Infineum insight to Timing Chain Wear

Status
Not open for further replies.
This just shows how complicated and particular a modern car is these days. Just because a certain oil is what you've used for decades on your older cars has done well doesn't mean it's proper for a newer car.

Everything is expensive as well. Case in point, a dump truck threw a rock and it hit my windshield over a month ago. It was a chip but by the time I got to the repair shop the windshield had cracked. Unfortunately, Mazda doesn't have tons of windshields in stock so it's on order. Good thing I have insurance because the cost is over $1000. On top of that the front camera has to be reset and aligned.

Yes it was simpler way back when a glass shop had a windshield in stock and put one in while you waited.
 
Originally Posted by tig1
231K(miles) and no timing chain noise yet. using 0-20 at 10K OCIs.


If I remember right, M1 didn't have to change their formulation for d1g2 and SN+, is that right? If so, it means that you've been getting the increased timing chain protection for longer than other brands.

I know they were ahead of the pack with SN+.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by 1JZ_E46
Originally Posted by tig1
231K(miles) and no timing chain noise yet. using 0-20 at 10K OCIs.


If I remember right, M1 didn't have to change their formulation for d1g2 and SN+, is that right? If so, it means that you've been getting the increased timing chain protection for longer than other brands.

Not sure about that, but my 1996 Merc GM 4.6 had a very long chain and had the same result when I sold it at 218K, but I used M1 10-30 in it.
 
Originally Posted by tig1
231K(miles) and no timing chain noise yet. using 0-20 at 10K OCIs.


Is the 2007 Fusion GDI?
 
Originally Posted by tig1
Originally Posted by 1JZ_E46
Originally Posted by tig1
231K(miles) and no timing chain noise yet. using 0-20 at 10K OCIs.


If I remember right, M1 didn't have to change their formulation for d1g2 and SN+, is that right? If so, it means that you've been getting the increased timing chain protection for longer than other brands.

Not sure about that, but my 1996 Merc GM 4.6 had a very long chain and had the same result when I sold it at 218K, but I used M1 10-30 in it.


They had GDI in 1996?
 
Originally Posted by Brigadier
Originally Posted by tig1
Originally Posted by 1JZ_E46
Originally Posted by tig1
231K(miles) and no timing chain noise yet. using 0-20 at 10K OCIs.


If I remember right, M1 didn't have to change their formulation for d1g2 and SN+, is that right? If so, it means that you've been getting the increased timing chain protection for longer than other brands.

Not sure about that, but my 1996 Merc GM 4.6 had a very long chain and had the same result when I sold it at 218K, but I used M1 10-30 in it.


They had GDI in 1996?




Mitsubishi had GDI engines in the mid 90's.
 
Originally Posted by PimTac


They had GDI in 1996?



Mitsubishi had GDI engines in the mid 90's.



Subject vehicle is a Mercedes, no?
 
Originally Posted by Brigadier
Originally Posted by PimTac


They had GDI in 1996?



Mitsubishi had GDI engines in the mid 90's.



Subject vehicle is a Mercedes, no?



I read it as a Mercury.
 
Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by Brigadier
Originally Posted by PimTac


They had GDI in 1996?



Mitsubishi had GDI engines in the mid 90's.



Subject vehicle is a Mercedes, no?



I read it as a Mercury.


Even better - did Ford have GDI in '96?
 
google- [PDF]GF-6, PC-11 and dexos1 - Chevron Oronite it explains why the gf-6 is being delayed and the theory that the industry will have to use different base stocks then group 3 to meet spec. As in if you think group 3 can outperform group 4 and 5, it simply isn't the case and what they are trying to accomplish with gf-6 a and b proves it. So since the authorizing of using group 3 and being able to call it "synthetic" the industry has ran from real synthetic base stocks. Well that is about to change, pre warming lubrication fluids and running thinner oils simply will leave your engine/transmission/hears at risk more then if you use group 4 and 5 base stocks. No that is not me saying so, google that pdf. Thank timing wear chains tests for this, because when they added those tests to gf-6, group 3 oils just aren't cutting it. GF-6 B will likely be formulas similar to redline w/o the high additives.
 
Originally Posted by burla
google- [PDF]GF-6, PC-11 and dexos1 - Chevron Oronite it explains why the gf-6 is being delayed and the theory that the industry will have to use different base stocks then group 3 to meet spec. As in if you think group 3 can outperform group 4 and 5, it simply isn't the case and what they are trying to accomplish with gf-6 a and b proves it. So since the authorizing of using group 3 and being able to call it "synthetic" the industry has ran from real synthetic base stocks. Well that is about to change, pre warming lubrication fluids and running thinner oils simply will leave your engine/transmission/hears at risk more then if you use group 4 and 5 base stocks. No that is not me saying so, google that pdf. Thank timing wear chains tests for this, because when they added those tests to gf-6, group 3 oils just aren't cutting it. GF-6 B will likely be formulas similar to redline w/o the high additives.


I think what you mean is that, grp3 can't get the job done (as in wear, drain intervals, etc.) at the low viscosities stripulated by GF-6. That doesn't mean grp3 doesn't get the job for thicker viscosities. More expensive grp4 and grp5 is a complete waste of money in 99% of today's engines at GF-5 viscosities. Today's engines will run for 200k+ miles with synblend GF-5... it's everything that bolts to the engine that fails first.
 
Originally Posted by si1491
Funny, I was recently Google searching along the same lines of timing chain wear and came across the infineum article but also stumbled across this:
https://www.stle.org/images/pdf/STL...0Role%20Additive%20Chemistry%20Plays.pdf

The paper/presentation generally points to moly as being good to help prevent wear and ZDDP promotes more wear.


This was a good read. All this time is bitogers kept saying "gimme the zinc!" Maybe there is actually some value in moly additives for GDI engines.
 
I'm not sure what you're all doing to your BMW's, VW's and Mercs over there but here they are considered very reliable. Lots of people here drive around in 12-15 year old 3 series as they keep going forever.

One of the most reliable cars is considered the Passat B5 which are absolutely bulletproof. Okay, the PD's have the issue with the cams failing but only if an incorrect oil is used, can't blame the car for that!

Our 2012 BMW 320d is on 140k and since new has only had oil changes at 18k intervals, filters, tyres and brakes. It hasn't wanted for anything else. I personally think that's quite impressive.

An old boss of mine up until last year took a 2009 BMW 520d upto 290k. He was an extremely hard driver and other than oil changes at 18k intervals, filters, tyres, brakes and a few suspension bushes it was a very reliable car.

The 2015 Focus I had went back to Ford 46 times in 30 months. 8 of those times the car arrived on a flat bed.
 
Originally Posted by Bailes1992
I'm not sure what you're all doing to your BMW's, VW's and Mercs over there but here they are considered very reliable. Lots of people here drive around in 12-15 year old 3 series as they keep going forever.

One of the most reliable cars is considered the Passat B5 which are absolutely bulletproof. Okay, the PD's have the issue with the cams failing but only if an incorrect oil is used, can't blame the car for that!

Our 2012 BMW 320d is on 140k and since new has only had oil changes at 18k intervals, filters, tyres and brakes. It hasn't wanted for anything else. I personally think that's quite impressive.

An old boss of mine up until last year took a 2009 BMW 520d upto 290k. He was an extremely hard driver and other than oil changes at 18k intervals, filters, tyres, brakes and a few suspension bushes it was a very reliable car.

The 2015 Focus I had went back to Ford 46 times in 30 months. 8 of those times the car arrived on a flat bed.


They build better disel engines than petrol
 
Originally Posted by Bjornviken
Originally Posted by Bailes1992
I'm not sure what you're all doing to your BMW's, VW's and Mercs over there but here they are considered very reliable. Lots of people here drive around in 12-15 year old 3 series as they keep going forever.

One of the most reliable cars is considered the Passat B5 which are absolutely bulletproof. Okay, the PD's have the issue with the cams failing but only if an incorrect oil is used, can't blame the car for that!

Our 2012 BMW 320d is on 140k and since new has only had oil changes at 18k intervals, filters, tyres and brakes. It hasn't wanted for anything else. I personally think that's quite impressive.

An old boss of mine up until last year took a 2009 BMW 520d upto 290k. He was an extremely hard driver and other than oil changes at 18k intervals, filters, tyres, brakes and a few suspension bushes it was a very reliable car.

The 2015 Focus I had went back to Ford 46 times in 30 months. 8 of those times the car arrived on a flat bed.


They build better disel engines than petrol

* diesel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
GF-7 Timing Chain Wear
Replies
4
Views
718
Japanese
W
Base oils in relation to timing chain wear
Replies
10
Views
742
twX
jtay2024
Would a C3 Oil Protect a Timing Chain Better Than a C2 Oil?
2 3
Replies
42
Views
3K
yowps3
jtay2024
The Best Oil Choice Possible - K12C Suzuki
Replies
8
Views
445
Bailes1992
C
Which engine part will wear first from using too thin oil?
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
Jetronic
Back
Top Bottom