of the content he posts is correct, such as VW oils performing poorly in an FSI engine. Using 502 oils at VW's recommended intervals in a VW/audi 2.0 FSI is not just fine IMO, but I understand teh frustration after seeing so many inflamatory posts that make a person just sick and tired of it.


I agree, even with "some of the content he posts is correct" or at least the links and graphs are!


I apologize to any of you (except jebglx and AudiassA4 of course) that were annoyed by the banter and poking at AudiassA4 by myself!


----------



## AudiSportA4 (Mar 3, 2002)

There are a few groups of posters here. One is normal guys who want good answers, and I go to length to help them, doing what I think is a fine job, because they tell me so.

Another group is people who are oil experimenters who have a technical background and welcome the best info they can get. They've heard all the internet theories about spec oils as well as snake oils and maybe are looking for a breakthrough. These guys can certainly recognize a trend, like unspeced or thin oils working perfectly. They can accept it's not a coincidence that time after time the lab work from these type oils comes back fine. I think I have a good relationship with these guys because they tell me so.

The other group are not oil "experimenters" with technical background. They delve exclusively into theory, not practice and latch firmly onto what they think are legitimate sources of info and ram it down everyone's throat, with nothing more than supposed sources coupled with their assumption that these, and only these, references are the one true solution to the "oil crisis". They are so used to rejecting "amatuer" data, they don't recognize valid info when they see it. 


This last group, conditioned by the adolescent and contentious posting style on 'Tex, makes up the majority of posts on the oil forum, where they have squatted the place out, with no business doing so and making the deeply flawed arguments they do.

This group gets different treatment from me after they decide contest obvious facts. They have managed to bully other members into compliance, and are due for a dose of their own medicine. 

If anyone feels I owe them an apology, please let me know. I can point to a large number of extremely personal attacks from people who post here everyday, and think nothing of it. I seriously doubt anything I posted even comes close. Again, these are guys bringing nothing to the discussion other than to reiterate their limited experience of reading outdated and biased internet mush and repeating here as gospel, was was done with the subject of this thread. 

Guess what, in Europe they don't have the same oils as we get here. Do you think Mobil 1 High Miles or Rotella wouldn't fly off the shelves for $4/q over there? Don't you think Euro owners or oems would change their oil more often if it only cost $25? Are we failing to make the connection between viscosity and temp? Also, your grandpa or stupid mechanic has no idea what's going on with modern oils and lubrication. It seems like there are some conceptual failures that these guys don't want to acknowledge and address. Guess what, this simple stuff has been gone over years ago by people who look at it critically, like saaber1, at al. 

The boneheads can post their same junk they read once on a site they can't remember over and over and I'll knock it out of the sky like an old Triplane...every time. There are more fans of logic and rationality than there are people who are offended by a few bruised egos. Basically, the good deeds I do go unnoticed when it's a short simple answer for a member who wants info. If saaver1 is offended, it's because he blunders into threads near the end, after I'm annoyed, patience is lost and I've already heard plenty of nonsense. 

So, warning: if you want to argue and are young and don't have a technical background, nor direct experience in the field of tribology, have lab work or valid references in your hand, you may not like the response you get from me to your inability in grasping the concepts involved. 

Everyone else I am here to serve. 


btw- I don't think people come to the oil forum to hear: "use the oil in the manual at the prescribed interval".


----------



## skier45 (Jul 27, 2009)

*you don't argue audijerk*

He went for the bait. As I've said he knows everything, just ask him. We all are enthusiast, no one including audijerk is right 100% of the time. He's just not smart enough to know he does not know everything.


----------



## gehr (Jan 28, 2004)

He's a pompous a$s!


----------



## AudiSportA4 (Mar 3, 2002)

Oh really? What was I wrong about...specifically? 

At least I'm willing to take a chance on posting new material, not spew that was sucked-off some 3rd rate webpage.


----------



## gehr (Jan 28, 2004)

:what:


All you do is spew off from other web pages!?!?!? 3rd rate or not! :screwy:


----------



## AudiSportA4 (Mar 3, 2002)

Really, post a link or stfu. At least my links are factual. Go ahead and call RLI, let them know they suck.


----------



## gehr (Jan 28, 2004)

You want me to post a link, to what exactly!?, how all you do is post links!? :screwy: :laugh:


----------



## skier45 (Jul 27, 2009)




----------



## rhouse181 (Apr 13, 2008)

skier45 said:


>


Sorry man, another thread ruined... was nice to have a serious conversation this morning before the kids woke up though.


----------



## skier45 (Jul 27, 2009)

*and on and on and on*

audijunk never addressed a thing in my original post, as usual. he goes to great length to extoll his supperiority. apples and oranges again. its to bad because he does have some knowledge, he just doesn't know what he doesn't know.


----------



## skier45 (Jul 27, 2009)

*audijunk*

is your favorite word I?


----------

