Enzo (2) Compare Shell 10W60, GC 0W30 at 1,400 mi

Status
Not open for further replies.
“What was flashpoint?
What method does youroil.net use for water (assume not Karl Fischer) & fuel (assume not FTIR)?
What was TAN and sulfate byproducts? I don't know if youroil.net does these tests in a typical UOA.
What filters were used on both? OEM oil & air? “

These are good questions indeed.
The flashpoint was very low indicative of more fuel in the oil than indicated by the test values, both oil samples probably had more fuel in there than indicated.
I do not know the test methods used by youroil.net.
The TAN in my sample was very high at 1.71. This may be a better indicator than TBN and I am happy that DysonAnalysis does this. It is possible that TBN is high but cannot neutralize all the different types of acids building up in your engine. Some of my iron may in fact be secondary to the acid effects. I believe that TAN is much better than TBN for really seeing what is happening in your engine.
The only other value on my report was Soot = 0.

Both cars use the OEM parts all the way, except me, when it comes to the oil.

I use YourOil for basic testing as it is cheaper. When I need to really know what is going on I use DysonAnalysis. You may pay more with Dyson but you get much more in return.

aehaas
 
What is the TAN for virgin GC?

The sulfate byproduts # is listed in the lower right box of the reports from Dyson. Again, I don't know what the sulfate byproducts # is for virgin GC although I would expect it to be low.

What fuel & grade do you use? Any fuel additives?
 
Here is a VOA from 2003, not sure if this is any help. The lab was not named.
Basically, this is useless in my mind but here it is:

Iron 3.4
Lead 0.5
Al 1.7
Copper 0.4
Silicon 7.8
Chromium 0.1
Nickel 0
Titanium 0.1
Silver 3.4
Tin 0
Sodium 0
Potassium 0
Boron 5.2
Barium 0.1
Moly 0.1
Magnesium 144
Calcium 3544
Phosphorus 896
Zinc 1116
Manganese 0.8
Vanadium 0
VI 180
Vis at 40c 67.6
Vis at 100c 12.2 (nice!)
TBN D4739 9.39
TAN 1.95
Pour point To Come
Freeze point -39
 
That GC VOA was mine, it was done at Wearcheck Canada, and it was the green formula of GC, not the current gold formula.
 
Quote:


In the past some of the Amsoil products thickened too soon for me. I always look for thinning or stability for start up viscosities, this is better than thickening for me. The current products all seem to be usable to me.

One reason I use other oils is that I have contacts within the oil companies that can answer questions. Dave at Red Line is an example. If he does not know the answer to a question he gets the answer then calls me back. I have gotten to know the people over at RLI and I am impressed with the room temperature characteristics of their motor oils. The numbers look good on paper too. This is why I will be trying their oils next.

Formulations seem to change weekly for motor oils. One has to stay on top of it.

aehaas




I appreciate that - but Amsoil will chat with you as well. If you want to move up the food chain in Amsoil and talk to the leaders or wait for an answer the next day from me, that's good too. When have I not answered a question? Maybe a thread I missed or something. Anyway thanks.
 
It would be hard to use another brand or weight of oil, in your new Enzo
shocked.gif
, than the one recommended by Ferrari! If your neighbor decides to continue running the Shell, this is a great opportunity for more comparisons. Unfortunately for us here, seeking more oil knowledge, I foresee your neighbor having you doing his future OC's.
smile.gif
 
I do not think many would argue that 10W60 is a bit much for round town driveing!!! I would never recomend 10W60 for that type of use and many consider me a thick oil man!!! It is not needed... I do have a question for you though... When did GC pick up so many additives????Origanaly when GC was makeing a name for it's self one of the things that was ungiue to it's formula was the low level's of metalic additives. Now it appear's to be loaded with ZDDP????When did this happen????
 
Hard to argue with the results that the Castrol 0w-30 is a better choice. Does this engine run a lot of oil pressure? I am wondering if the high revs kicks in the bypass with the higher visc oil.

You probably need the 30 grade with the fuel dilute. What was the conclusion on the 5w-20 or was that with a different engine/car?
 
My pressures run around 45 - 50 PSI at 2,000 RPM when fully warmed up to 180 F sump temperature. The pressure at pop off is around 90 - 95 PSI at operating temperature. Interestingly the pop off pressure is around 120 - 130 PSI at start up when the ambient temperature is 75 F. The relief valve must be further downstream of the oil filter while the pressure is taken at the filter.

aehaas
 
Interested on your views on Shell Helix 10w60 oil for track day use (and general road use) in a British TVR sports car. Performance is 0-60mph in about 4.3 seconds, quarter mile in about 12-13 seconds, top speed 160 mph
Climate - operating in temperatures from 32F to about 85F, mainly 45F to 70F.

Engine is 5 litres, V8, a longer stroke version of the Range Rover engine, which in turn was developed from a 1950s Buick, so not exactly Ferrari Enzo high tech. The TVR forums in the UK worry about having enough zinc in their oil, but otherwise opinions vary on what is the best oil to run.

My engine was actually built last year, 10,000 miles ago, but the average age of these V8 engines is about 18 years old. Most owners use a 20w50 oil, something like Valvoline VR1, or Castrol 5 or 10w40.
 
I've got a good bit of seat time in the "Enzo". My general impression is one of, believe it or not, that it's slightly down on power and/or throttle response. It's fast, for sure. But, it's not faster than a mildly tweaked Nissan GTR at reasonable speeds, such as street encounters and drag strip use. And, it's Way down on power when directly compared to a McLaren F1.

We did some comparisons between the Enzo and the F1. I tried every trick in the book and it mattered not. The Enzo fell about 700 feet back within seconds on each "roll on" race. Some of that could be traction control and throttle by wire issues. But the two cars have similar HP and similar weights. Yet, could not be more different. The F1 really has that "rip snorting" power you expect from a supercar.

The Enzo is a technical "tour de force" and the F1 is basic, with no traction control, no throttle by wire and no ABS (if I remember correctly) All of this makes the F1 quite a blast to drive. The F1 is actually faster initially, than the Veyron.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I've got a good bit of seat time in the "Enzo". My general impression is one of, believe it or not, that it's slightly down on power and/or throttle response. It's fast, for sure. But, it's not faster than a mildly tweaked Nissan GTR at reasonable speeds, such as street encounters and drag strip use. And, it's Way down on power when directly compared to a McLaren F1.

We did some comparisons between the Enzo and the F1. I tried every trick in the book and it mattered not. The Enzo fell about 700 feet back within seconds on each "roll on" race. Some of that could be traction control and throttle by wire issues. But the two cars have similar HP and similar weights. Yet, could not be more different. The F1 really has that "rip snorting" power you expect from a supercar.

Well, yeah. Doesn't the Enzo have a great deal more downforce? Wouldn't be shocked if it had a heck of a lot more aerodynamic drag, too.


Originally Posted By: Cujet
The F1 is actually faster initially, than the Veyron.

...Wait, what?
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I've got a good bit of seat time in the "Enzo". My general impression is one of, believe it or not, that it's slightly down on power and/or throttle response. It's fast, for sure. But, it's not faster than a mildly tweaked Nissan GTR at reasonable speeds, such as street encounters and drag strip use. And, it's Way down on power when directly compared to a McLaren F1.

We did some comparisons between the Enzo and the F1. I tried every trick in the book and it mattered not. The Enzo fell about 700 feet back within seconds on each "roll on" race. Some of that could be traction control and throttle by wire issues. But the two cars have similar HP and similar weights. Yet, could not be more different. The F1 really has that "rip snorting" power you expect from a supercar.

Well, yeah. Doesn't the Enzo have a great deal more downforce? Wouldn't be shocked if it had a heck of a lot more aerodynamic drag, too.


Originally Posted By: Cujet
The F1 is actually faster initially, than the Veyron.

...Wait, what?


You never saw that race?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXqSedWSu2k
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
You never saw that race?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXqSedWSu2k

Top Gear Magazine said they kept the Veyron's launch control disabled to make the race closer. Top Gear is a great show, but in the end it's about entertainment, not information.

I have no special love for the Veyron and completely agree that the F1 is the more desirable car. Just trying to keep it real. Look up objectively tested acceleration numbers for both cars and compare. The Veyron is very clearly quicker everywhere, including off the line (0-60 in well under 3 seconds, vs. just over 3 seconds for the F1).
 
I've seen both at PBIR. The Veyron launched mildly. Probably due to configuration and not the car's outright ability. But I have no way to know that. The F1 has no such restrictions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top