Valvoline Running In Oil, 3000km, Porsche 968, incl particle count

[zardozfromoz]

Here's my latest UOA. I had a hunch that the high silicon and sodium levels I was getting previously were being caused by the Redline 10W40 I was using, so I switched back to the oil I used to run the engine in, Valvoline Running In Oil (SAE 30). IMHO, that proved beyond a doubt that the Redline was adding around 10ppm to both silicon and sodium. I also think the Redline was contributing to the wear metals, especially lead, copper, and perhaps even the iron, although I can't be too sure on that.

For those who can't see the image above, here's the details in text form (reading latest to earliest, left to right).

Oil brand: Valvoline, Redline, Redline, Valvoline, Valvoline
Oil type: Running In Oil, Motor Oil, Motor Oil, Running In Oil, Running In Oil
Oil viscosity: SAE30, 10W40, 10W40, SAE30, SAE30
Date Sampled: 20-Aug-06, 1 Jul 2006, 16 May, 2006, 12 Feb 2006, 26 Mar 2006
Engine age (km): 13088, 10016, 7002, 4000, 898
Oil age (km): 3072, 6016, 3002, 3102, 890
Time in engine (weeks): 6.5, 13, 7, 4, 2
Fill capacity (approx): 6.5 litres
Oil added (l): 1.0, 3.3, 1.7, 2.0, 0.65
Oil filter replaced: Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes
Air filter replaced: No, No, No, No, Yes

Metals/Additives
Aluminium 6, 6, 11, 4, 3
Copper 3, 7, 5, 3, 4
Chromium 3, 3, 2, 2, Iron 5, 12, 10, 7, 6
Lead 4, 17, 11, 13, 7
Tin 0, 7, 0, 0, 0
Magnesium 11, 13, 10, 20, 17
Molybdenum 111, 596, 381, 20, 38
Boron 2, 7, 3, Sodium 3, 15, 14, 7, 6
Potassium 0, 2, 2, Calcium 2066, 2170, 2313, 1750, 1769
Zinc 1123, 1585, 1054, 1080, 1146
Phosphorus 981, 1386, 1070, 824, 893
Silicon 6, 18, 15, 9, 9
Nickel 1, 2, 1, N/A, N/A
Manganese 11, 0, 0, N/A, N/A
Silver 0, 0, 0, N/A, N/A
Titanium 0, 0, 0, N/A, N/A
Barium 0, 0, 0, N/A, N/A

FTIR Analysis
Glycol 0.0%, 0.0%, 0.0%, Oxidation N/A, N/A, N/A, 8, 6
Nitration N/A, N/A, N/A, Water 0.0%, 0.0%, 0.0%,
Physical Tests
Viscosity @ 40 N/A, N/A, 91, 93
Viscosity @ 100 N/A, N/A, 10.9, 11
Sus Viscosity @ 212F 62.7, 73.9, 70.1, N/A, N/A
Flashpoint 395, 390, 360, N/A, N/A - s/be > 400
TBN 3.9, 4.7, 4.3, 5.24, 7.94
PQ Index N/A, N/A, N/A, 11, 15
Insolubles 0.3, 0.3, 0.4, N/A, N/A - s/be < 0.7
Fuel% 0.8%, be < 1.0%

Particle counts
ISO Code 17/16/13, 16/15/13, 16/15/12, N/A, N/A
>=2 1287, 934, 858, N/A, N/A
>=5 477, 346, 318, N/A, N/A
>=10 132, 95, 88, N/A, N/A
>=15 51, 37, 34, N/A, N/A
>=25 12, 8, 8, N/A, N/A
>=50 1 ,0, 0, N/A, N/A
>=100 0, 0, 0, N/A, N/A

Fuel dilution is still too high, at 0.8%, but that's expected because I had an ignition problem througout the interval. I believe that problem is now fixed, but won't see evidence of that until the next UOA.

Viscosity remained almost exactly where it started, and the flashpoint is better than ever, although the fuel has affected it a little. I wonder why there's a good dose of fuel in there, but it didn't drop the viscosity? Increased blow-by compensated for it by oxidising it a bit?

All wear metals are much improved (especially lead), and trending downwards over distance, except for aluminium and chromium. Piston slap is the culprit there. I expected this because the bores are worn to their limits, and the original pistons have too much room in there. Likewise, the slightly loose pistons are preventing good ring seal, and increasing insolubles. I can't do much about that, I'm afraid. As I said earlier, I reckon the Redline was causing the high readings on some wear metals, and it seems other comments on this site back this notion up. Does this mean Redline eats bearings?

I'm very pleased with the improvements this time around, and expect the next interval to go a long way to solving the fuel dilution problem, as I have changed the ignition coil and solved the persistent starting problems that were no doubt contributing to fuel dilution.

One difference in setup on this interval is the return to a standard Mahle Porsche OEM oil filter. While on the Redline I was using a Canton Mecca filter. Despite the oils being different, I reckon it's clear that the Canton Mecca is about 25% better at filtering. I'll be going back to it as soon as I can solve the problem I have with the non-functioning drain back valve.

Any comments appreciated.

 

[zardozfromoz]

I finally figured out how to do columns! Here's all my UOA's since the rebuild in a much more human-friendly form:

code:

---

General Information

Oil brand Valvoline Redline Redline Valvoline Valvoline

Oil type Running In Oil Motor Oil Motor Oil Running In Oil Running In Oil

Oil viscosity SAE30 10W40 10W40 SAE30 SAE30

Date Sampled 20-Aug-06 1 Jul 2006 16 May 2006 12 Feb 2006 26 Mar 2006

Engine age (km) 13088 10016 7002 4000 898

Oil age (km) 3072 6016 3002 3102 890

Time in engine (weeks) 6.5 13 7 4 2

Fill capacity (approx) 6.5 litres

Oil added (l) 1.0 3.3 1.7 2.0 0.65

Oil filter replaced Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Oil filter brand Mahle Canton Mecca Canton Mecca Mahle Mahle

Air filter replaced No No No No Yes

Air filter brand OEM OEM OEM OEM OEM

Lab used Blackstone Blackstone Blackstone Castrol Castrol









Metals/Additives

Aluminium 6 6 11 4 3

Copper 3 7 5 3 4

Chromium 3 3 2 2
Iron 5 12 10 7 6

Lead 4 17 11 13 7

Tin 0 7 0 0 0

Magnesium 11 13 10 20 17

Molybdenum 111 596 381 20 38

Boron 2 7 3
Sodium 3 15 14 7 6

Potassium 0 2 2
Calcium 2066 2170 2313 1750 1769

Zinc 1123 1585 1054 1080 1146

Phosphorus 981 1386 1070 824 893

Silicon 6 18 15 9 9

Nickel 1 2 1 N/A N/A

Manganese 11 0 0 N/A N/A

Silver 0 0 0 N/A N/A

Titanium 0 0 0 N/A N/A

Barium 0 0 0 N/A N/A









FTIR Analysis

Glycol (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Oxidation N/A N/A N/A 8 6

Nitration N/A N/A N/A
Water (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0








Physical Tests

Viscosity @ 40 N/A N/A N/A 91 93

Viscosity @ 100 N/A N/A N/A 10.9 11

Sus Viscosity @ 212F 62.7 73.9 70.1 N/A N/A

Flashpoint 395 390 360 N/A N/A

TBN 3.9 4.7 4.3 5.24 7.94

PQ Index N/A N/A N/A 11 15

Insolubles 0.3 0.3 0.4 N/A N/A

Fuel (%) 0.8








Particle Counts

ISO Code (3) 17/16/13 16/15/13 16/15/12 N/A N/A

>=2 1287 934 858 N/A N/A

>=5 477 346 318 N/A N/A

>=10 132 95 88 N/A N/A

>=15 51 37 34 N/A N/A

>=25 12 8 8 N/A N/A

>=50 1 0 0 N/A N/A

>=100 0 0 0 N/A N/A

---

 

[sky jumper]

how exactly do you do columns? everytime i try they get all jumbled out of alignment.

the report looks good to me.

 

[zardozfromoz]

sky jumper, there's an Insant UBB Code option button called "Code". If you use it, anything you put between the tags it produces will retain its spacing exactly. Simply space out your columns within the Code tags.

 

[zardozfromoz]

I just noticed something rather interesting. When I first looked at the data I made a rough guess that the Canton Mecca filter was about 25% more efficient than the OEM filter. But then I decided to compare the two 3000km intervals with differing filters numerically, and I found something amazing about the numbers. The last 3000km has exactly 1.5 times more particles in it than the previous 3000km interval. Not just close, but exact at all particle sizes from 2 to 25 microns. Is this sort of consistency really possible?

 

[zardozfromoz]

Can someone who knows something about particle analysis give their opinion on the likelihood of my recent counts, where they've turned out to be exactly 1.5 times one of my previous analyses, right across the range of sizes. Is it reasonable to find such incredible consistency?

code:

---

>=2 1287 / 858 = 1.5

>=5 477 / 318 = 1.5

>=10 132 / 88 = 1.5

>=15 51 / 34 = 1.5

>=25 12 / 8 = 1.5

>=50 1 / 0 = N/A

>=100 0 / 0 = N/A

---

 

[zardozfromoz]

I got an answer from Blackstone as to why these particle counts are all an exact multiple of a previous analysis. They use the pore blockage method of particle analysis, which essentially only tests for particles at 15 microns and then infers the other particle counts from that number mathematically.

In the words of Ryan Stark from Blackstone: "...it runs the oil through a screen with holes that are exactly 15 micron in size. The machine measures how much oil passes through that screen and from that measurement, it calculates the estimated particle counts at the other different sizes. It really only gets a good reading at the 15 micron level and the rest of the values are calculated off of that...".

Here's some info from the Practicing Oil Analysis site that explains a little more about the pore blockage method of particle counting:

"[An] option to consider is the pore-blockage type particle counter. These particle counters determine a flow or pressure profile through a particle-collecting device to estimate a particle count. These machines are transparent to water or air bubble contamination, either of which can be an issue in most oils. Depending on design, they may also assume a normal particle distribution, which can be affected by changing filtration. Consider using this technique for oils where water contamination exists, or dark-colored oils (such as engine or other types of opaque oils) are monitored."

Assume a normal particle distribution, eh? I guess that's what was done with my two analyses. If both are assumed to have the same distribution of particles, then one is bound to be an exact multiple of the other - the exact multiple of the 15 micron particle count.