Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 mi

Posted by: AEHaas

Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 mi - 10/25/07 03:53 AM

This is my neighbor’s 2003 Ferrari Enzo with a total of 8,800 miles on the left column and my 2003 Enzo with a total of 3,000 miles on the right column. Both cars had 1,400 miles on the oil. His obviously had more break-in time. He had the oil changed by the Ferrari dealer using the required 10W60 Shell Helix Ultra Racing oil. I ran 0W30 Castrol GC.

The recommended interval is 5,000 miles, less if on the track. This is strictly off track use in town and on the highway, probably 50-50 for his car and 90 percent city for me.

His oil was tested by: youroil.net, while I got the full, total evaluation from Terry Dyson.
................................................................................................................

_____________Shell....GC
Iron___________ 32...11
Chromium _____<1...0
Nickel ___­_______ 2...1
Aluminum ______11...3
lead __________ 16...0
Copper ________25...8
Tin ___________<1...0
Silver ________<.1...0
Titanium ______<1...0
Silicon _________ 7...3
Boron __________ 1...3
Sodium ________ 8...3
Potassium ____<10...0
Molybdenum __ <5...1
Phosphorus __1026...935
Zinc ________ 1135...1228
Calcium _____ 1454...1671
Barium _______<10...0
Magnesium ___1219...526
Antimony _____<30...0
Vanadium ______<1...0
Fuel %Vol _____<1...1.2
Abs Oxid ______34...10
Abs Nitr _______11...8
Wtr %vol ______<0.1...KF=247 “nice dry fluid”
Vis CS 100C __ 15.8...11.8
Vic CS 40C___not done...66
SAE Grade _­___40...30
Gly test ______NEG...0.37 “not antifreeze”
TBN _________not done...7.9


aehaas
Posted by: JAG

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 mi - 10/25/07 04:00 AM

What have oil temps been like?
Posted by: AEHaas

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/25/07 04:27 AM

Once I got the oil up to 190 F when I just kept the engine at 8 grand for a while. Otherwise it never got over 180 F. Terry says that the way the fuel is calculated may, if anything, be an underestimate. He stated that the engine seemed be be the most efficient he has seen in terms of burning the fuel. This makes sense as they get 650 BHP out of the 6.0 liter engine without any turbos or compressors.

aehaas
Posted by: SubLGT

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/25/07 05:06 AM

Looks like your neighbor's Enzo has a lot more bearing and cylinder wear than your Enzo. Does he abuse his motor, or is the extra wear due to the 10W60?
Posted by: SubLGT

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/25/07 05:10 AM

Quote:

.........Terry says that the way the fuel is calculated may, if anything, be an underestimate. He stated that the engine seemed be be the most efficient he has seen in terms of burning the fuel. This makes sense as they get 650 BHP out of the 6.0 liter engine without any turbos or compressors.

aehaas




1.2% fuel in the oil does not strike me as being "most efficient". What am I missing here?
Posted by: AEHaas

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/25/07 05:15 AM

"1.2% fuel in the oil does not strike me as being "most efficient". What am I missing here?"

The efficiency is in the other numbers, some not seen here. The interpretation is proprietary so I cannot give the details. It is part of the superiority of a full Dyson analysis.

aehaas
Posted by: kd5byb

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/25/07 06:11 AM

Seems to me that this is some good, albeit circumstantial evidence that thicker oil doesn't necessarily protect better. Especially considering the highway/city mileage difference between the two favoring the Enzo with the thicker oil.

I love Ferrari's - when I was growing up, a neighbor down the road had either a 308 or 328 - can't really remember exactly which. Fantastic looking, fantastic sounding, and I can only imagine that it drove fantastic as well.

Always enjoyable reading about such neat vehicles.

Thanks much!
-ben
Posted by: LargeCarManX2

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/25/07 07:02 AM

Although the 0-30 produced lower wear numbers, the 10-60 is in the normal range and posted good numbers. The Helix got beat up a bit looking at the oxid and final weight of the oil.

I would like to see what Amsoils newest signature oil would do in these engines? I guess your running the apple juice oil now it will be interesting what numbers you come up with
Posted by: AEHaas

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/25/07 08:02 AM

"Looks like your neighbor's Enzo has a lot more bearing and cylinder wear than your Enzo. Does he abuse his motor, or is the extra wear due to the 10W60? "

We drive the same streets but sometimes he does not wait long enough before stepping on the gas. In any event the ambient temperatures are rarely below 60 F even in the winter.

aehaas
Posted by: SubLGT

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/25/07 10:00 AM

Does your Enzo now have the RLI 0W20 in it?
Posted by: Lonnie

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/25/07 10:45 AM

Why did the Shell take such a big shot in the viscosity?

Did you do a really careful break-in? If so what did you do? By the looks of things the oil did not do everything, you must have been involved there somewhere?
Posted by: INDYMAC

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/25/07 01:58 PM

From what I understand, Ferrari breaks the car in at the racetrack before they deliver it to the customer. I think they carefully use WOT the whole way around the track though.
Posted by: AEHaas

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/25/07 03:24 PM

My neighbor and I are the second owners of our cars. Both saw track time by the original owners. Ferrari breaks the engines in before they go in the cars. Each engine is dyno tested for appropriate BHP. If it does not make the minimum required then they do not go in the car.

Later each car is track tested at the factory. If you go to Maranello, the factory site, you will see cars going back and forth to the test track - through town. Each car has 50 - 100 miles on them when they leave the factory. They really get a workout.

When it comes to viscosity loss I have seen many of these 5 and 10W -- 50 and 60's lose viscosity much faster than others having less of a spread. This may be planned from the start. One has to wonder.

aehaas
Posted by: Pablo

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/25/07 03:36 PM

That 10W-60 has a LOT of VII's in the form of polymeric thickeners. Not good for the engine, lubrication or the oil. Shell sponsors Ferrari for good monetary reasons. But when I get my Ferrari I wouldn't use that oil. Not only did it shear, I'm thinking it's possible that it could be leaving deposits on the ring lands.

One of these days I hope you will try Amsoil, Dr. Haas. You seem to shy away from it for some reason. Redline, RLI, GC......their reputation is somehow, better?
Posted by: AEHaas

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/25/07 05:26 PM

In the past some of the Amsoil products thickened too soon for me. I always look for thinning or stability for start up viscosities, this is better than thickening for me. The current products all seem to be usable to me.

One reason I use other oils is that I have contacts within the oil companies that can answer questions. Dave at Red Line is an example. If he does not know the answer to a question he gets the answer then calls me back. I have gotten to know the people over at RLI and I am impressed with the room temperature characteristics of their motor oils. The numbers look good on paper too. This is why I will be trying their oils next.

Formulations seem to change weekly for motor oils. One has to stay on top of it.

aehaas
Posted by: buster

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/25/07 05:36 PM

Quote:

Formulations seem to change weekly for motor oils. One has to stay on top of it.




Most definitely.
Posted by: G-MAN

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/25/07 06:19 PM

Based on this UOA there is no way I'd use Helix 10w60 in anything I own, much less a million dollar Enzo.

GC has no VI improvers to shear, hence its rock solid shear stability. I think Amsoil ACD would be a good choice for these cars under the conditions in which they get driven.
Posted by: buster

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/25/07 06:22 PM

Quote:

I think Amsoil ACD would be a good choice for these cars under the conditions in which they get driven.





I agree. Most of Amsoil's oils use very little VII's and when they do, they use high quality VII's. ASM 0w-20 I don't think uses any at all.
Posted by: Lonnie

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/25/07 08:31 PM

I was involved in the rebuild of an F40 motor and inside the motor was evidence that it was built by a craftsman. On the block casting there was not a rough edge inside, anywhere. The rods were matched, in that the forgings did not have small pads at either end to be ground on to match weight. The grinding to get the weight was carefully done around the big and small ends and very little of that was required. Each rod was a thing of beauty. Every stud had exactly the same amount of threads exposed above the nuts, evidence of hand labor by someone that cared about his work. One stud that went into a blind hole and stuck up about 20 thou too much. Rather than deepen the hole and cause a problem or shorten a carefully made stud with rolled threads and smoothed ends the mechanic use a thicker washer that exposed threads to the right height. This was noted on the build sheet. The casting surfaces behind a galley plug were deburred, shiny and smooth to the touch. The plug itself has rolled threads and was itself deburred and installed flush with a dab of paint bridging across the plug to the block. We actually talked to the guy that built the engine at the factory and he sent us a copy of his build sheet for that exact engine and later he called back to ask how the rework went. He also sent us some go/no-go gauges used in putting the engine back together and a list of notes and tips on assembling the engine. All this for a car built in the late 80's.

I would love to see the inside of your Enzo engine. If the F50 was the replacement for the F40 and the Enzo the replacement for the F50 I would sure like to see the replacement for the Enzo. I did not like the looks of the Enzo in pictures too much but that changed when I saw one in person and was taken for a ride. They say the way to a man's heart is through his stomach but, and don't take the wrong, but if you have an Enzo the way to your heart gets detoured to your ears and the seat of your pants.
Posted by: benjamming

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 mi - 10/25/07 10:15 PM

What was flashpoint?

What method does youroil.net use for water (assume not Karl Fischer) & fuel (assume not FTIR)?

What was TAN and sulfate byproducts? I don't know if youroil.net does these tests in a typical UOA.

What filters were used on both? OEM oil & air?
Posted by: AEHaas

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/26/07 12:42 AM

“What was flashpoint?
What method does youroil.net use for water (assume not Karl Fischer) & fuel (assume not FTIR)?
What was TAN and sulfate byproducts? I don't know if youroil.net does these tests in a typical UOA.
What filters were used on both? OEM oil & air? “

These are good questions indeed.
The flashpoint was very low indicative of more fuel in the oil than indicated by the test values, both oil samples probably had more fuel in there than indicated.
I do not know the test methods used by youroil.net.
The TAN in my sample was very high at 1.71. This may be a better indicator than TBN and I am happy that DysonAnalysis does this. It is possible that TBN is high but cannot neutralize all the different types of acids building up in your engine. Some of my iron may in fact be secondary to the acid effects. I believe that TAN is much better than TBN for really seeing what is happening in your engine.
The only other value on my report was Soot = 0.

Both cars use the OEM parts all the way, except me, when it comes to the oil.

I use YourOil for basic testing as it is cheaper. When I need to really know what is going on I use DysonAnalysis. You may pay more with Dyson but you get much more in return.

aehaas
Posted by: benjamming

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/26/07 02:11 AM

What is the TAN for virgin GC?

The sulfate byproduts # is listed in the lower right box of the reports from Dyson. Again, I don't know what the sulfate byproducts # is for virgin GC although I would expect it to be low.

What fuel & grade do you use? Any fuel additives?
Posted by: AEHaas

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/26/07 02:17 AM

Sulfate By Product = 14

I use premium Exxon or Mobil gas, no additives.

aehaas
Posted by: AEHaas

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/26/07 02:26 AM

Here is a VOA from 2003, not sure if this is any help. The lab was not named.
Basically, this is useless in my mind but here it is:

Iron 3.4
Lead 0.5
Al 1.7
Copper 0.4
Silicon 7.8
Chromium 0.1
Nickel 0
Titanium 0.1
Silver 3.4
Tin 0
Sodium 0
Potassium 0
Boron 5.2
Barium 0.1
Moly 0.1
Magnesium 144
Calcium 3544
Phosphorus 896
Zinc 1116
Manganese 0.8
Vanadium 0
VI 180
Vis at 40c 67.6
Vis at 100c 12.2 (nice!)
TBN D4739 9.39
TAN 1.95
Pour point To Come
Freeze point -39
Posted by: Patman

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/26/07 03:11 PM

That GC VOA was mine, it was done at Wearcheck Canada, and it was the green formula of GC, not the current gold formula.
Posted by: Pablo

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/26/07 06:01 PM

Quote:

In the past some of the Amsoil products thickened too soon for me. I always look for thinning or stability for start up viscosities, this is better than thickening for me. The current products all seem to be usable to me.

One reason I use other oils is that I have contacts within the oil companies that can answer questions. Dave at Red Line is an example. If he does not know the answer to a question he gets the answer then calls me back. I have gotten to know the people over at RLI and I am impressed with the room temperature characteristics of their motor oils. The numbers look good on paper too. This is why I will be trying their oils next.

Formulations seem to change weekly for motor oils. One has to stay on top of it.

aehaas




I appreciate that - but Amsoil will chat with you as well. If you want to move up the food chain in Amsoil and talk to the leaders or wait for an answer the next day from me, that's good too. When have I not answered a question? Maybe a thread I missed or something. Anyway thanks.
Posted by: DmanWho

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/28/07 03:20 AM

It would be hard to use another brand or weight of oil, in your new Enzo , than the one recommended by Ferrari! If your neighbor decides to continue running the Shell, this is a great opportunity for more comparisons. Unfortunately for us here, seeking more oil knowledge, I foresee your neighbor having you doing his future OC's.
Posted by: JohnBrowning

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/28/07 03:41 AM

I do not think many would argue that 10W60 is a bit much for round town driveing!!! I would never recomend 10W60 for that type of use and many consider me a thick oil man!!! It is not needed... I do have a question for you though... When did GC pick up so many additives????Origanaly when GC was makeing a name for it's self one of the things that was ungiue to it's formula was the low level's of metalic additives. Now it appear's to be loaded with ZDDP????When did this happen????
Posted by: 02zx9r

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/29/07 06:46 PM

Dr,
have you ever considered doing the ferrari driving experience?

http://www.experienceferrari.com
Posted by: Geoff

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/30/07 06:03 AM

Hard to argue with the results that the Castrol 0w-30 is a better choice. Does this engine run a lot of oil pressure? I am wondering if the high revs kicks in the bypass with the higher visc oil.

You probably need the 30 grade with the fuel dilute. What was the conclusion on the 5w-20 or was that with a different engine/car?
Posted by: AEHaas

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 10/30/07 06:03 PM

My pressures run around 45 - 50 PSI at 2,000 RPM when fully warmed up to 180 F sump temperature. The pressure at pop off is around 90 - 95 PSI at operating temperature. Interestingly the pop off pressure is around 120 - 130 PSI at start up when the ambient temperature is 75 F. The relief valve must be further downstream of the oil filter while the pressure is taken at the filter.

aehaas
Posted by: QBee

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 02/19/14 12:54 PM

Interested on your views on Shell Helix 10w60 oil for track day use (and general road use) in a British TVR sports car. Performance is 0-60mph in about 4.3 seconds, quarter mile in about 12-13 seconds, top speed 160 mph
Climate - operating in temperatures from 32F to about 85F, mainly 45F to 70F.

Engine is 5 litres, V8, a longer stroke version of the Range Rover engine, which in turn was developed from a 1950s Buick, so not exactly Ferrari Enzo high tech. The TVR forums in the UK worry about having enough zinc in their oil, but otherwise opinions vary on what is the best oil to run.

My engine was actually built last year, 10,000 miles ago, but the average age of these V8 engines is about 18 years old. Most owners use a 20w50 oil, something like Valvoline VR1, or Castrol 5 or 10w40.
Posted by: Cujet

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 02/23/14 04:40 PM

I've got a good bit of seat time in the "Enzo". My general impression is one of, believe it or not, that it's slightly down on power and/or throttle response. It's fast, for sure. But, it's not faster than a mildly tweaked Nissan GTR at reasonable speeds, such as street encounters and drag strip use. And, it's Way down on power when directly compared to a McLaren F1.

We did some comparisons between the Enzo and the F1. I tried every trick in the book and it mattered not. The Enzo fell about 700 feet back within seconds on each "roll on" race. Some of that could be traction control and throttle by wire issues. But the two cars have similar HP and similar weights. Yet, could not be more different. The F1 really has that "rip snorting" power you expect from a supercar.

The Enzo is a technical "tour de force" and the F1 is basic, with no traction control, no throttle by wire and no ABS (if I remember correctly) All of this makes the F1 quite a blast to drive. The F1 is actually faster initially, than the Veyron.
Posted by: d00df00d

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 02/23/14 06:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Cujet
I've got a good bit of seat time in the "Enzo". My general impression is one of, believe it or not, that it's slightly down on power and/or throttle response. It's fast, for sure. But, it's not faster than a mildly tweaked Nissan GTR at reasonable speeds, such as street encounters and drag strip use. And, it's Way down on power when directly compared to a McLaren F1.

We did some comparisons between the Enzo and the F1. I tried every trick in the book and it mattered not. The Enzo fell about 700 feet back within seconds on each "roll on" race. Some of that could be traction control and throttle by wire issues. But the two cars have similar HP and similar weights. Yet, could not be more different. The F1 really has that "rip snorting" power you expect from a supercar.

Well, yeah. Doesn't the Enzo have a great deal more downforce? Wouldn't be shocked if it had a heck of a lot more aerodynamic drag, too.


Originally Posted By: Cujet
The F1 is actually faster initially, than the Veyron.

...Wait, what?
Posted by: 901Memphis

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 02/23/14 06:50 PM

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I've got a good bit of seat time in the "Enzo". My general impression is one of, believe it or not, that it's slightly down on power and/or throttle response. It's fast, for sure. But, it's not faster than a mildly tweaked Nissan GTR at reasonable speeds, such as street encounters and drag strip use. And, it's Way down on power when directly compared to a McLaren F1.

We did some comparisons between the Enzo and the F1. I tried every trick in the book and it mattered not. The Enzo fell about 700 feet back within seconds on each "roll on" race. Some of that could be traction control and throttle by wire issues. But the two cars have similar HP and similar weights. Yet, could not be more different. The F1 really has that "rip snorting" power you expect from a supercar.

Well, yeah. Doesn't the Enzo have a great deal more downforce? Wouldn't be shocked if it had a heck of a lot more aerodynamic drag, too.


Originally Posted By: Cujet
The F1 is actually faster initially, than the Veyron.

...Wait, what?


You never saw that race?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXqSedWSu2k
Posted by: d00df00d

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 02/23/14 09:06 PM

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis

Top Gear Magazine said they kept the Veyron's launch control disabled to make the race closer. Top Gear is a great show, but in the end it's about entertainment, not information.

I have no special love for the Veyron and completely agree that the F1 is the more desirable car. Just trying to keep it real. Look up objectively tested acceleration numbers for both cars and compare. The Veyron is very clearly quicker everywhere, including off the line (0-60 in well under 3 seconds, vs. just over 3 seconds for the F1).
Posted by: Cujet

Re: Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 - 02/23/14 10:19 PM

I've seen both at PBIR. The Veyron launched mildly. Probably due to configuration and not the car's outright ability. But I have no way to know that. The F1 has no such restrictions.