ipodhustle

iTrader: (2)

aren't you supposed to run conventional/break in oils for like the first 5k atleast???

Resolute

iTrader: (2)

Depends on whomever built his engine.

Will

mthreat

iTrader: (16)

I ran Torco TBO (a break-in oil) for the first 30-45 minutes on the engine (just idling and revving a bit, no driving). More info - http://www.torcoracingoils.com/produ...pe=Motor%20Oil

My engine builder didn't give me an specific oil instructions... I asked him about breaking it in and he said I should be able to "go and race it" right away! I'm not sure what to think, but I definitely did not go and race it. I put over 2000 miles on it before tracking it. I recently checked the compression and it was within 5% of 200 psi on all 6 cylinders. (It's higher than the stock target value of 185 because I'm running Wiseco 11:1 compression pistons).

In any case, now I'm running Mobil1 0W-40, once I have 1000+ miles I'll have it analyzed and report the results here.

Resolute

iTrader: (2)

Here's a comparison chart I've made to highlight oils whose results, when averaged according to engine wear for every 1000 miles of use, stand out as a significant statistical difference from the mean. I divided the engine wear for each metal by the mileage for each and every UOA I have, and then multiplied that by 1000 to generate a ppm for every 1000 miles driven. I then found the average for each wear metal (iron, copper, etc..) for all the UOA results and the standard deviation of each wear metal result from the average. This chart shows the average wear for each current oil tested in terms of ppm/1000 miles. The cells with a green background are better than one standard deviation from the average. The cells with a red background are worse than one standard deviation from the average. The average and SD, remember, is calculated from ALL the samples I have from the VQ. The average wear characteristics of some oils used in the VQ which are no longer in production I have also included in a separate table.

The interesting thing is to note which oils are statistically significant in terms of better or worse wear from the universal average for each wear metal. It would be nice to have multiple samples from some of these oils before the manufacturer changes formulas again.



I am planning on adding this to the front page whenever I get around to writing up some new stuff to include in the Q&A section.

Will

NyCSnEaK

iTrader: (5)

German Castrol FTMFW!

OCG35

iTrader: (2)

Will! This is exceptional!!!!

Your contributions throughout the thread have been very much appreciated by all - and this evaluation of statistical data is primo!

This chart is precisely what I’ve been hoping for – and I’m certain many other will appreciate as well ~

Thanks for the great work and for sharing your knowledge in this area!

mthreat

iTrader: (16)

+1, that chart makes it very easy to see the difference between the oils at a glance.

I think it's important to note that some of these oils only have a few data points (I think Resolute pointed this out) - for example, the Torco SR-1 only has 1 report, and this is on a newly-built engine (mine). So I wouldn't consider that data point as accurate as, say, Mobil1 or Castrol, where there are lots of reports. The data is still valid (and very useful), just don't mis-interpret it.

Why can't Blackstone labs publish this data? I guess they only know what their customers tell them, so it could be "sabotaged", but still, it would be cool.

Resolute

iTrader: (2)

LOL, your Torco sample wasn't factored into the universal average or SD for the samples. I only use UOA results from healthy, stock engines which are past break-in. I just through your sample in the mix because it stood so far out form the normal values, and posted it only here for you to see and compare. Like I said, when the chart goes on the first page, along with some other graphs and data, your Torco sample will be removed.

It would be nice to have more samples from some of these oils. The problem is, formulas change by the time I have several of one type. I used to have 9 samples of Amsoil TSO 0W-30, and then Amsoil discontinued it for the newer SSO. I put a few of the older formulas in a small table just for reference, but I think I'll take that out when I post the information on the first page. It might confuse people.

Will

CaliSilvZ

iTrader: (2)

Which one of the castrol's is the German castrol synthetic? the 0w-30 one?

found the info i needed.

Resolute

iTrader: (2)

There has been some confusion on the chart I made. The values for average wear and the SD from this average wear per 1000 miles have been made from all the oil analysis results collected so far. However, I did not find these values based on individual results. First, that would have taken even more time to create, and second, it makes sense to normalize the data.

The mean and SD have been calculated from the average result of every type of blend collected so far. This reduces weighting of oils which had multiple samples. There are a number of oils, the UOA's of which are in this thread, that are no longer in production and are therefore not on this chart. Some of the UOA results include the older formulas of RP 5W-30 and Amsoil 0W-30 reported in the small chart of older oils for comparison, plus UOA averages from these other blends: Mobil conventional 5W-30, Pennzoil conventional 5W-30 and 10W-30, the older TriSyn M1 5W-30 ad 10W-30, the older PAO and Ester based Pennzoil platinum 5W-30, Quaker State conventional 5W-30, Quaker "Advanced" Synthetic 5W-30 (not certain if it really is different from the Q-Horsepower they sell now or if it was just a name change), and older Valvoline SynPower 5W-30.

The key is, the mean and SD have been taken from normalized values for each blend, ie the average wear for each wear metal per 1000 miles of reported use according to each blend. All the data together is 7 sheets, and when I get around to updating the first page with more information, I might attach them all for reference. The only problem is, not many people would really be able to understand which oil are current and which are older formulations. Manufacturers update constantly to meet new specs and market demands, and this makes keeping the UOA list updated a pain.

Will

edit: also have four samples from the older GC green formula in the mix for mean and SD. Also, to be clear, mthreat's Torco sample is not figured into the data, nor is his UOA to be fairly compared. All the UOA's that I've kept have been from stock-block, non-FI engines past break-in and without mechanical issue such as coolant leaks or fuel dilution in the sample. His numbers will not be in the final chart for reference on the first page, and were only included to help explain why I said his UOA was the worst I had ever seen from a VQ, albeit a built one which sees extensive track use.

SteveZ

iTrader: (3)

Great work, Will. Am I reading this correctly? The Standard Deviation approaches 50% of the average (or mean, I am not quite sure) for many of the measured materials.

Whenever I see a SD that high for a data set, it usually indicates some wide variability in the results. I run the Rotella 5W-40 in my VQ, with those chromium and iron results I am glad I switched from M1 5W-30 last year, there's no avoiding the conclusion that it's probably not the best choice for the motor.

Nice work, I'd love to see the full spreadsheet. I think taking the normalized values acros each blend per 1000 miles (so long as no one or not many exceeded their change interval significantly, which could skew things) and factoring that into your average and SD really shows the "spread" is very significant. Did you throw out any high/low "out of bounds" data? Thinking that would help eliminate extraordinary circumstances given the size of the total data set.

Thanks again!

Resolute

iTrader: (2)

Hi there, thanks for the kind words. Yes, the SD approaches 50% of the mean, which shows how wide the variability is. The distribution isn't perfectly Gaussian so the statistical probability function doesn't associate 68% of the data within one SD of the mean. As you pointed out, about half the values fall outside the mean as either better or worse, which explains why about half the samples reported on the chart are green or red for one element or another. I didn't throw out any outliers, either.

Taking all the raw samples per 1000 miles would have been more work, not to mention statistically skewing the results based on the oil blends which had the most number of samples. Normalizing the difference to each blend was both easier to calculate given the way my spreadsheets are laid out, and more statistically accurate.

As far as oil change intervals- it's all over the map. The shortest would be mthreat's if it was calculated into the mix, the longest is Amsoil ASL for almost 12k miles. Is that an issue? It's debatable, like everything else in this thread. It is interesting to note that if I plot Fe wear as a function of time, the regression line reveals an inverse relationship. Oils changed out in shorter time intervals have higher Fe wear per 1000mi of use than those used for longer intervals. I will plot out and see if there is a distinguishable trend with Pb as well, and I imagine it will show a positive correlation. What is also interesting, is that almost all the samples from different engines (using the same blend) have the same wear rates when normalized to their respective mileage.

Actually, that has been one relative constant for this collection. Engine oil isn't as sensitive to outside factors as many people think. Consider Shushikary's engine in Denver, CO and Brad, who.. doesn't live in Colorado. (His UOA doesn't state where he lives and I don't feel like digging around to see where I found it to check if there is a location to the user name.) Two VQ35DE engines both using SSO. The wear rates, when adjusted for mileage, are identical for some metals, and within one SD for all of them. Same for Shushikary's UOA with Schaeffer's and another UOA for Schaeffer's from a G35 in CA, the results were identical for most of the metals, and nothing close to being outside the SD. My own M1 0W-40 and Nederlander's UOA with M1 0W-40, etc... The conditions within the engine at operating temperature are very nearly the same for all the stock engines (with the same build clearances and materials) regardless of where the owner lives (outside temps only have an effect on oil viscosity at start-up). The variability can come from driver differences, but even this doesn't show strong correlation when you consider how similar the UOA results are for the same blend regardless of the driver, since no two drivers are ever taking the same commute and follow the same driving habits. More than likely, the numerous OEM and API tests have made modern oils very robust and not sensitive to degrade noticeably from differences in driving pattern. I used my M1 0W-40 for three track days and the sample still came out looking about the same as Nederlander's UOA which was used for commuting.

I think most of the variability comes from the oil. Not all of it, but most. Hence, my only concern isn't for the raw numbers of engine wear from different blends, but to notice trends. Even if one oil from your own engine has a UOA which is outside the average for that blend, the best bet is that switching to an oil which has better performance in everyone else's engine will do the same for you. Shushikary switched to SSO and Schaeffer's because their average result was better than what his own engine was with Motul. His results were, as I stated, right in line with the average for that oil- but more importantly it improved. When QuadCam did the same, his own UOA also improved. When I switched to Rotella based on the average UOA's being better than M1, my UAO with Rotella improved over what it was with M1. I think identifying trends is what we should be looking for, rather than the raw numbers themselves. The SAE papers I quoted on the first page happen to be in agreement.

Will

SteveZ

iTrader: (3)

Couldn't agree more, the trend is much more important than the magnitude of raw values. Two very interesting points you raise:

1) Shorter change interval showing higher Fe and Pb, that's counterintuitive unless there is a factor like new motor or first change at work, outside my depth there, but that's unexpected to me at least.

2) It's really a statement of consistency that same blends in the same approximate timeframe (to eliminate any reformulation) shows such strong trend correlation. It's the oil, the miles (not so much time since these cars don't sit 6 months a year), and given the same motor, the results are predictable and repeatable. That makes the trends very solid interpretations to me.

It also suggests that it doesn't matter a whole lot where you live or how you drive, people should get about the same results using the same blend for the same miles in the VQ35.

A single UOA in isolation is nice and can show some interesting things and potential trouble, but when you look at the UOA's for the same motor type over time by oil blend and get these strong correlations, that tells me the nth UOA using the same blend will be pretty close. This really distills 30+ pages of discussion down to some conclusions which I'd have high confidence in and are demonstrably repeatable.

I find it ironic that people swear by specific oil brands across all car and motor types, when if you've shown one thing that's not really very debatable, it is possible to pin down trends within reasonable assumptions on a per motor type basis. Do the same for equal number of SR20DE's UOA's for example, IDK that the results would trend the same - maybe, maybe not, but a person really can't say "best" w/o bringing the motor type into the context.

Great stuff, thanks again

Resolute

iTrader: (2)

For those who might find this stuff interesting, here is a post I made over in the 370Z forum in regard to the special Nissan ester oil:

I tried posting this over at my350z.com, but it would only post the first paragraph or two, even in a second post. So, hopefully you'll see this here. Sorry for somewhat OT guys, but maybe everyone will find this a bit interesting:

The valve clatter issue was present on the G37 as well, which also uses the VQ37VHR engine. The VQ37VHR uses Nissan's patented hydrogen-free DLC. What's being postulated is that an ester-based hydrocarbon is needed to quiet the valve train because of the H-free DLC found on the bucket face of these engines.

Where I get confused is looking at the VQ35HR, which also uses Nissan's patented H-free DLC coating on the bucket faces, but doesn't share the valve clatter complaint with the VQ37VHR. So why is the H-free DLC now the culprit for valve clatter?

Looking at the two engines, and the complaint singularly associated with just one of them, I find it hard to believe that the common DLC coating is the culprit rather than the unique VVEL mechanism found in the VQ37VHR. Further, I find it hard to believe that using an ester base oil is the solution, based simply on an ester's polar affinity, when there are a good number of other hydroxyl compounds used in engine oil with similar hydrophillic properties. This becomes especially curious when examining the patent for Nissan's ester oil, which is not an ester-based product, but does have a unique ingredient I have not seen in an oil formulation before.

Looking at Nissan's patent for this new oil, we can see the use of an ester additive. Quote:
Ester additives are often favored for their natural polar affinity, but also for their solvency, high viscosity index, and high-temperature/high-shear stability. They also react with water and are therefore hydrolytically unstable, a natural drawback to their hydroxyl construction. Thus, the use of ester is required to be minimized to a proportion beneficial for its solvency, rather than its lubricity. Quote:
Also, just to be clear, most ester additives are not the same as the diester and polyolester (POE) base oils used in oils like Motul or Redline. Fatty-acid ester additives are often variants of trimethylol propane C8/C10, known as TMP esters. The base oil used by Nissan in its testing of this new formulation was actually a polyalphaolefin, or PAO. The oil can be synthetic or conventional based, however. Quote:
The key for the base oil is that it not exceed 15% aromatic content, so that oxidative stability is maintained. PAO has excellent oxidation resistance due to its fully-saturated nature. Fully-saturated hydrocarbons like PAO are also very thermolytically stable for this reason, and for the same reason, are very poor solvents. The use of a conventional base oil with a fatty-acid ester additive is described as a potential alternative when a solvent-refined conventional oil additive is also included. Quote:
Now, whether PAO or conventional based, the whole point of the paper has been centered around the use of several solvent and carrier additive possibilities such as TMP esters which can adequately suspend and diffuse a nanoparticle lubricant. Nanoparticles such as organomolybdenum compounds have been in use for many years as an engine oil aditive. The most common are molybdenum dithiocarbamate (MoDTC) and molybdenum dithiophosphate (MoDTP). Zinc dithiophosphate (ZDDP) is also very well known, although there have been inconclusive studies to suggest phosphorus is detrimental to modern catalytic converter life expectancy, and so it's use is declining. In addition, low SAPS oil restricts ZDDP and Molybdenum Disulfide use in order to reduce ash. AntimonyDTC is another common, albeit expensive, nanoparticle. Nissan's patent addresses a nanoparticle which is ashless, durable, presents no issue to modern catalysts, and exhibits a low friction coefficient- diamonds, or rough chemical equivalents at least. Quote:
H-free DLC is a potential nanoparticle base, and guess who owns the patent on the world's first hydrogen-free diamond like compound? Nissan. I think Nissan has figured out how to make their H-free DLC into an additive which needs a good solvent to help adhere it to surfaces. Quote:
Ester base oils and ester additives are nothing new and not special. They have drawbacks of their own when used as engine oils. H-free DLC is new, is worth a couple of patents, and is expensive. I think this is what we are getting with Nissan's "special" ester oil.

Consider the overall mechanism of the VVEL system, and it becomes clear that while it is a good bit simpler than BMW's Valvetronic design, it is still a rather complex system with unique lubrication needs. The HR uses DLC buckets without the valve clatter, so why would the DLC buckets be the issue on the VHR engines only? The VVEL system, however, is unique to the VHR and would no doubt require special lubrication needs in order to maintain the design specifications. Even BMW's systems don't rev to 7500 rpm and have the overall lift offered by VVEL. This is a well-engineered valvetrain with, arguably, extreme forces present when one considers the amount and array of reciprocating and oscillating masses involved. It makes sense that Nissan would desire a special surface additive to extend the life of this mechanism when other oils may fail to protect these surfaces as the lubricant overheats and moves from elastohydrodynamic lubrication to boundary lubrication. This nanoparticle additive would potentially offer the surface protection needed under such duress.

Just my thoughts.

Will

SteveZ

iTrader: (3)

What really impressed me was the H-free DLC is claimed to reduce friction from valve to lifter "by 40% in a lubricated environment" when the patent was announced. I thought this coating only initially went into models built in Tochigi, i.e. G37 and new G35 Sedan (VQ35HR). It's possible the coating took a bum rap because of association with specific models, and isn't likely the culprit. IDK if the heads share valve geometry and the +200cc comes from increased bore only, but that could be another potential source of "clatter". More likely that will all 4 cams capable of variable lift and duration, they've added enough moving parts that it's possible they just doubled the audible "valve noise" over the old intake-only setup. That's a lot of additional moving parts.

Interesting question, not so OT to me, people with these motors may have significant choices to make if Nissan sticks to its strong recommendation for use of its own blend, which sells anywhere from a low of $12 to a high of $17 per quart, from what I've heard.

Such a requirement may clearly be baseless, but the potential loss of warranty coverage for 370Z or G37 owners under valvetrain failure is probably going to be enough to scare folks into staying the course with a highly profitable dealer-only item. I haven't seen anything stating it is a requirement.

On the other hand, I have seen numerous posts with G37 owners taking a car in for oil change and the noises were gone post-change with the "special" Nissan oil. Of course I have to take that with a grain of salt since one owner misidentified the normal cooling contraction noises of the heat shields, etc. with the motor off as "valve noise"...

Nissan is probably smart in that they don't want people going out and putting any oil off the shelf into the cars knowing the lack of specific compounds will not properly protect the valvetrain from wear. At a minimum they're hedging their bets, which is smart given the complexity of the drivetrain and the load placed upon it, things could get ugly quickly on the warranty repair/replacement side.

Just look back to 2002/2003 and all the discussions about which oil to use on "my new 350Z", and how many people basically said "whatever filter and oil are on sale" when it came time to change Mine were free with the car for as long as I owned it, but when I found the dealer was using a basic Pennzoil bulk Dino juice and 7500 mile intervals, I went to doing all my own!

ZeeForce

Hey Will, it’s been a while since I posted up a UOA here. An update, both the freshly built 06 MT was sold along with the 05 MT. The 06 had 22k miles on the engine and it still had not seated completely, although the last UOA had the best ever results.

We are now sporting two new 370Z's. Did the quick flushes at 35mi, 500mi, 1800mi, now they are on a full OCI. Running PP 5w-30. Service mgr said Nissan (like SteveZ pointed out) is not insisting on using their oil (got a special price for 9.00 qrt) and he was interested in my findings on an alternate oil to use with the valve clatter. Currently the PP 5w-30 is NOT clattering.

It will be awhile before I get a UOA, but looking forward to the first test results. Will post up when available.

btw: Great write up on the 370Z and Nissan's ester oil.

Curtis

06CPV35

Here is a link to Nissan's patent application for that 'Nanoparticle' additive:
https://publications.european-patent...=1980609&ki=A1

Lots to read and believe the patent was denied (as being to increase fuel efficiency as the patent objective), but this application was back in April 2005.

Never-the-less it explains a lot about the nano additive and why I posted if anyone is interested.

Most current revised TSB (ITB08-028a) on the G37's states...
IF YOU CONFIRM:
A slight ticking / tapping / knocking noise coming from the bank 2 (driver side) VVEL (Variable Valve Event & Lift) actuator,...

They say use the Nissan's ester oil.
TSB pdf file too big to upload here, I tried to include.

-edit- and adding...
TSB also says reprogram EMC. There's the issue more so than needing ester oil, when the HR doesn't and is using the same bucket design imho.

Just about at 5K mi on SynPower 5w-30 with my revup DE. Will post my UOA here once received.

ZeeForce

^Thanks for the link, it was way over my head on trying to keep up with it. Still could make for some interesting discussions with the oil guys.

Thanks for the em with the TSB. I will try to resize the pdf file to a smaller file size for posting.

No pesky lil "ticks" coming from either on my 370Z's. I would like to see some UOA's on Nissan's ester oil and compared to other oils like PP 5w-30.

Curtis

mthreat

iTrader: (16)

I just got back an analysis report. This is my 2nd one, the first one was for Torco SR-1 10W30, posted previously: https://my350z.com/forum/engine-and-...ml#post7122950

This one is for Mobil1 0W-40. The engine is a rebuilt VQ35DE with 4300 miles on it. The mileage and driving style are similar to my previous analysis - 1200 miles and a few track days on it plus spirited street driving. Comments are of welcome as always. The results for this test are in the far left column dated 4/22/09, and you can compare to the previous test (Torco oil) in the 3rd column dated 3/18/09.

klaze1

im running German Castrol 0w-30 on my HR and the oil PSI idles above 30, and sky rockets when I gas it, is that normal?