Castrol Syn 0w20, 5434mi OCI, 20196mi 2017 Mazda 6

[Danh]

Originally Posted By: danielLD
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
Originally Posted By: danielLD
ahhh, I wish people had to post their job title and field in their signatures. I challenge the OP to actually get a half way decent UOA.

It's a new engine. One thing many here (who ARE NOT UOA analysts) miss, is in a brand new engine, FD won't cause much wear. Just wait till later on when ferritic micro corrosion becomes present.

Oil_film_movies. A magnetic drain plug won't do diddly in a modern engine, yes it's fuel dilution causing that filter to load.


To me, it seems you are conflicting with yourself. Unless I am misunderstanding your post.
Your going on about people who are not UOA analysts and FD wont cause much wear etc. Yet the UOA does not show FD.
So which is it?

For me, I assume fuel, even though the UOA does NOT show it, because EVERY Skyactive engine seems to shows fuel since it was produced starting around 2012. No big deal, direct injection engine like others and has been rock solid.


No contradictions here. You don't understanding the testing methods which is ok, but it's why you and most people are confused and should listen.

It should be well known by now that Blackstone says 0.0% fuel when often times it's as high as 5% before they detect. Many of my little side project UOA's (race cars) were having Blackstone say 1.5% when GC revealed 8-10%. Flashpoint is not an accurate way to read fuel dilution.

Many more issues with that UOA from a testing stand point. Water is another one that is definitely not at 0.0.

Fuel Dilution is one thing most people here don't know how to solve. So people accept it as normal, even though it's not. Address the ring seal and your fuel economy and power will rise. Leave FD uncontrolled, it creates micro corrosion, wear, and a lot of other bad things. Most here just say "oh, FD is ok, nothing wrong", yet that is the number one cause of engine wear or any wear for that matter.

Track time and prolonged redline creates little to no wear. FD is what destroys engines.

One study I did with Subaru, showed when we controlled the FD in the tracked STI's, wear almost instantly disappeared even though these cars were hitting redline for prolonged hours. We then started pushing the cars even harder. There's more to FD, but you can get an idea.


Don't leave us in suspense. Without giving away the store, how does a civilian "control" fuel dilution in a modern DI engine and preserve the warranty at the same time? I'd love to have a strategy.

 

[bigj_16]

Extremely simple to control fuel dilution. Change the oil more often.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Extremely simple to control fuel dilution. Change the oil more often.


Yep. I would think a 5000 mile oci would be the max I would use until a uoa confirmed the amount of FD.

 

[Danh]

Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Extremely simple to control fuel dilution. Change the oil more often.


Sure. I was really trying to figure out danielLD's solution of "...different formulas, fuels, additives, filters and a few other things...". I get that higher octane fuel can help in some cases but eagerly await information on the rest.

 

[Artem]

Originally Posted By: Danh


Don't leave us in suspense. Without giving away the store, how does a civilian "control" fuel dilution in a modern DI engine and preserve the warranty at the same time? I'd love to have a strategy.



Isn't it mostly a lottery (assuming the engine design is solid from the get go) whether your DI engine has fuel dilution or not?

I mean, if the engine parts matched up perfectly, you get one with a good seal and no fuel issues. Throw in one bad piston ring and you'll have issues until she blows.

Driving conditions play a bigger role then oil type and viscosity can ever hope to achieve.

We can try to read between the lines of this UOA all day but unless fuel issues are FLAGGED, it's not like he can bring this UOA in to Mazda and demand a fix because CLEARLY there's fuel dilution going on here.

OP, have you tried Premium grade fuel? Try running 93 octane for 5k miles and let's see the results. My 2.0L Skyactiv seems to enjoy it.

 

[danielLD]

oh boy,

You want me to give you answers, hmmmm......

Do you call the doctor and say my head hurts, how do you fix this? No, because the doctor or auto mechanic will say, I don't diagnose over the phone. I don't diagnose over the internet with lacking UOA.

Filtration is a big component, picking an adequate filter is key, not all filters work the same in different engines. Sometimes using an additive is required to bring down the deposits that cause the oil to be diluted with fuel, etc. An oil that works in that engine, providing better ring seal is key too. Has little to do with octane, one thing I do is try to blend in ethanol whenever is possible.

No, you do not control FD by changing the oil more often, not even sure how that's "controlling".

Light oils are the key to better wear and protection.

I'm not on here every minute, so I don't think I've left anyone in suspense.

 

[Artem]

So if filtration is key, why would you suggest anyone use an aftermarket oil filter #123 on this engine when the same filter also fits 20 other engines?

I personally think the OEM Mazda oil filter is solid. Looks to be very well made and even has a protective seal on the inlet. Filters costing 2x more don't have this.

I'm sure an Amsoil filter may catch finer particles but if the engine is already being protected just fine with the OEM designed filter, then why bother?

 

[oil_film_movies]

kv100 only dropped by 12% in 5,000 miles. Not a big problem at all, and some of that is due to the usual VII permanent shear we see all the time. Its not ALL due to fuel dilution.

Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Extremely simple to control fuel dilution. Change the oil more often.
Thats one way, although one can add top-off oil (or save room) using 15w50 Mobil1 oil to counteract VII polymer shearing and/or fuel dilution, effectively increasing visc slightly.

Originally Posted By: Artem
I mean, if the engine parts matched up perfectly, you get one with a good seal and no fuel issues. Throw in one bad piston ring and you'll have issues until she blows.
That is right. Or sometimes oil control rings get too much junk on them which causes seal issues.

 

[danielLD]

Originally Posted By: Artem
So if filtration is key, why would you suggest anyone use an aftermarket oil filter #123 on this engine when the same filter also fits 20 other engines?

I personally think the OEM Mazda oil filter is solid. Looks to be very well made and even has a protective seal on the inlet. Filters costing 2x more don't have this.

I'm sure an Amsoil filter may catch finer particles but if the engine is already being protected just fine with the OEM designed filter, then why bother?


Artem,

Because filters do not behave the same way in every engine, in each oil and fuel. We are also missing vital data needed to make those determinations. You have to know and test many combos. Aftermarket filters almost always perform better than their OEM alternatives and tend to be the same price.

From his data, 0.3 at 5,000 miles is too high. What is this 100% related to? No one really knows because we're missing crucial data.

It's likely EGRed fuel residuals, FD, and poor filtration. After a while, you start to see the same trends over and over again.

Looks can be deceiving no?

Last point, the filter is key to EOCI and over looked too often, and at the moment, he has poor filtration, so the OEM has not done well for us.

 

[danielLD]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
kv100 only dropped by 12% in 5,000 miles. Not a big problem at all, and some of that is due to the usual VII permanent shear we see all the time. Its not ALL due to fuel dilution.

Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Extremely simple to control fuel dilution. Change the oil more often.
Thats one way, although one can add top-off oil (or save room) using 15w50 Mobil1 oil to counteract VII polymer shearing and/or fuel dilution, effectively increasing visc slightly.

Originally Posted By: Artem
I mean, if the engine parts matched up perfectly, you get one with a good seal and no fuel issues. Throw in one bad piston ring and you'll have issues until she blows.
That is right. Or sometimes oil control rings get too much junk on them which causes seal issues.


Not likely, without GC I can't prove my point however as I'm guessing FD is around 3.5%. Viscosity drop is never good, he should be able to pull more mileage out of an oil with this engine. However, with poor oils, we've become accustomed to seeing oils drop and just accept it.

Increasing viscosity does not control fuel dilution. Only way to control is to improve the piston ring / cylinder wall seal.

Controlling deposits is key as well. Once deposits form between rings it's almost near impossible to get them clean again. Controlling our ring seal early on, prevents us from having to worry about deposits around the rings though.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: danielLD
Increasing viscosity does not control fuel dilution. Only way to control is to improve the piston ring / cylinder wall seal.

Oil Film Thickness is what the proper viscosity maintains. Think Stribeck Curve. A little fuel makes it go down, Mobil1 15w50 added makes it go back up. Its simple.

And your guess of 3.5% is too high here. You don't seem to grasp the concept of normal VII permanent shear. Again, its not all fuel dilution we see here causing the small 12% drop in kv100 visc. Assuming half the visc loss is due to fuel dilution, and half is due to the expected normal VII permanent shear, then that means its 1.5% fuel dilution. Small. (widman viscosity mixing calculator)

Originally Posted By: danielLD
Controlling deposits is key as well. Once deposits form between rings it's almost near impossible to get them clean again. Controlling our ring seal early on, prevents us from having to worry about deposits around the rings though.
I agree that a small amount of fuel dilution creates more ring deposits. When changing oil, it can't hurt to run some flush through just prior to a change. Like Gumout Multi-System, other off the shelf solvent made for the purpose.

As the OP has done, I do think its OK to use CeraTec (hex boron nitride ceramics and moly) or just LM MOS2 (moly only) for a little extra protection without interfering with the basic additive package. Just don't use too much of that. I'd even go half-dose compared to the label directions.

 

[Danh]

Originally Posted By: danielLD
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
kv100 only dropped by 12% in 5,000 miles. Not a big problem at all, and some of that is due to the usual VII permanent shear we see all the time. Its not ALL due to fuel dilution.

Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Extremely simple to control fuel dilution. Change the oil more often.
Thats one way, although one can add top-off oil (or save room) using 15w50 Mobil1 oil to counteract VII polymer shearing and/or fuel dilution, effectively increasing visc slightly.

Originally Posted By: Artem
I mean, if the engine parts matched up perfectly, you get one with a good seal and no fuel issues. Throw in one bad piston ring and you'll have issues until she blows.
That is right. Or sometimes oil control rings get too much junk on them which causes seal issues.


Not likely, without GC I can't prove my point however as I'm guessing FD is around 3.5%. Viscosity drop is never good, he should be able to pull more mileage out of an oil with this engine. However, with poor oils, we've become accustomed to seeing oils drop and just accept it.

Increasing viscosity does not control fuel dilution. Only way to control is to improve the piston ring / cylinder wall seal.

Controlling deposits is key as well. Once deposits form between rings it's almost near impossible to get them clean again. Controlling our ring seal early on, prevents us from having to worry about deposits around the rings though.


If ring seal is the key, there should be lots of fd variation within a specific model based on different break-in techniques, manufacturing variances and the like. Instead, we see some models are just chronic fuel diluters: Honda K24Ws and 1.5T, most Hyundais/Kias, etc.

This suggests to me fd is expected by OEMs and is a consequence not of poor filtration or ring sealing but strategies employed to deal with spark knock or preventing LSPI. If this is the case it's a feature, not a problem and efforts to eliminate it (other than reducing short-tripping and maybe using higher octane fuel) are not going to be effective.

Your points may be spot-on for a port-injected engine, but may not apply in a DI/TGDI world.

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

Originally Posted By: danielLD
oh boy,

You want me to give you answers, hmmmm......

Do you call the doctor and say my head hurts, how do you fix this? No, because the doctor or auto mechanic will say, I don't diagnose over the phone. I don't diagnose over the internet with lacking UOA.

Filtration is a big component, picking an adequate filter is key, not all filters work the same in different engines. Sometimes using an additive is required to bring down the deposits that cause the oil to be diluted with fuel, etc. An oil that works in that engine, providing better ring seal is key too. Has little to do with octane, one thing I do is try to blend in ethanol whenever is possible.

No, you do not control FD by changing the oil more often, not even sure how that's "controlling".

Light oils are the key to better wear and protection.

I'm not on here every minute, so I don't think I've left anyone in suspense.


LOL no you go cheap and call your dogs Vet.

 

[danielLD]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: danielLD
Increasing viscosity does not control fuel dilution. Only way to control is to improve the piston ring / cylinder wall seal.

Oil Film Thickness is what the proper viscosity maintains. Think Stribeck Curve. A little fuel makes it go down, Mobil1 15w50 added makes it go back up. Its simple.

And your guess of 3.5% is too high here. You don't seem to grasp the concept of normal VII permanent shear. Again, its not all fuel dilution we see here causing the small 12% drop in kv100 visc. Assuming half the visc loss is due to fuel dilution, and half is due to the expected normal VII permanent shear, then that means its 1.5% fuel dilution. Small. (widman viscosity mixing calculator)

Originally Posted By: danielLD
Controlling deposits is key as well. Once deposits form between rings it's almost near impossible to get them clean again. Controlling our ring seal early on, prevents us from having to worry about deposits around the rings though.
I agree that a small amount of fuel dilution creates more ring deposits. When changing oil, it can't hurt to run some flush through just prior to a change. Like Gumout Multi-System, other off the shelf solvent made for the purpose.

As the OP has done, I do think its OK to use CeraTec (hex boron nitride ceramics and moly) or just LM MOS2 (moly only) for a little extra protection without interfering with the basic additive package. Just don't use too much of that. I'd even go half-dose compared to the label directions.


My guess is too high? hmmmm, I've done many many Blackstone flash to GC tests and I'm usually within 1%. FD is not something you can calculate like that.

 

[danielLD]

Originally Posted By: Danh
Originally Posted By: danielLD
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
kv100 only dropped by 12% in 5,000 miles. Not a big problem at all, and some of that is due to the usual VII permanent shear we see all the time. Its not ALL due to fuel dilution.

Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Extremely simple to control fuel dilution. Change the oil more often.
Thats one way, although one can add top-off oil (or save room) using 15w50 Mobil1 oil to counteract VII polymer shearing and/or fuel dilution, effectively increasing visc slightly.

Originally Posted By: Artem
I mean, if the engine parts matched up perfectly, you get one with a good seal and no fuel issues. Throw in one bad piston ring and you'll have issues until she blows.
That is right. Or sometimes oil control rings get too much junk on them which causes seal issues.


Not likely, without GC I can't prove my point however as I'm guessing FD is around 3.5%. Viscosity drop is never good, he should be able to pull more mileage out of an oil with this engine. However, with poor oils, we've become accustomed to seeing oils drop and just accept it.

Increasing viscosity does not control fuel dilution. Only way to control is to improve the piston ring / cylinder wall seal.

Controlling deposits is key as well. Once deposits form between rings it's almost near impossible to get them clean again. Controlling our ring seal early on, prevents us from having to worry about deposits around the rings though.


If ring seal is the key, there should be lots of fd variation within a specific model based on different break-in techniques, manufacturing variances and the like. Instead, we see some models are just chronic fuel diluters: Honda K24Ws and 1.5T, most Hyundais/Kias, etc.

This suggests to me fd is expected by OEMs and is a consequence not of poor filtration or ring sealing but strategies employed to deal with spark knock or preventing LSPI. If this is the case it's a feature, not a problem and efforts to eliminate it (other than reducing short-tripping and maybe using higher octane fuel) are not going to be effective.

Your points may be spot-on for a port-injected engine, but may not apply in a DI/TGDI world.


If ring seal is the key, there should be lots of fd variation within a specific model based on different break-in techniques - this is exactly what happens in real life.

No OEM's simply understand, the consumer will never know the truth. The engine will go on for a while and then the consumer is told when it gums up or whatever, it's wear and tear or it's normal or it's old or it has a lot of miles, etc.

Problem is on BITOG, really no one is getting fuel % by GC. Meaning you're never seeing accurate data. When you see hundreds of cars a month and you're getting GC readings on all of them, you start to see the actual picture.

All of my guys reduce FD within their first UOA. Higher octane fuel doesn't reduce FD for the reasons you're thinking of. It can but for other reasons. I don't recommend higher octane anyways due to the cost.

Fuel dilution is not a feature of anything, the consequences of FD are disastrous.

 

[parshisa]

what an amazing tread this is.

here are my 2c:

1. Civic 1.5T, factory fill drained at 5K due to oil level rising extremely fast. Sample tested by [censored] - no fuel, although low flash point and 5.8vis
2. Civic 1.5T, next fill drained at 5.6K with absolutely no change in the oil level. Sample tested by OI - severe fuel dilution, 6.8 vis. Asked them to retest for fuel dilution again (same sample) and they came up 0.4% fuel dilution which is equal to no fuel in the oil at all. Same lab, same sample, same test equipment. I asked the tech how this is even possible and he had no answer in the pocket for me.

So, do you still trust/believe the tests they run? is there a lab out there that is 100% trustworthy? Maybe yes, maybe no. doesn't really matter after all

 

[danielLD]

Originally Posted By: parshisa
what an amazing tread this is.

here are my 2c:

1. Civic 1.5T, factory fill drained at 5K due to oil level rising extremely fast. Sample tested by [censored] - no fuel, although low flash point and 5.8vis
2. Civic 1.5T, next fill drained at 5.6K with absolutely no change in the oil level. Sample tested by OI - severe fuel dilution, 6.8 vis. Asked them to retest for fuel dilution again (same sample) and they came up 0.4% fuel dilution which is equal to no fuel in the oil at all. Same lab, same sample, same test equipment. I asked the tech how this is even possible and he had no answer in the pocket for me.

So, do you still trust/believe the tests they run? is there a lab out there that is 100% trustworthy? Maybe yes, maybe no. doesn't really matter after all


Ahh, you have no experienced the same questions I had while at Tribologik.

1. Finding a trustworthy lab is hard as .........

2. Even trust worthy labs make mistakes, you have to be able to tell when something isn't right from a lab stand point, which takes tremendous understanding that only a technician can see. I've had analysts, including Terry Dyson, ask for my opinions before on testing methods.

3. I'm going to rephrase what I always say. Blackstone isn't wrong in reporting 0% fuel. However, they're also not right. Here's why. Open cup flash point does not work with the modern fuel chemistries. So while they're administering the tests right and getting right numbers, they're wrong, because that test can't identify fuel %, not post 1999 fuels. It's like using a gold detector to find silver, while the gold detector isn't wrong, it's not right because it's not looking for what we want. I believe this has been covered before, or it might be a thing people forget about.

4. Closed cup flash point at a minimum would be a bit more accurate but still suffer from issues.

5. Read number 1.

6. Gas Chromatography is reading the hydrocarbon chains in the oil of the fuel. It is the most accurate way, known to man and analysts today. However, the machine has to be calibrated well. I've only had a handful amount of times, fuel % by GC was off.

7. Most lab techs don't know a drop about what they're doing. They're trained to just run the machines. Trust me because I have trained too many techs on Perkin Elmer, Thermofischer, Spectrosci, and much more lab equipment and not 1 cares about what they're part of. Half don't understand what the machines are even doing or what the company is for that matter, meaning when told what UOA is, the techs give you a puzzled look, like that's an actual thing? It can be frustrating. So when a lab tech sees a number, they just believe it. If I saw a 8% read on GC, I'd send for a reread to validate, a regular tech would just shrug, and enter in the next batch on the machine.

8. Did the other lab do fuel % by GC or by FTIR or viscosity calculation?

9. Lab errors occur from sample to sample. The GC machine if run 3 times, should report on a sample like this. 7.12%, 7.39% and 7.23%. You should not be getting a 5.69%, 1.32% and 3.56% spread.

10. Calibration on GC is important, if the calibration is not kept up consistently and constantly, your results will not be accurate.

11. ISO certifications, commonly 9001:2008, 17025:2015, etc. are just certifications. While they do generally translate into more accuracy, that's not always the case. I've known plenty of upper management personal who've falsified data just to appease the customer. I'm talking about technical directors from Shell and BP, who've personally called me and asked that a test be rerun until their number appeared(aka put their number in). I regret my time at the last lab I worked as I saw what a bunch of leg spreaders the company was. Willing to do anything for a dollar, what a tarnish on UOA. For those that might say that's a bunch of [censored], lies, burn him. I'll bring up a well known case.

Analabs and the Chicago Transit Authority. Analabs owner was caught red handed falsifying data on a government contract. A sting was set up. They told him they had mailed the samples. In labs, with big contracts, the lab always knows what machine is coming and everything about that machine for those that don't know. Well he sent over the data and when asked how he did that, he said every test had been run, etc. Three days later, they requested he fly into Chicago to address questions regarding the contract. He never did show, and he was later told his contract was done and Analabs was banned from doing business with the CTA and any Chicago government agency. So what happened? CTA never sent in the samples, they just claimed they had because they knew Analabs wasn't doing the testing. Analabs is no longer owned by him and was picked up by Eurofins quite recently. I also, worked a few coolant samples for Houston metro who suspected the same thing was happening. Samples came to me and Polaris for validation, the results there were not pretty for Ana again. The list goes on for cities and states Ana was based from doing business in. Sad because some of their analyst were truly some of the best in the business. But this business isn't about results(pun there I guess), it's about profits.

12. In short, commercial labs like Polaris, Tribologik, Eurofins, Analysts, Test Oil, Cat SOS, SGS Her., Research Labs, Gear Head, and many many more are not set up to bring perfect results. They're set up for mass output of UOA data. Polaris cranks out 10,000 UOA a day!

13. Only one guy in the history of tribology has ever really gone after the automotive market, his name is Terry Dyson and known to most on here. He is one [censored] of a guy and a genius on UOA. He single handily did what maybe a few other guys in the world could do, but he did it publicly. I often refer people his way, because he's the only one that can, 1. spend the time necessary to review results, 2. Has answers that provide neat solutions to issues not identified by other labs. However his price is not cheap, so many end up using him once, rip him for what he's worth and don't go back. It's why he thinks everyone is dead set on stealing his secrets, well I should say secrets thought to him and the same one taught to me by the people that taught him.

14. So why aren't other labs going after automotive? There's no money in automotive UOA, plus because it is so complicated, it requires a special set of training in many fields, including physically understanding how to work on cars. What Blackstone charges $28 for Tribologik and Polaris charge $7. There's no way they including Blackstone, can spend an hour with each customer for $7 or even $30.

15. I believe I've given a list of test and methods you can take to any lab and ask for. INSIST on them, do not budge. The labs will try and fool you and say, you don't need that! That dude has no idea what he's talking about. [censored], they just don't want to do the tests because it slows down production and isn't worth the money. These labs care about production output and $$$$$, $$$$$ and more $$$$$$$$.

16. of course the results matter, when you get good UOA, you can call things out like bad O2 sensors, spark plugs, timing conditions, improve power and fuel economy. Oh and save money and less pollution of the earth. If not one of those matters to you, then I'd avoid UOA as you will just give away your hard earned $$$$.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Bottom Line: The oil just lost 12% kv100. Thats not much in 5,000 miles. Nothing to see here. Very little VII polymer shearing and/or fuel dilution here.

 

[danielLD]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Bottom Line: The oil just lost 12% kv100. Thats not much in 5,000 miles. Nothing to see here. Very little VII polymer shearing and/or fuel dilution here.


*****, I officially give up.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Danh
Don't leave us in suspense. Without giving away the store, how does a civilian "control" fuel dilution in a modern DI engine and preserve the warranty at the same time? I'd love to have a strategy.


From other threads, I believe that his solution is to go thinner.

So if a 0W20 is too thick to control ring seal, then surely the fuel dilution would be "better" from that perspective and self limiting as it further improved things.

Originally Posted By: danielLD
Because filters do not behave the same way in every engine, in each oil and fuel. We are also missing vital data needed to make those determinations. You have to know and test many combos. Aftermarket filters almost always perform better than their OEM alternatives and tend to be the same price.

From his data, 0.3 at 5,000 miles is too high. What is this 100% related to? No one really knows because we're missing crucial data.

It's likely EGRed fuel residuals, FD, and poor filtration. After a while, you start to see the same trends over and over again.


You don't think the Ceratech solids are part of the high insolubles ?