What's the Secret in the Additive Pkg that Reduces Chance of LSPI Events ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by RamFan
Originally Posted by ARCOgraphite
Opps. We designed the fueling system wrong, increased the compression too high, geared the vehicle too tall, recommend Regular 87octane fuel - pendulum moved to far to ECONOMY.

Let's blame the ..... uhhh ..... OIL!

Come ON! what do you expect would happen? REALLY!

Oh, but there is a study that shows ....Ca Carbamate and blah blah.

Sorry. I'm not biting.


Oil isn't being blamed. Oil reformulation is an avenue we're going down because we've found that adjustments made to oil can decrease incidences of LSPI. DGI and TDGI aren't going away. So how do we make them better? Oil is one of the answers.


Exactly
 
Originally Posted by LoneRanger
Originally Posted by StevieC
Amsoil came out and said 100% LSPI protection with their Signature Series after they lowered the Calcium so it appears that a Group IV oil with the right additive package can work just fine.


That to me sounds very unwise of Amsoil to publish such a statement.

Seems if one is running that particular Amsoil formulation and their engine is damaged from an LSPI event that's shown to be the cause, then Amsoil gets to buy the customer a new engine. Be interesting to read the fine print on a bottle of that Amsoil formulation.


https://www.amsoil.com/lander/lspi-update/ (Scroll down)

Quote
Vehicle manufacturers know this is an issue and have programmed vehicle software to avoid LSPI-inducing conditions. Doing so, however, limits fuel efficiency. To extract maximum efficiency from their advanced power plants, OEMs will soon implement software updates that will increase the risk of LSPI. After the software installation, engines without the protection of a motor oil formulated to combat LSPI will be at greater risk of severe damage. At AMSOIL, we've been hard at work preparing for these future OEM updates.

Proving it can protect turbocharged direct-injected engines, AMSOIL achieved 100 percent protection against LSPI in the engine test required by the GM dexos1® Gen 2 specification.


Just want to be perfectly clear... I'm not suggesting everyone go out and buy only Amsoil Signature Series, what I'm getting at with this is that it appears that additives play an important role in LSPI and that these Group IV oils can me made to perform properly where LSPI is a concern because of engine design where these conditions can exist due to the OE's trying to squeeze more fuel economy out of an engine.

Otherwise we would have seen Amsoil shift in their Signature Line to other basestocks if the additives weren't the main factor and they certainly wouldn't have called out 100% protection if they weren't darn sure or it would open them up for big problems is my take.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by LoneRanger
So SN+ and 1Dexos Gen 2 spec are aimed directly at combating Low Speed Premature Ignition (LSPI) in gasoline direct injection turbocharged motors. Poking around in the VOA's on the PQI website seems to show boron in significant amounts in some of the Dexos and SN Plus synthetics. Is boron the magic bullet?


Calcium reduction and a move to a Mg/Ca combination as well as lowering SA has been the solution.

Mobil addressed this back in 2012, when they moved to Mg/Ca combination and lowered the SA to .8.

"We appreciate the feedback. A slight reduction in ash is desirable for advanced engine technology such as gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine and passenger car diesel engines. With GDI engines, higher levels of ash appear to result in a higher occurrence of Low Speed Pre-Ignition. The industry is currently developing tests and specifications to address Low Speed Pre-Ignition. In the future, passenger car engine oil specifications such as ILSAC GF-6 and dexos1 (next generation) are likely to have requirements such as lower ash to address Low Speed Pre-Ignition."
 
Anyone know of any Group 5 (ester) 0W20 oils meeting SN Plus and 1DexosG2 ? Might be an oil I seek for the GMC.
 
Originally Posted by StevieC
Amsoil came out and said 100% LSPI protection with their Signature Series after they lowered the Calcium so it appears that a Group IV oil with the right additive package can work just fine.

I appreciated that Amsoil came right out and said in their product pages that the SS oils had SA levels that were too high for d1G2. Refreshing honesty in the motor oil field and also possibly a selling point for them, as I suspect that many of their customers prefer a "stout" oil with higher metallic additive levels.
 
Originally Posted by Virtus_Probi
Originally Posted by StevieC
Amsoil came out and said 100% LSPI protection with their Signature Series after they lowered the Calcium so it appears that a Group IV oil with the right additive package can work just fine.

I appreciated that Amsoil came right out and said in their product pages that the SS oils had SA levels that were too high for d1G2. Refreshing honesty in the motor oil field and also possibly a selling point for them, as I suspect that many of their customers prefer a "stout" oil with higher metallic additive levels.

IMO It's GM blaming the oil's SA content when it's really their engine design otherwise other vehicles running higher SA content before the Dexos specification, would have all had timing chain issues and that certainly isn't the case. That said they claim that the oil which does in fact have a higher SA content performs as per the GM D1G2 test parameters. (But yeah it's their word not GM's, it is however done by an independent lab so folks will need to make that decision for themselves I guess).

I think the reason the SA is higher is because it's their flagship product meant to go up to 25K miles and that might not be achieveable with lower SA content. That's my guess. They certainly are capable of an API licensed oil as demonstrated by the XL/OE oils so I have no doubt they know what they are doing but given GM's record for bunging things up (along with other OE's for that matter) I get not wanting to chance not using an officially certified oil during the warranty period to alleviate any warranty headaches and so that I wouldn't have to invoke things like Moss Magnuson as the US folk are covered by which we are not here in Canada.

That said I use it anyway while under warranty.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Virtus_Probi
Originally Posted by StevieC
Amsoil came out and said 100% LSPI protection with their Signature Series after they lowered the Calcium so it appears that a Group IV oil with the right additive package can work just fine.

I appreciated that Amsoil came right out and said in their product pages that the SS oils had SA levels that were too high for d1G2. Refreshing honesty in the motor oil field and also possibly a selling point for them, as I suspect that many of their customers prefer a "stout" oil with higher metallic additive levels.


Mobil 1 AP on the other hand, (and even EP), while designed for longer drain intervals, adheres to the lower SA level to meet D1G2. This is why comparing AP to SS is not exactly a fair comparison. I would assume it is more challenging to make an oil last 20k miles with a lower SA of .8 and starting TBN of oil 8-9.
 
Originally Posted by LoneRanger
Anyone know of any Group 5 (ester) 0W20 oils meeting SN Plus and 1DexosG2 ? Might be an oil I seek for the GMC.



XOM was the first blender to get ahead if the curve although the other majors have caught up. We are not likely going to find a true group V diester based lubercant on the shelf of from most boutiques.
 
Originally Posted by LoneRanger
Anyone know of any Group 5 (ester) 0W20 oils meeting SN Plus and 1DexosG2 ? Might be an oil I seek for the GMC.


NOTHING is going to be majority POE base stock, but the aforementioned M1 0W-20 EP and AP, as well as the Ravenol DFE 0W-20 are both SN+/D1G2, low; SA/calcium/sodium, and stout anti-wear/anti-friction additive packed oils with a good deal of Group 5 in their base stock mixtures.
wink.gif


They are also both fairly low volatility oils for a 0W-xx formulation, albeit some on here claim that too low a volatility oil actually promotes both LSPI and intake valve deposits, which I STILL do not 'get'.
31.gif
confused2.gif
 
Originally Posted by csandste
I'm using group III now, running my Soul to a mileage number divisible by 5000 (59000 to 65000). The reference to Group II being better than III-!V for LSPI, reinforces my notion to go back to a conventional (actually 50-50 Group II-III) oil-- VWB or QS Conventional (which was late to the SN+ party but bottles now show it), and change at 5K intervals. That did well on my Kia Rio and other HyunKia's owned as well. If I was able to change my own oil I'd be buying a cheap group III, I real there are other advantages that offset the increased tendencies to LSPI, which apparently isn't a problem with my GDI, non-turbo anyway.


I am interested in your thoughts about viscosity.

BTW. Love my Pennzoil Gold, even though I am an MPI guy.

Group II + GTL FTW.

grin.gif
 
Originally Posted by Skippy722
I found this, according to them group IV has the highest likelihood of causing it.

https://www.infineuminsight.com/articles/passenger-cars/lspi-and-lubricant-auto-ignition/


Given the graph and unfortunate lack of range my conclusion is that "typical" bases are more inclined to promote LSPI than Esters. These bases, the purer they are, the more it seems to slightly increase the probability, with PAO being slightly more likely than Group III+, which in turn is slightly more likely than Group III, which is slightly more likely than Group II...etc.

The range between Group I and PAO is significantly less than even the difference between the two Esters tested, which was massive, so I think we need to keep that in perspective. Would also have been nice if they had done some testing with various levels of esters mixed with the other bases to see if that had an effect.
 
Originally Posted by Virtus_Probi
Originally Posted by wemay
Sodium: eliminated
Calcium: reduced to below ~2000 ppm
Magnesium: increased
Molybdenum: added
Yes, that link has been discussed before. If I find it, I'll share.

Great summary by wemay...at least one study I saw a while ago reported that ZDDP was a powerful mitigator of LSPI, but levels of this cannot be increased randomly for SN/GF5 oils.
I suspect that this is why the use of "euro" A3/B4 oils does not seem to result in higher occurrence of LSPI, as they tend to be high in ZDDP...just a guess on my part.


Yes ZDDP is a strong LSPI quencher. Most Euro oils I know have about 1000ppm Zinc, while an typical SN oil may be 700 - 800 ppm zinc.

A popular oil in Oz is Castrol Edge 5W30 A3/B4 full synthetic (Group III). It's rated API SL due to high ZDDP, but passes all SN tests according to Castrol. It's ACEA A3/B4, MB 229.5, BMW LL-01 and VW 502/505. Noack volatility below 10%, Zinc around 1000 ppm, HTHS = 3.6 cP and TBN is 10.2
 
Last edited:
I thought Motul hung their hat on ester as the full base oil, with little to no PAO onboard.
 
Originally Posted by LoneRanger
I thought Motul hung their hat on ester as the full base oil, with little to no PAO onboard.


No, the 300V product might use more esters than the rest of their products, but none of them are majority ester-based.

An example, here's a snippet from the MSDS for the 8100 X-Cess 5w-40 showing 50-100% (hugely vague range, but it's an SDS not a recipe) Group III:
[Linked Image]
 
Gotta love the MSDS, cuts right through a company's slick marketing bull scat and lays bare the truth. Thanks for posting it up. I'm disappointed in Motul !!
 
Originally Posted by wemay
Sodium: eliminated
Calcium: reduced to below ~2000 ppm
Magnesium: increased
Molybdenum: added

Yes, that link has been discussed before. If I find it, I'll share.


I won't purchase any SN Plus / Dexos 1 Gen2 oil that has above 1200 Calcium.
 
Actually, of all oils, the VOA of Amazon Basics full syn, 1Dexos_Gen2 licensed, is looking pretty good:

http://pqiadata.org/AmazonBasics_0W20.html

Nice shot of boron in there. Silicon and sodium at 6 must be random scatter.

Hats off to Warren Distribution for this one. Can we assume Supertech 0W20 1Dexos_Gen2 would test identically? Believe Warren Dist is still the blender of Walmart's ST label.

Here's a 2018 sample of ACDelco 0W20 1Dexos_Gen2 VOA'd, and Amazon Basics actually looks better for LSPI suppression if going only by calcium content:

http://pqiadata.org/ACDelco_0W20.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
Oil for 2022 Kona N - LSPI or wear?
Replies
9
Views
2K
bhvrdr
Gokhan
Convergence of the API SP/RC (ILSAC GF-6) and ACEA-2021 specs
2
Replies
35
Views
11K
CarfriendXX
wwillson
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Pennzoil Q&A GF-6 and GF-7 with the American Petroleum Institute (API) - Answers
2
Replies
22
Views
13K
weaponoffreedom
Gokhan
  • Locked
Interesting quasi-LSPI observation with an SN PLUS oil
2
Replies
23
Views
3K
Garak
L
  • Locked
Low Speed Premature Ignition (LSPI) Better Controlled Now Than Couple Yrs Ago ?
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
caprice_2nv
Back
Top