Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Wednesday November 13, 2019
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC Technical > Service & Maintenance

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.







* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. 
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads. 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-23-2014, 11:30 PM   #251
dirtroadjunkie
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 399247
Join Date: Aug 2014
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Dixie
Vehicle:
2016 WRX

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XtremeRevolution View Post
I'm the aforementioned dealer quantum13 referred to. Figured I'd jump into this discussion since I've been helping him out interpreting his analysis results.
God how I wish you were my dealer. Kudos for your participation here.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
dirtroadjunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Old 12-24-2014, 12:40 AM   #252
XtremeRevolution
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 409238
Join Date: Dec 2014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dirtroadjunkie View Post
God how I wish you were my dealer. Kudos for your participation here.
Haha, I'm not even his dealer, just helping out for the benefit of the community, but thank you.
XtremeRevolution is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2014, 03:01 PM   #253
bluesubie
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 767
Join Date: Jan 2000
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: N.J.
Vehicle:
04 FXT

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XtremeRevolution View Post
I'm the aforementioned dealer quantum13 referred to. Figured I'd jump into this discussion since I've been helping him out interpreting his analysis results.

This is not the first time Blackstone has failed to report fuel dilution. On the Cruze forum, we've tested the Diesel oils on the 2.0T and OAI found fuel dilution while Blackstone did not. It is problematic when analyzing oil as it can lead us to make poor recommendations. Blackstone's result may lead one to believe that the oil sheared when in fact it thinned from fuel dilution. I would not assume that Blackstone would over-estimate fuel dilution given what I have seen in the past and what you just saw here.

Fuel will not all burn off, be it gasoline or diesel. I've seen this behavior in the Cruze 1.4T as well, although in the case I'm thinking of, the owner idled for several hours at a time sleeping in his car as a courier. I doubt that is the case here.

It doesn't help anything that this is a new engine, and one that is reporting catastrophic failures at low mileage. Perhaps this analysis might clue one into its causes, but it is very unusual for an analysis company to make as blundering a mistake as to completely miss significant deviations from the virgin formulation of the oil. All one can do at this point is speculate. This is another reason why I always recommend that people take oil analysis results as a trend.

I know XL reformulated in the last few years, so comparison points to their old formulation will be irrelevant. I haven't found many oil analysis reports because frankly, 99% of my customers use signature series or another one of our 12+ TBN oils. OE exists to compete with the DIFM (do it for me) market against Mobil 1, Kendall GT-1, and other group 3 synthetics. XL exists as a premium alternative in the DIFM market or to ease customers into the 15,000 mile oil drains offered by the SS oils. As such, oil analysis reference points will be hard to come by.

Food for thought. This is not the first time I've seen elevated Zinc levels in an FA20, especially at low mileage. Zinc is an alloying element for bearings and thrust washers. It is alloyed with copper to make brass so it is not unheard of to find it as a wear metal. Is there any brass at all in the FA20? Turbo perhaps? Cooler lines? Bushings?

This is still too low of a mileage oil analysis to be truly meaningful as wear metals are still showing up. If you see a downward trending (but still unusually high) wear metal content as noted, you'll know why. I expected this entire analysis to look odd and noted before he sent it in.

I also recommended HDD. I hadn't expected to recommend one of our 40 weight oils simply because I didn't expect the oil to shear. The discussion around Signature Series existed simply as a far more shear stable alternative, as it was previously thought the entirety of the OE oil's thinning was caused by shearing. A reciprocating crank under boost with hard launches at low RPMs (which our friend has acknowledged to doing often) will certainly be a recipe for sheared oil.

I'll be able to to comment further on the next oil analysis. I appreciate your input in helping my friend understand his oil analysis. I think we've all learned something here.

I've never heard of ZDDP being wear. Even if it is, how do you explain the calcium and magnesium which do not appear to be in line with XL? I would contact the Amsoil technical line.

If the HTHS is below 3.5 chances are very good that the oil will not be shear stable in a Subaru turbo. It might be, but why take a chance on a modified WRX?

-Dennis
bluesubie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2014, 04:50 PM   #254
Uncle Scotty
*** Banned ***
 
Member#: 16200
Join Date: Mar 2002
Vehicle:
OK buy Nates beans
westcoastroasting.com

Default

amzoil is the OTHER kiddie foo-f00 oil....RP is the KINK foo-f00 oil
Uncle Scotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2014, 05:03 PM   #255
Celery GT-5
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 98210
Join Date: Oct 2005
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Upstate NY
Vehicle:
2016 Forester XT CWP
2002 WRX SRP 2016 Sienna

Default

I'm using Subaru foo-f00Widontgiveafuk with an OEM honeyf00f00 blue filter
Celery GT-5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2014, 07:14 PM   #256
bluesubie
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 767
Join Date: Jan 2000
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: N.J.
Vehicle:
04 FXT

Default

Here's an Amsoil XL 5W-30 voa.

Calcium 3681
Magnesium 14
Boron 229
Moly 152
Phosphorus 696
Zinc 822

And quantum13's uoa:

Ca 763
Mg 1126
B 19
Mo 43
P 949
Zn 1161

Even if there was some kind of severe wear, you put anti-freeze in the oil or someone peed in the oil, the additive levels in the uoa would not have been as affected as they were. Wear metals and contaminant metals yes; additive levels no. This is not a uoa on Amsoil XL kiddie f00-f00 juice.

-Dennis
bluesubie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2014, 07:22 PM   #257
Celery GT-5
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 98210
Join Date: Oct 2005
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Upstate NY
Vehicle:
2016 Forester XT CWP
2002 WRX SRP 2016 Sienna

Default

its probably not the kiddie f00 f00 juice itself
Celery GT-5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 01:18 AM   #258
quantum13
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 389143
Join Date: Apr 2014
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: DFW TEXAS
Vehicle:
2015 WRX Limited
DGM

Default

Dennis, based on your feedback and that of XtremeRevolution, i am going to try either the HDD or DEO after I finish up with this last bit of XL. What are your thoughts on deciding between the two? it seems that HDD is a bit thinner and has more additives but is slightly more expensive than DEO. HDD seems a better choice and has a history of good UOAs in Subaru engines but since it's designed to an older spec for pre-2007 diesel motors, should i be concerned about any of the additives causing issues with the catalyst?
quantum13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 02:29 AM   #259
XtremeRevolution
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 409238
Join Date: Dec 2014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesubie View Post
I've never heard of ZDDP being wear. Even if it is, how do you explain the calcium and magnesium which do not appear to be in line with XL? I would contact the Amsoil technical line.

If the HTHS is below 3.5 chances are very good that the oil will not be shear stable in a Subaru turbo. It might be, but why take a chance on a modified WRX?

-Dennis
I never stated that ZDDP was wear. I stated that ZDDP is not the only source of Zinc and that the analysis should be observed as a trend. I also stated that similar (but not to the same extent) numbers have popped up on other FA20 oil analysis reports. That said, I realize that phosphorous is also higher, and the fact that both are the primary elements found in ZDDP is not supporting my possible explanation. I'm just throwing out possibilities. As for shear stability, do not confuse dynamic with absolute viscosity. While high temperature shear stability may be lower than preferred in a boosted boxer motor, we also have reason to be concerned with the absolute viscosity, which reflects an oil's permanent shearing.

The absolute shear stability of a petroleum based group 3 oil, according to the analysis reports I've seen, is far worse than that of a PAO/Ester blend regardless of brand name. As a result, between XL and Signature Series is far more of a difference than just high temperature shear stability, which is minimal. I don't want to derail this thread with discussions revolving base stock formulation as that's not what I came here to do. I personally beleive that it is a disservice to focus heavily on HTHS while completely ignoring base stock formulation.

A petroleum based group 3 "synthetic" oils's heavy reliance on VI improver additives is heavily susceptible to shearing, which typically does not take very long as evidenced by the OE oil's shearing by ~2k miles. I deal with this issue on a regular basis with customers that complain of valvetrain noise just 1k-2k miles following an oil change with a variety of group 3 options found on a Walmart store shelf. Not surprisingly, a drop in oil pressure is also reported.

I am infinitely more concerned with the absolute shear stability of the oil than I am with the dynamic high temperature shear stability of the oil, as the latter will be directly affected by the former and will be accompanied by a loss of film strength and drop in oil pressure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesubie View Post
Here's an Amsoil XL 5W-30 voa.

Calcium 3681
Magnesium 14
Boron 229
Moly 152
Phosphorus 696
Zinc 822

And quantum13's uoa:

Ca 763
Mg 1126
B 19
Mo 43
P 949
Zn 1161

Even if there was some kind of severe wear, you put anti-freeze in the oil or someone peed in the oil, the additive levels in the uoa would not have been as affected as they were. Wear metals and contaminant metals yes; additive levels no. This is not a uoa on Amsoil XL kiddie f00-f00 juice.

-Dennis
That VOA is for AMSOIL Signature Series. I didn't even have to click the link; I knew what oil that was. The subject line specifically states "VOA Amsoil ASL 5W/30 Signature Series."

I did not waste my breath when I pointed out that oil analysis for AMSOIL XL is not easy to find, let alone for the more recent formulation. It is not a frequently analyzed engine oil.

The scientifically correct action would be to take another analysis of AMSOIL XL at the same interval. Unfortunately, since this is the first UOA immediately following the OE oil, the UOA has little actual value beyond ensuring that no critical wear occurred and that the oil's absolute viscosity did not shear.

I'll contact OAI and AMSOIL Technical Services to see what they have to say about the values in question and will report back once I have some answers.

To be honest with you, if I didn't know any better, I would have thought that UOA came from Rotella T6. I want answers just as much as everyone else does.

Last edited by XtremeRevolution; 12-26-2014 at 03:06 AM.
XtremeRevolution is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 02:39 AM   #260
XtremeRevolution
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 409238
Join Date: Dec 2014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by quantum13 View Post
Dennis, based on your feedback and that of XtremeRevolution, i am going to try either the HDD or DEO after I finish up with this last bit of XL. What are your thoughts on deciding between the two? it seems that HDD is a bit thinner and has more additives but is slightly more expensive than DEO. HDD seems a better choice and has a history of good UOAs in Subaru engines but since it's designed to an older spec for pre-2007 diesel motors, should i be concerned about any of the additives causing issues with the catalyst?
The concern with catalytic converter damage comes out of testing done by the EPA in the mid 90s. The issue here is with phosphorous found in ZDDP. When used in high quantities with oils that have a high NOACK volatility, a high rate of oil consumption was observed. It is my understanding that they tested unusually high levels of ZDDP with a group 1 based mineral oil with a high volatility (rememeber, this was API SG through SH). As a result of that high oil consumption, a high amount of phosphorous would be sent through a catalytic converter.

In all reality, a low volatility engine oil with a high ZDDP content will cause less catalytic converter damage than a higher volatility API SN certified oil will.

An API SN certified oil will have about 700ppm of phosphorous, while you'll find 1107ppm in AMSOIL HDD. The levels are in fact higher, but it's not like API SN certified oils have no phosphorous at all. If the oil doesn't get into the catalytic converter, you don't have a problem.

That being said, how much oil does your engine consume in 3,000 miles, and how much of that consumption is due to the volatility of the oil? I'll comment more on this privately.
XtremeRevolution is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 04:09 AM   #261
Uncle Scotty
*** Banned ***
 
Member#: 16200
Join Date: Mar 2002
Vehicle:
OK buy Nates beans
westcoastroasting.com

Default

the issue I have with these boutique oils---the PAO/ester based ones in particular--- is that they can not be run to their logical OCI---usually15,000 miles., but some 'claim' 25,000 miles... in the turbo ej engines to make them even remotely cost effective.

some have tried and blown their **** sky high.....I guess the oil didn't quite make it

the only REAL benefit of ANY 'synthetic' oil is extended oil change interval without degradation of the oil and its properties....usually called 'shear' or 'breakdown'.
If you do not or can not, for whatever reason, run these oils to their logical extended OCI, their benefit is.....nothing, really.

many of us have run oils like the T6 to 8k mile oci's without any serious shear or TBN reduction to the point of them being 'dangerous', and there are many who have run modded ej motors past(and WAY past) 200k miles with great results using these 'inferior' group III oils

I run several of these inferior oils---usually whichever is cheap at the time... to 7K and 8k mile oci's at 100F+ ambient temps with ac running and with the car at gross and at 80+mph for hours and hours and in stop and go traffic.... and have only seldom added 1/2qt make up oil

and I spend $35-$40ish on an oil change if I don't get a good deal on oil.

The MOST laughable thing I see is these 'boutique' oil users dumping their $60(or MORE ) oil ever 3k miles because they are ****ing brain dead

and I could go on for days here on this....but, in the end.....

you cant fix stupid.....and stupid people are going to continue to believe the hype that some companies foster in people to buy their products and waste them....so they spend more money and the wrong money on things that they have exactly ZERO understanding of.

but that's how the rich stay rich and the idiots stay....that way

Last edited by Uncle Scotty; 12-26-2014 at 04:19 AM.
Uncle Scotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 10:25 AM   #262
quantum13
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 389143
Join Date: Apr 2014
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: DFW TEXAS
Vehicle:
2015 WRX Limited
DGM

Default

I have to agree that the situation with my UOA is bizarre. I'm going to pull a sample from my car here in another 500 miles or so. I'm wondering if my sample got mixed up because something definitely does seem odd. In any case, from further research, it does seem that running an RC oil is just not the best plan and that fuel in the oil is not uncommon with those thinner oils. There is a reason there aren't a lot of UOAs out there for XL. Definitely going to be stepping up to something better. One very positive side effect that this experience has given me is that the idea of running T6 seems a lot less odd me in that I'm basically looking at doing something very similar (with amsoil's version anyway). I always wondered why people did that...I guess you could say I get it now.

Sent from my SM-T700 using NASIOC mobile app
quantum13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 01:09 PM   #263
XtremeRevolution
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 409238
Join Date: Dec 2014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Scotty View Post
the issue I have with these boutique oils---the PAO/ester based ones in particular--- is that they can not be run to their logical OCI---usually15,000 miles., but some 'claim' 25,000 miles... in the turbo ej engines to make them even remotely cost effective.

some have tried and blown their **** sky high.....I guess the oil didn't quite make it

the only REAL benefit of ANY 'synthetic' oil is extended oil change interval without degradation of the oil and its properties....usually called 'shear' or 'breakdown'.
If you do not or can not, for whatever reason, run these oils to their logical extended OCI, their benefit is.....nothing, really.

many of us have run oils like the T6 to 8k mile oci's without any serious shear or TBN reduction to the point of them being 'dangerous', and there are many who have run modded ej motors past(and WAY past) 200k miles with great results using these 'inferior' group III oils

I run several of these inferior oils---usually whichever is cheap at the time... to 7K and 8k mile oci's at 100F+ ambient temps with ac running and with the car at gross and at 80+mph for hours and hours and in stop and go traffic.... and have only seldom added 1/2qt make up oil

and I spend $35-$40ish on an oil change if I don't get a good deal on oil.

The MOST laughable thing I see is these 'boutique' oil users dumping their $60(or MORE ) oil ever 3k miles because they are ****ing brain dead

and I could go on for days here on this....but, in the end.....

you cant fix stupid.....and stupid people are going to continue to believe the hype that some companies foster in people to buy their products and waste them....so they spend more money and the wrong money on things that they have exactly ZERO understanding of.

but that's how the rich stay rich and the idiots stay....that way
Again, I apologize for the length of my posts. Typing 135-145 words per minute tends to do that.

You really can't fix stupid, and I really hate to say this, but some AMSOIL dealers are SO zealous if not blatantly greedy that they will make these guarantees simply to make a sale. As you can see, I am not advertising product here nor is quantum my customer. He just happens to use AMSOIL and I offered my assistance.

Some companies are more responsible than others when it comes to customer support and drain intervals. AMSOIL for example does advertise 15k under severe service or 25k under normal service BUT makes their recommendations contingent on you being sensible enough to follow their product guide. If you follow that product guide, you will see, in red letters, a TSB at the top stating:

"Subaru has published Service Bulletin # 02-103-07 that identifies a factory design related problem with premature clogging of the oil mesh screen located inside the oiling system that supplies the turbo charger on all model turbo charged cars. A clogged screen will result in oil starvation and turbo charger failure. Subaru has since published Service Bulletin #02-110-10R indicating that 2010 MY and prior turbocharged engines continue to require oil and filter change intervals of 3,750 miles (6,000 km) or 3 3/4 months, while all 2011 MY turbocharged engines have returned to the original requirement of 7,500 miles (12,000 km) or 7 1/2 months, and they are required to use synthetic oil. Due to the issues outlined in this document, AMSOIL recommends following Subaru drain interval recommendations."

I cannot speak for other oils despite the fact that I frequently recommend them. Motul 300V comes to mind.

I'm not doubting other oils cannot exceed the recommended drains. However, if you'd like to discuss specific AMSOIL products, I don't mind taking a look at some examples/instances. If you can exceed the oil drain interval on an analytically inferior group 3 base stock, you've all but acknowledged the same can be done to a greater extent with a PAO/Ester based oil.

As for "boutique" oils (remember, all synthetics were at some point "botique" - we were selling AMSOIL for $6 a quart when conventional was $0.59...swallow that one if you can), there are other benefits to synthetic lubricants beyond their ability to neutralize acidity for long drain intervals. This is not intended as a jab to you, but the "you can't fix stupid" line also applies to the public perception of "boutique" oils as people think there's nothing else to it but a drain interval.

Among the benefits of PAO/Ester synthetic base oils are (with a few exceptions),

- better wear protection through a higher film strength and absolute shear stability - validated through trending oil analysis
- Lower volatility resulting in a lower rate of oil consumption, resulting in a lower rate of valve/piston deposit formation, resulting in lower formation of hot spots, reducing knock, improving valve cooling, etc. etc. you know where I'm going with this. Given that this is a DI motor, an effort to reduce valve deposits is worthwhile as there is no fuel to clean them.
- Reduction in component temperature, including engine and turbo, through superior thermal transfer ability and improved traction coefficient (reduced friction - also affecting fuel economy, albeit minimally) of the base stock, not including the anti-friction additives typically found in these oils. I've personally seen this tested with an infrared thermometer.
- Oxidation (and thermo-oxidation) resistance, which is relevant given the TSB I posted above in red.

There's more to it, but the above highlights some benefits to a PAO/Ester synthetic in the absence of a 15,000 mile drain interval. As you can see, we have at least 3 REAL benefits to a PAO/Ester base stock, with a 4th that will depend on just how hard you drive your car and how far you take your drain interval.

Two notions I fundamentally disagree with are that ""boutique" oils do nothing but extend drain intervals," and "the measure of an oil is whether or not the engine suffers catastrophic failure." The latter may not be directly stated, but statements such as "many who have run modded ej motors past(and WAY past) 200k miles with great results" alludes to that thought process by hinting that as long as catastrophic failure did not occur, the oil performed "just fine." There are some AMSOIL dealers who will tell you that if you don't use their oils, your engine will blow up. I'm not one of those and I'll acknowledge that, if "still running" is your #1 concern, nearly any off the shelf group 3 oil will accomplish that at an OEM drain interval. Having said this, I feel obligated to point out that a friend of mine's roommate ran Motul 300V on a build bottom end 2015 Subaru (I don't recall if it was a WRX or STI) and suffered catastrophic failure at 3,000 miles due to a shoddy job on the builder's part with respect to bearing assembly. A boutique oil will not prevent catastrophic failure.

The question really boils down to, "are you willing to pay for those benefits?" Some people are, and it would be a disservice to discourage them from doing so simply because cheaper alternatives "will work." It may not make financial sense to you, and that's fine, because that becomes a subjective matter of preference. On a technical level, however, those benefits exist and to a high enough degree that they are worth noting. Remember, our friend here didn't buy a 2015 Subaru WRX because it would "just work." He had the option to buy a base Impreza, or a Ford Focus, or a Honda Civic, or a Toyota Corolla. Also remember, I gain absolutely nothing from his purchasing decisions.

You appear to be a knowledgeable and sensible enough person to understand that anecdotal evidence is a poor foundation on which to make a point, which is why I have avoided doing so. Sharing personal experience is fine until, in a technical thread, you use it to support a technical point. That alone is the #1 reason most lubrication related threads on every automotive circle I'm in go from discussions/debates to pissing matches. Moving on, if you went 7,000-8,000 miles on a petroleum based group 3 oil, why can't you go 15,000 miles on a PAO/Ester based oil? What metrics would you use to determine your oil change interval? TBN decay certainly cannot be used alone unless your critical point is 1.0 as proprietary detergent formulations vary wildly in rate of decay. That said, I do agree it is rather stupid to purchase a high end oil and drain it every 3,000 miles, unless you drive it like you stole it on e85 with a substantial mod list. Trust me, if I had a $30,000 car and $20,000 worth of modifications, I wouldn't be looking at the price of oil. I'd say "give me the best you've got." Some people want the benefits and don't mind paying for them.

I created a meme last night that you might enjoy in light of this thread:


Last edited by XtremeRevolution; 12-26-2014 at 02:17 PM.
XtremeRevolution is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 01:28 PM   #264
wiUFsh
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 296667
Join Date: Oct 2011
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: Eastern Connecticut
Vehicle:
2011 Forester 2.5X
Dark Grey Metallic

Default

That was a very well written and intelligent addition. Thank you.

Do you still agree that it's stupid to change out synthetic oil every 3,000 miles when other types of severe driving has occured such as short trips and a lot of idling in stop and go traffic?
wiUFsh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 01:43 PM   #265
XtremeRevolution
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 409238
Join Date: Dec 2014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiUFsh View Post
That was a very well written and intelligent addition. Thank you.

Do you still agree that it's stupid to change out synthetic oil every 3,000 miles when other types of severe driving has occured such as short trips and a lot of idling in stop and go traffic?
Generally speaking, yes. There are obviously exceptions. As the AMSOIL TSB may clue you in above, there are some applications where a ~3,000 mile oil change is still applicable, but they are isolated. I personally believe, with a few exceptions that I won't state publicly, that most synthetic oils are capable of beyond 3,000 miles in severe service conditions. I do, however, recommend oil analysis when exceeding OEM recommended drain intervals. As we saw from quantum's analysis, fuel dilution is a real problem.

When discussing drain intervals, the foundation of the 3,000 mile oil drain interval is chalked full of ignorance. When people insist that 3,000 miles is the most they would ever go, my question is always, "why?" Why 3,000 and not 2800 or 3200 or 2500 or 3500? Why not 2,000? What makes 3,000 the magical number? I've never received a logical answer to that question, because a 3,000 mile oil change in itself is illogical. Again, generally speaking, as there are exceptions. I'm also referring to broken-in engines.

Last edited by XtremeRevolution; 12-26-2014 at 02:34 PM.
XtremeRevolution is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 03:48 PM   #266
XtremeRevolution
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 409238
Join Date: Dec 2014
Default

I called and spoke to Oil Analyzer's Inc on quantum13's behalf using the lab number for that report. OAI will re-test the sample and he'll get an e-mail with the results Monday or Tuesday next week.
XtremeRevolution is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 06:25 PM   #267
Kinternet
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 408062
Join Date: Dec 2014
Default

So I'm sure I'll get flamed by someone for being a noob or not reading through the correct information and or threads regarding oil but to be honest I've read through several different threads, including every page of this one, and feel like I'm more confused and lost than when I started.

I currently own a 2015 wrx and now that I'm over the 1k mile mark have put on a mishimoto intake and than had a custom tune from brentuning which I loaded up with the Cobb accessport. So my concern here is using an oil that is going to protect my engine as much as possible with regards to the addition of the extra power I now have.

I'm not concerned with staying in line with factory specs as I've come to understand through reading these threads that the factory has gas mileage specs more in mind than using the best oil for the job, I think?! So I'm willing to use whatever oil would be best at protecting the engine under a greater load, whatever that may be. So flame away (Scotty?) if you'd like, but at least be polite enough to share which oil you think is best for a slightly modified and tuned vehicle.

I'll reiterate, I have read many threads, and looked at many of the oil analysis sheets that people posted, I'm just too uneducated on this as a whole to know what my best option would be. I see many people recommending certain brands, but this car is no longer stock so I don't know if that will make a change in any of the recommendations that have been posted already (Mobil 1 euro spec, which my local Porsche dealership didn't even know was a thing, or rotella t6 which a lot of people seem fond of, just to name a couple).

I value this forum and it's members and their respective opinions as I've learned a lot just from reading your guys posts and I would appreciate some civil discourse. Or unclescotty could just call me a kiddie and doooooooood me right out of here. Anyways, if anyone takes the time to offer their expertise and a little time, thank you ahead of time and I appreciate it. Hope everyone had a great Xmas.
Kinternet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 06:36 PM   #268
quantum13
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 389143
Join Date: Apr 2014
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: DFW TEXAS
Vehicle:
2015 WRX Limited
DGM

Default

you're lightly modded which puts you in the same boat as me. i wouldn't run a resource conserving oil (Subaru oil, AmsOil XL, most of what you get at AutoZone, etc), but you already know not to do that from reading through the threads. i would say to go with the oils that were recommended to me given that we're both running an AP and the regular 'girly man oil' (as Dennis would say) seems not to do a good job keeping fuel out of the oil. Rotella T6 seems to be popular for a reason, and would be an OK choice if you do your oil changes very regularly though for the reasons posted just above, i would tend to pass given the inferior base oil. I know some will disagree, but, like you - i want the best possible at a reasonable increase in cost. Like me, it sounds like you'd benefit from running something like AmsOil HDD or DEO (AmsOil's diesel oils - kind of like their version of T6), or perhaps Motul 300v (which i know little about but comes well recommended). There are other choices you'll find from reading the main oil threads as well. i will let Dennis and XtremeRevolution dispense the actual advice beyond that - i'm a long time Amsoil customer so that's sort of my comfort zone - there are other good choices. Also as said before - if you're going to change your oil every 3k miles, don't buy anything expensive. Get some T6 from WalMart and go to town! it's probably the best comparatively inexpensive oil you can get for the car - that or maybe Pennzoil Ultra Platinum based on what i've read but again - i stick with the true synthetic (and with mods maybe you should too) and will likely be switching to an AmsOil diesel oil. All that said, I think OP is trying to keep this a UOA thread and not a general advice thread but i'm not the OP nor am I a mod, so do with that info what you will - nobody else pays any attention to that anyway.

Last edited by quantum13; 12-26-2014 at 06:54 PM.
quantum13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 07:37 PM   #269
Kinternet
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 408062
Join Date: Dec 2014
Default

Just wanted to thank quantum for his feedback and apologize for posting this in the wrong thread. This is the for oil analysis, not giving feedback on the best oil for a slightly modded Rex. I'll delete my post if op or a mod wants. Sorry again guys and thanks quantum.
Kinternet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 09:34 PM   #270
bluesubie
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 767
Join Date: Jan 2000
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: N.J.
Vehicle:
04 FXT

Default 2015 WRX Used Oil Analysis Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by XtremeRevolution View Post
I never stated that ZDDP was wear. I stated that ZDDP is not the only source of Zinc and that the analysis should be observed as a trend. I also stated that similar (but not to the same extent) numbers have popped up on other FA20 oil analysis reports. That said, I realize that phosphorous is also higher, and the fact that both are the primary elements found in ZDDP is not supporting my possible explanation. I'm just throwing out possibilities. As for shear stability, do not confuse dynamic with absolute viscosity. While high temperature shear stability may be lower than preferred in a boosted boxer motor, we also have reason to be concerned with the absolute viscosity, which reflects an oil's permanent shearing.

The absolute shear stability of a petroleum based group 3 oil, according to the analysis reports I've seen, is far worse than that of a PAO/Ester blend regardless of brand name. As a result, between XL and Signature Series is far more of a difference than just high temperature shear stability, which is minimal. I don't want to derail this thread with discussions revolving base stock formulation as that's not what I came here to do. I personally beleive that it is a disservice to focus heavily on HTHS while completely ignoring base stock formulation.

A petroleum based group 3 "synthetic" oils's heavy reliance on VI improver additives is heavily susceptible to shearing, which typically does not take very long as evidenced by the OE oil's shearing by ~2k miles. I deal with this issue on a regular basis with customers that complain of valvetrain noise just 1k-2k miles following an oil change with a variety of group 3 options found on a Walmart store shelf. Not surprisingly, a drop in oil pressure is also reported.

I am infinitely more concerned with the absolute shear stability of the oil than I am with the dynamic high temperature shear stability of the oil, as the latter will be directly affected by the former and will be accompanied by a loss of film strength and drop in oil pressure.



That VOA is for AMSOIL Signature Series. I didn't even have to click the link; I knew what oil that was. The subject line specifically states "VOA Amsoil ASL 5W/30 Signature Series."

I did not waste my breath when I pointed out that oil analysis for AMSOIL XL is not easy to find, let alone for the more recent formulation. It is not a frequently analyzed engine oil.

The scientifically correct action would be to take another analysis of AMSOIL XL at the same interval. Unfortunately, since this is the first UOA immediately following the OE oil, the UOA has little actual value beyond ensuring that no critical wear occurred and that the oil's absolute viscosity did not shear.

I'll contact OAI and AMSOIL Technical Services to see what they have to say about the values in question and will report back once I have some answers.

To be honest with you, if I didn't know any better, I would have thought that UOA came from Rotella T6. I want answers just as much as everyone else does.

No time to read your "book", but thanks for pointing out that's a VOA on SS. Well we still know that zinc in that uoa is way too high to be XL since it's higher than GF5 allows. An HDEO is a good guess.

I have uoa's posted here and on BITOG and base stocks don't have as much of a link to shear stability as HTHS in my application (then again I pushed the interval on SS to 7,500+ miles). I've run SS twice and there are some on IWSTI posted by gathermewool. Of course, GTL's used by Shell now meet or beat PAO's in many areas but most companies these days use a combination of base stocks (III, IV and/or V) which kind of makes these discussions a moot point.

-Dennis


Sent from my iPad using NASIOC

Last edited by bluesubie; 12-27-2014 at 11:55 AM.
bluesubie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2014, 09:35 PM   #271
bluesubie
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 767
Join Date: Jan 2000
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: N.J.
Vehicle:
04 FXT

Default 2015 WRX Used Oil Analysis Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by quantum13 View Post
Dennis, based on your feedback and that of XtremeRevolution, i am going to try either the HDD or DEO after I finish up with this last bit of XL. What are your thoughts on deciding between the two? it seems that HDD is a bit thinner and has more additives but is slightly more expensive than DEO. HDD seems a better choice and has a history of good UOAs in Subaru engines but since it's designed to an older spec for pre-2007 diesel motors, should i be concerned about any of the additives causing issues with the catalyst?

Go with DEO.

Actually, scratch that. Until we know if carbon deposits are an issue in the new motor, it's probably best to stick with mid SAPS Euro 5W-40 AFL.

-Dennis


Sent from my iPad using NASIOC

Last edited by bluesubie; 12-27-2014 at 06:01 PM.
bluesubie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2014, 09:22 PM   #272
XtremeRevolution
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 409238
Join Date: Dec 2014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesubie View Post
No time to read your "book", but thanks for pointing out that's a VOA on SS. Well we still know that zinc in that uoa is way too high to be XL since it's higher than GF5 allows. An HDEO is a good guess.

I have uoa's posted here and on BITOG and base stocks don't have as much of a link to shear stability as HTHS in my application (then again I pushed the interval on SS to 7,500+ miles). I've run SS twice and there are some on IWSTI posted by gathermewool. Of course, GTL's used by Shell now meet or beat PAO's in many areas but most companies these days use a combination of base stocks (III, IV and/or V) which kind of makes these discussions a moot point.

-Dennis


Sent from my iPad using NASIOC
I presume you were using Blackstone like most people do? Didn't we demonstrate from this thread that their fuel dilution testing method is entirely unreliable, and a thinning of the oil can be attributed either to shearing or to fuel dilution? As I noted a few posts above, and will do so for a second time, this is not the first time I have seen Blackstone fail to report fuel dilution when OAI did.

On that note, when you tested SS, how did you guarantee that its "shearing" was not the cause of fuel dilution? Remember, this isn't the first time I've seen Blackstone labs fail to report fuel dilution, leading someone to believe the oil sheared when in reality then drop in viscosity was caused by fuel dilution.

I don't appreciate the jab in reference to the post I wrote. If you won't take the time to read it, don't bother replying. I won't shorten my posts so people aren't overwhelmed by their length. I chose my words carefully and chose to be thorough to reduce the need for further clarification.

As for base stock formulation, it is true that many oils are blended. What isn't true, however, is that group 3 oils regardless of processing methods meet that of good PAO/Ester blends. They still require significant quantities of VI improvers (thus raising volatility) to achieve any reasonable cold viscosity, their pour point is still poor compared to that of modern true synthetics, and their drain intervals are still limited by oxidation and shearing, just to name a few deficiencies. IIRC, the switch to Pennzoil's GTL base stock caused a spike in volatility in their "Ultra" oil from 6.6% (PQI America reported) to 11.5% (Shell reported). Quaker State Ultimate suffered a similar spike from 8.8% to 12.3%, which nears the performance of some "synthetic blend" oils. We can get into other metrics such as thermo-oxidation resistance and traction coefficient. I work with Camaro owners who always report a net oil temperature reduction switching from any variety of Group 3 oils to any variety of PAO/Ester blends. I'll end this base stock discussion with one final statement: you get what you pay for, and oil analysis is very limited in what it will show you. To keep this thread on-topic, I will not be responding publicly to any additional posts related to base stocks and will limit my replies to oil analysis-related discussions.

Demonstrate that your analysis showing AMSOIL SS (or any PAO/Ester blend for that matter) shearing was actually tested for fuel dilution and not speculated like Blackstone does, and I will stand corrected on the previous point. There is a reason why I advised that my friend use OAI instead of Blackstone.

Last edited by XtremeRevolution; 12-27-2014 at 09:43 PM.
XtremeRevolution is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2014, 04:03 AM   #273
Uncle Scotty
*** Banned ***
 
Member#: 16200
Join Date: Mar 2002
Vehicle:
OK buy Nates beans
westcoastroasting.com

Default

oh my god.....what the hell is with the wall of text here?

and jesus.....im NOT going to make any more replies here other than saying

idiots will buy idiot oil for idiot reasons

and there is no possible reason to buy PAO/ester based oils for ANY of these engines ever built and if you are seeing reduced operating temps using them...that is meaningless in the long run for all but the 1/2 of 1 % who NEED that for whatever reason, usually that their **** sucks and they don't have proper cooling in the first place

and this whole ****ing thread has gone to the TOTAL IDIOT level and we don't need any phd level dissertations here as the average idiot cant figure out what oil is what in the first place and there is NO PROOF IN THIS UNIVERSE THAT A SLIGHT REDUCTION IN OIL TEMPERATURE IS A GOOD THING ANYWAY...THAT IS A PERCIEVED BENEFIT THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE REAL.

jesus.....
Uncle Scotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2014, 12:00 PM   #274
bluesubie
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 767
Join Date: Jan 2000
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: N.J.
Vehicle:
04 FXT

Default 2015 WRX Used Oil Analysis Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by XtremeRevolution View Post
I presume you were using Blackstone like most people do? ... I don't appreciate the jab in reference to the post I wrote.
Your presumption is wrong and my UOA's are posted here and on BITOG. And this is nasioc. If I offended you by stating that your reply was a book, you're not gonna last long here. And I even thanked you for pointing out that I posted a link to an Amsoil SS VOA.

Why are you even discussing Blackstone? The Amsoil XL uoa posted by quantum13 with the wacky additive numbers is by OAI. The old Pennzoil Ultra tested by PQIA was indeed a GTL formulation as Shell has used GTL's since 2013, before it was labeled as such.

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

-Dennis


Sent from my iPad using NASIOC

Last edited by bluesubie; 12-29-2014 at 08:26 AM.
bluesubie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2014, 01:18 PM   #275
XtremeRevolution
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 409238
Join Date: Dec 2014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Scotty View Post
oh my god.....what the hell is with the wall of text here?

and jesus.....im NOT going to make any more replies here other than saying

idiots will buy idiot oil for idiot reasons

and there is no possible reason to buy PAO/ester based oils for ANY of these engines ever built and if you are seeing reduced operating temps using them...that is meaningless in the long run for all but the 1/2 of 1 % who NEED that for whatever reason, usually that their **** sucks and they don't have proper cooling in the first place

and this whole ****ing thread has gone to the TOTAL IDIOT level and we don't need any phd level dissertations here as the average idiot cant figure out what oil is what in the first place and there is NO PROOF IN THIS UNIVERSE THAT A SLIGHT REDUCTION IN OIL TEMPERATURE IS A GOOD THING ANYWAY...THAT IS A PERCIEVED BENEFIT THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE REAL.

jesus.....
I lost you at the point where you called me (and everyone else who uses AMSOIL) an idiot. Let me know when you gain the capacity to engage in a polite and courteous conversation.
XtremeRevolution is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2019 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2019, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.