Oil for a Direct Injection engine?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Don't know the SA content but both Pennzoil Platinum and Ultra are adverstising less piston deposits than M1 and I don't see anybody calling them on it. Would be reasonable therefore to consider those two lubes as good or better than M1 in a GDI application I would think.

Not that anybody really knows if oil choice will make a bit of difference in a GDI engine.
 
Castrol Edge may also be a good choice, having the lowest Calcium levels of all the majors.

per PQIA 5w30:
http://pqiamerica.com/March2013PCMO/Marchsyntheticsallfinal.html

Until we see what adjustments GF-6 has to offer, low Calcium oils will earn my dollar, at least where the 2.0T-GDi is concerned.

Just to extrapolate on KCJeep's point where the new PurePlus oils from Pennzoil are concerned. I'd assume they are still heavy on the Calcium side based on the PQIA 0w20 test of the Platinum product, whereas the Edge Gold and M1 versions of 0w20 are low:

PQIA PPPP 0W-20:
http://www.pqiamerica.com/June 2014/pennzplatinum.htm

PQIA M1 and Edge 0W-20:
http://www.pqiamerica.com/June 2014/consolidated 0W-20.html
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Don't know the SA content but both Pennzoil Platinum and Ultra are adverstising less piston deposits than M1 and I don't see anybody calling them on it. Would be reasonable therefore to consider those two lubes as good or better than M1 in a GDI application I would think.

Not that anybody really knows if oil choice will make a bit of difference in a GDI engine.


That is a high temp deposit test based on the demanding SEQ IIG test. Different form of deposits and test. I really like the latest Pennzoil Synthetic oils. They are top notch.
 
Originally Posted By: KCJeep

Not that anybody really knows if oil choice will make a bit of difference in a GDI engine.


True.
 
...in addition, I do recall reading on various Hyundai Forums of a few, early examples of Turbo Velosters (1.6T-GDi) suffering from LSPI. Hyundai "fixed" the issue with an ECU update. Post-update, owners appear to be satisfied. Our obsession may be ill-founded.
wink.gif
 
^ Interesting.

I was on Mobil 1 UK's/IR site and they recommend Mobil 1 0w40 for the Mazda 2.0. lol

With that said, I may run Mobil 1 ESP 5w30 due to the low SA of .6. %. That is also a very robust oil.
 
Originally Posted By: wemay
...in addition, I do recall reading on various Hyundai Forums of a few, early examples of Turbo Velosters (1.6T-GDi) suffering from LSPI. Hyundai "fixed" the issue with an ECU update. Post-update, owners appear to be satisfied. Our obsession may be ill-founded.
wink.gif



My SFS 2.0T has had the common Cyl 3 misfire anomaly on two occasions. . . the first time it happened I cleared the code. The second time it happened was about a month later and I took it to the dealer with the MIL still showing. The dealer flashed the ECU with updated software and the issue has not reappeared (update was about 6 months ago).

As for SA being the culprit. . . I doubt it. I do use PPPP 5w30 in this application as I believe the (advertised)cleaning benefits mitigate the risk of a LSPI event by preemptively keeping deposits at a minimum. The Hyundai ECU software update seems to have solved the misfire problem, which may indicate a systemic cause of the misfire to begin with, unless the update was designed with a higher tolerance to misfires without triggering the MIL--only Hyundai engineers know that.

As a point of interest, both misfire codes in my vehicle were triggered within a few seconds of start-up (no load) in very cold winter conditions when a rich mixture would be commanded by the ECU--usually rich mixtures / no load aren't associated with LSPI.
 
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
While not a Hyundai, I have a Cadillac CTS with the 3.6 DI engine that has run Mobil 1 all its life with very good results. Car has 68k miles on it, no carbon buildup that I can tell. Of course, I do spray carb cleaner down the intake every other oil change or so to "wash" the valves.



Car only has 68000 miles. Before you start bellowing the very good results mantra put another couple hundred thousand on
 
Originally Posted By: TheOtherGoose
I wish direct injection engines weren't set to run so rich, but I guess that's the nature of the technology.


It's not that they run rich, it's that they run dry. Air is rushing in on the back side of the valve all by itself, while the fuel is bypassing the valve entirely and being injected directly into the combustion chamber. On a port fuel injected engine, the air and the fuel are taking the same route together, and by doing so, the wet mixture washes the back side of the valves off and keeps the valves clean.
 
The key with a direct injection engine is to not change the oil any more frequently than the owners manual or oil life monitor demands (some people think they're 'helping' their engine by changing oil more frequently than spec -- this is wrong, especially for a DI engine!). And pay particular attention to the oil actually used. DIY or physically observing the mechanic/technican pouring sealed bottles of the properly spec'ed oil is best, if you can. Don't just blindly assume the dealer or the quickie lube will use the appropriate, specified lubricant, rather than low-bidder bulk 5w30 dino that might not meet the latest specs on volatility.

Most of the trouble reported with DI engines and oil, particularly the notorious intake contaminant occlusion issues, has been related to either the use of improper lubricants (either out of ignorance, or out of profit seeking motives by less-than-reputable maintainers). Or the overly frequent changing of oil by good meaning people stuck on maintenance practices more typically recommended 30+ years ago. Old habits die hard, but with DI and the lack of fuel vapour diluting the recirculated crankcase fumes, intake contamination is exacerbated by those extra oil changes.
 
Originally Posted By: pitzel
The key with a direct injection engine is to not change the oil any more frequently than the owners manual or oil life monitor demands (some people think they're 'helping' their engine by changing oil more frequently than spec -- this is wrong, especially for a DI engine!).

Could you please explain the physics/chemistry of the premise? I am not arguing, just trying to learn more, as we all have to face the DI revolution sooner or later, it seems.
Thank you
 
Originally Posted By: Y_K

Could you please explain the physics/chemistry of the premise? I am not arguing, just trying to learn more, as we all have to face the DI revolution sooner or later, it seems.
Thank you


The premise is that the intake occlusion/contamination issues are mostly caused by recirculated volatilized products of motor oil depositing on intake components as they mix with fresh intake air and are drawn into the cylinders as part of the intake air charge.

Motor oil volatility is at its peak when the oil is brand new. And declines over time as the oil is in service and is subject to repeated distillation inside the engine under the vacuum imposed on the crankcase by the PCV system.

So to fix the problem, simply minimize the volatility of the oil. By both selecting the least volatile oil as possible. And using that oil in its least volatile condition -- when its been in-service for a while, minimizing the exposure to 'brand-new' oil which is susceptible to higher distillation loss.

In Europe, and even in the manufacturers' labs in the USA, the problems could not be replicated, as manufacturer-recommended maintenance practices were adhered to in the test environment (over-maintenance isn't generally a usual test case!) and the actual European end-user environment. A few years back, I personally did a meta-analysis, on BiTOG, of a lengthy car-proprietary non-BiTOG forum thread where people were complaining of issues -- there was a very strong correlation between improper maintenance practice (too frequent oil changes) and intake contamination.

Also, manufacturers have tightened the volatility spec severely over the past few years in response to the DI intake contamination troubles. Ostensibly because controlling volatility is a significant component to the overall 'solution' to this problem.

Some people have had decent luck with "catch cans" and other inserts to the PCV/breather system. If there's no adverse affect on instrumentation or the normal characteristics, this can be a valid solution albeit requiring additional maintenance. However, it really doesn't address the root cause of too much, and too poor of quality motor oil causing the problem in the first place.
 
Any study or literature you can share with us would be greatly appreciated. The report/study below (pdf link) advises a conservative oci may be better, no matter the oil type (grpII or III).

www.pecj.or.jp/japanese/overseas/conference/pdf/conference12-19.pdf


There are many theories concerning best practice(s) for limiting IVD in GDi i.e.,

low ash
conservative oci
low Noack
low TEOST

and... 'outside the odd example, there is no deposit issue':
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2015/...n-engines-.html

etc.
 
Last edited:
I'm going with my stash of GC 0w30 on my next oci in the accent. So far no issues with mobil super synthetic 5w20. Other than sounding like a sewing machine.

I dumped a can of berryman b12 Chem tool in this latest fill up and I'm on course for 400 miles thus tank. I usually get right at 380-390.

I also drive it like I stole it.
 
Originally Posted By: Clevy

Car only has 68000 miles. Before you start bellowing the very good results mantra put another couple hundred thousand on


I agree that 68,000 miles is much too early to draw any conclusions, but I do think that if a DI related problem hasn't reared its ugly head by 150,000-200,000 miles it probably won't at 250,000 miles either.
 
Pitzel does make some goods points; what he illustrated best is there is no consensus. As for the notion of there being no problem, I'm sure there's some validity in that, too. Some people have good luck, some engines fare better than others. There are also plenty of non-BITOG type people who are satisfied if their engines start and get the from A to B, irrespective of oil type, level, or deposits.
 
http://papers.sae.org/2011-01-2110/

"...In this study, the characteristics of these deposits have been investigated using elemental and thermal analytical techniques. Deposits from intake valves and combustion chambers have been collected from various DISI engines (both older and more modern ones). We have found that both fuel and engine lubricant contribute to the composition of deposits.."

"...DISI intake valve deposit compositions consist of 10% (by weight) or higher non-carbon (inorganic) elements, of which Ca, Mo, Zn, P and S are dominant. The amount of these inorganic elements in the DISI engine intake valve deposit is at least one order of magnitude higher than in the PFI intake valve deposit…"
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Pitzel does make some goods points; what he illustrated best is there is no consensus. As for the notion of there being no problem, I'm sure there's some validity in that, too. Some people have good luck, some engines fare better than others. There are also plenty of non-BITOG type people who are satisfied if their engines start and get the from A to B, irrespective of oil type, level, or deposits.


I think this and MCompact's post hold true. There's so much apprehension concerning D.I. that you would think there's a serious problem across the board. Now you even have BG commercials on the radio capitalizing on this fear. I really am beginning to think the issues are there, just few and far between, with the majority of those affected being individuals who don't perform their scheduled maintenance in time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom