Honda Civic EXT 1.5t UOA

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: danielLD
oil_film, I have no idea how you calculate things that have been proven to not be possible, please enlighten.

What??? I can't tell what you're asking. I'll guess: Maybe you still don't accept the fact that VII chemicals do mechanical break apart, which has the effect of reducing kv100 (and HTHS). This oil in this thread went from 10.9 to 7.1 kv100. Much of that from fuel dilution, & some from VII permanent shear of course too.
OK, more references about VII permanent shear:
https://www.oronite.com/paratone/shearloss.aspx
http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/30861/1/IJCT%205(5)%20309-314.pdf
http://www.api.org/~/media/Files/Certification/Engine-Oil-Diesel/Publications/4-Trends-in-Shear-Stability-of-Automotive-Engine-Oils.pdf

 

[danielLD]

I don't understand how you can determine what caused viscosity to drop based on a calculation of it's drop. That's what I'm asking

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: danielLD
I don't understand how you can determine what caused viscosity to drop based on a calculation of it's drop. That's what I'm asking

I didn't calculate a drop.
New oil is spec'ed at 10.9, and the UOA is 7.1, which was measured, not calculated, from a kv100 viscometer.
Then, all I know is that some fuel dilution is present, and the usual, typical, frequently occuring permanent VII shear is there in some percentage. Unknown percentage. Just some combination of dilution and shearing, thats all.
Oxidation makes visc go up, so an unknwon amount of that was there too.

 

[danielLD]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: danielLD
I don't understand how you can determine what caused viscosity to drop based on a calculation of it's drop. That's what I'm asking

I didn't calculate a drop.
New oil is spec'ed at 10.9, and the UOA is 7.1, which was measured, not calculated, from a kv100 viscometer.
Then, all I know is that some fuel dilution is present, and the usual, typical, frequently occuring permanent VII shear is there in some percentage. Unknown percentage. Just some combination of dilution and shearing, thats all.
Oxidation makes visc go up, so an unknwon amount of that was there too.


I will rephrase. How do you know which caused what? Because without FTIR measurements and some sort of fuel presence indicator, there is no way to tell what is what and based on some of your previous posts, you were able to pinpoint things pretty well.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: danielLD
I will rephrase. How do you know which caused what? Because without FTIR measurements and some sort of fuel presence indicator, there is no way to tell what is what and based on some of your previous posts, you were able to pinpoint things pretty well.

OK, previous posts from another thread. ... I think you mean my use of the http://www.widman.biz/English/Calculators/Mixtures.html .
You can put in the kv100 of the new oil, then put in the kv100 of gasoline, and mix them until it equals the current used-oil kv100, indicating how much gasoline might be mixed in. This may be thrown off if there are more than 6,000 miles, since oxidation will increase viscosity after about that point.
Its a rough measure of how much fuel might be present, but you also have to take into account an expected loss from VII permanent shear.
One can play with the numbers to get some idea, but nothing too accurate.

 

[Danh]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: danielLD
I will rephrase. How do you know which caused what? Because without FTIR measurements and some sort of fuel presence indicator, there is no way to tell what is what and based on some of your previous posts, you were able to pinpoint things pretty well.

OK, previous posts from another thread. ... I think you mean my use of the http://www.widman.biz/English/Calculators/Mixtures.html .
You can put in the kv100 of the new oil, then put in the kv100 of gasoline, and mix them until it equals the current used-oil kv100, indicating how much gasoline might be mixed in. This may be thrown off if there are more than 6,000 miles, since oxidation will increase viscosity after about that point.
Its a rough measure of how much fuel might be present, but you also have to take into account an expected loss from VII permanent shear.
One can play with the numbers to get some idea, but nothing too accurate.


We can split hairs, but after looking at lots of UOAs from port-injected engines where shear would be a primary reason for a viscosity dip, there's no reasonable way shear would explain even a small fraction of the OP's experience. That leaves fuel dilution and, seeing Honda 1.5T UOAs that have been subjected to gas chromatography and show very substantial (>5%) fuel content, I don't think we're stepping too far out on a limb to presume the OP has a significant fuel dilution issue.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: Danh
We can split hairs, but after looking at lots of UOAs from port-injected engines where shear would be a primary reason for a viscosity dip, there's no reasonable way shear would explain even a small fraction of the OP's experience. That leaves fuel dilution and, seeing Honda 1.5T UOAs that have been subjected to gas chromatography and show very substantial (>5%) fuel content, I don't think we're stepping too far out on a limb to presume the OP has a significant fuel dilution issue.
Yes, we all can say this thread is about a lot of fuel dilution. I stated that above. Mostly fuel dilution. DaneilLD was referring to another thread where the viscosity only dropped 12% (kv100), where this thread is about a 34% drop in kv100. So 34% > 12%. If something has 12% its not too bad, and most of it can be blamed on VII permanent shear. When 34% occurs, most of it is likely due to fuel dilution. Does that clear up the confusion?
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
That is a lot of fuel dilution, as VII shearing wouldn't account for going from 10.9 to 7.1 kv100 like that.
Time to use M1 0w40 with that much dilution going on. Then you can leave it in for 6,000 miles.

 

[parshisa]

I wouldn't trust those reports seen much. Oil analyzers ran the test on the same sample twice (GC) and came up with two complete different results (1.5T Civic). first time around - over 5%, second time - practically no fuel at all. Same exact sample, same lab, same method. I'm hesitant to believe their testing method is legit

 

[danielLD]

Originally Posted By: parshisa
I wouldn't trust those reports seen much. Oil analyzers ran the test on the same sample twice (GC) and came up with two complete different results (1.5T Civic). first time around - over 5%, second time - practically no fuel at all. Same exact sample, same lab, same method. I'm hesitant to believe their testing method is legit


GC is the only way to calculate fuel % - period. Well maybe a fuel sniffer.

You've given one set of circumstances we have no idea what happened. I've seen many lab mistakes, I don't know the circumstances behind your sample. It's like the guy at discount tires that gets a flat and that tire is nothing but garbage because he got a flat. One mistake by one lab, doesn't mean much.

 

[parshisa]

Circumstances: two sample for two cars (Honda Pilot and Honda Civic 1.5T) submitted. Both reports come in: Fuel Dilution for honda Pilot is not calculated but estimated as less than 1%. FD for civic comes back as >5%. I call them back asking why FD for Pilot has not been measured but estimated. They committed to re-run FD test for both samples for both cars using GC. New reports came back as 3.2% FD in Pilot and 0.4%?????? for Civic. I called them back and asked why results differ so much and they had no answer for me. I think it means something. At least it gives an idea about the competency and accuracy.

 

[danielLD]

Originally Posted By: parshisa
Circumstances: two sample for two cars (Honda Pilot and Honda Civic 1.5T) submitted. Both reports come in: Fuel Dilution for honda Pilot is not calculated but estimated as less than 1%. FD for civic comes back as >5%. I call them back asking why FD for Pilot has not been measured but estimated. They committed to re-run FD test for both samples for both cars using GC. New reports came back as 3.2% FD in Pilot and 0.4%?????? for Civic. I called them back and asked why results differ so much and they had no answer for me. I think it means something. At least it gives an idea about the competency and accuracy.


Parisha, why don't you PM the lab numbers and I will call the lab and figure out the issue. Too many details that we don't know.

I can't answer or speak for that lab and don't know your set of circumstances. Here are the facts I do know.

Gas Chromatography is the only way to accurately measure fuel % other than a fuel sniffer. Three tests done in a row, should return, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.1% on average. You will not see 3.1 and then 0.4% on a GC machine, unless the LAB is having issues.

Just because a 16 year old girl hits my car, doesn't mean all the others don't know how to drive.

Also, one thing I think you may want to think about, is the problem with estimating fuel in cars is just that, it's an estimate, they're never accurate in cars. Estimates are guesses based on other data sets, not the actual read.

 

[parshisa]

Here you go Sir. All 4 reports for your reference. Not sure what else can I add to this story

 

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted By: Danh
If you wander around this forum you'll find that Blackstone's fuel dilution figures have no credibility: its methodology is cheap and flawed and grossly underestimates fuel dilution in virtually all cases.

Don't want to rain on your parade, but you actually have considerable fuel dilution, as is typical for this Honda engine....


How do you know? The 0W oil could have sheared down. There are plenty of UOA's here that might have excessive dilution readings from Blackstone. Incidentally, I'm not a fan of non-commercial UOA's applications either...

The Honda turbo fuel dilution issue might be a programming-glitch more than anything endemic to this engine...

Secondly, why question the fuel dilution but not the TBN reading?

 

[oil_film_movies]

For a moment, forget the direct estimation of fuel dilution.
Use kv100 as a way to find out if the Stribeck Curve is operating in the right spot based on original engine design and expectations of sufficient viscosity. Nice if we had HTHS, yet kv100 works OK.
Engineers design in some safety margin, and they don't tell us EXACTLY how thin visc can get (from fuel dilution and VII permanent shear) before more wear begins.
It happens all of a sudden as visc fall, kind of a wall really, from wear graphs I've seen.
For example, get below HTHS 2.0 and thats likely where these Honda engines (and ones that do well on 0w20 or 5w20) begins to show excess wear.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Danh
If you wander around this forum you'll find that Blackstone's fuel dilution figures have no credibility: its methodology is cheap and flawed and grossly underestimates fuel dilution in virtually all cases.

Don't want to rain on your parade, but you actually have considerable fuel dilution, as is typical for this Honda engine....


How do you know? The 0W oil could have sheared down. There are plenty of UOA's here that might have excessive dilution readings from Blackstone. Incidentally, I'm not a fan of non-commercial UOA's applications either...

The Honda turbo fuel dilution issue might be a programming-glitch more than anything endemic to this engine...

Secondly, why question the fuel dilution but not the TBN reading?


TBN readings use a more reliable, accurate test. Similar to the good accuracy of viscosity measurements, so we trust them more.

Thanks for saying the 0w oil could have permanent shear. However, if kv100 really drops a lot, it can't ALL be from permanent shear, its probably half and half sometimes fuel dilution plus VII permanent shear together.

I have to think Honda knew about this reduction in viscosity (whatever the combo on causes), as they do a lot of durability lab and field tests before any consumer buys the engines.

 

[danielLD]

So with your pilot, they originally did FTIR for an estimate. That one looks fine.

On the civic, I'm not sure. I've heard several analysts complain to me before about Polaris. I can't speak for them but on a properly calibrated GC, you should run 100 tests and they're all within .8% of each other. There is no way you can go from 0.4% to 5%.

With that being said. As a professional who used to calibrate these machines on the regular. The 5% FD looks correct. They reran it and I have no idea how 0.4% came about. Usually with a Civic and 20W at 6.8cst, you're in that nasty fuel range of 5-7%. Your UOA falls in line with 50 others I have on file.

How much does that UOA cost? I was working on finding a lab who might be willing to give BITOGers ICP + FTIR + Viscosity 40 + GC for $25. Still looking lol.

Stribeck curve does not work. It doesn't work with modern fuels and oils. If it was accurate and even remotely worked, we would have used it in every lab I worked at.

No, the Honda fuel dilution is not a programming glitch, for the millionth time, it's an emissions and warranty safety.

NickD, Blackstone never estimates fuel correctly. It's like searching for silver with a gold metal detector.

 

[parshisa]

The kit costs 19$ shipped and the lab is houston so I just drop it off there. Way cheaper and faster than [censored]. Honestly, it is obvious that FD will always be present and I will see viscosity drop. Although running more shear stable oil with stronger base will help to minimize the effect of shearing and leave it all to FD. The only thing that doesn’t make sense to me is the total capacity in the sump - it never changed at all, oil level on the dipstick was rock solid. With the factory fill it was rising as fawk and I drained around 4qt. Same thing rwith the current fill - 1.6k and level doesn’t change at all. I’ll be running UOA again and 99.99% will see both FD and vis drop.

With all that said - Short OCI (5K in my case) would be the only way to keep the engine healthy. IMO

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: danielLD
Stribeck curve does not work. It doesn't work with modern fuels and oils. If it was accurate and even remotely worked, we would have used it in every lab I worked at.

The Stribeck Curve is not something one would ever "use" in a UOA lab. That's not the point. ...
It is the physical function which relates oil viscosity to friction, which correlates to oil film thickness (at various shear rates).
It allows an engineer to see when the oil gets too thin to work properly. Used at design and validation time.
Labs don't know (apparently, from your answer....) or care what Stribeck Curves are or means.
The consumer just thinks of the Stribeck when they understand their oil should never get to thin to work properly.

 

[Shannow]

I'm intrigued with how his lab used the stribeck curve in order to come to the conclusion that it's wrong.

Pray tell exactly how it was applied to the field of Used Oil Analysis, because I'm scratching.

Stribeck explains the transition from fully blown hydrodynamic, through to the point that additives become the dominant driver of wear...

Here's a test result of a taxi fleet...

Per the description of the paper...

Quote:
Two programs were conducted to study the relationships between engine oil rheology and crankshaft bearing wear. A Chassis Dynamometer test of four oils in four cars was used to explore and define the key variables affecting bearing wear. These results were used to design a Field Test of nine oils in 45 taxicabs in New York City. The test oils (SAE OW-20 to 20W-20) were formulated to measure the effects of viscosity, viscosity index improver, and detergent inhibitor package. Bearing wear tended to be either low and unremarkable or very high, particularly in the thrust bearings. Oil performance was best expressed as the frequency of excessive wear, rather than by quantitative wear measurement. There were many instances of very high wear in cabs operated with the lowest viscosity oils but none in cabs with higher viscosity oils. Non-Newtonian oils appeared to provide slightly more protection than Newtonian oils of the same HTHS viscosity, and a higher quality adpack also appeared to provide benefits. However, these factors were secondary to the viscosity of the oil. HTHS viscosity was a better predictor of bearing wear performance than oil film thickness.


That's the stribeck curve explained...

 

[danielLD]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: danielLD
Stribeck curve does not work. It doesn't work with modern fuels and oils. If it was accurate and even remotely worked, we would have used it in every lab I worked at.

The Stribeck Curve is not something one would ever "use" in a UOA lab. That's not the point. ...
It is the physical function which relates oil viscosity to friction, which correlates to oil film thickness (at various shear rates).
It allows an engineer to see when the oil gets too thin to work properly. Used at design and validation time.
Labs don't know (apparently, from your answer....) or care what Stribeck Curves are or means.
The consumer just thinks of the Stribeck when they understand their oil should never get to thin to work properly.


I thought you were trying to say you can use the Stribeck curve to calculate fuel dilution. If I misread then that's all.