First oil change inquiry ?
#81
05-09-2016, 03:54 PM
Veteran Member
Yes, there are clearly a lot of unknowns, which is causing much consternation in the automotive engineering community. I certainly agree that leaving oil in for extended periods is not good, and even worse for a GDI engine, but I can't imagine that a year and 7-10K miles has created a sludge problem.
I'd be willing to bet that those cars where chain wear is not seen are those that spent 99.9% of their life in lower half of the rpm band.
I'd be willing to bet that those cars where chain wear is not seen are those that spent 99.9% of their life in lower half of the rpm band.
#82
05-09-2016, 03:56 PM
Veteran Member
- increased production of fine carbon particulates during combustion which can enter the crankcase via blow by and cause excessive wear
- increased fuel dilution of crankcase lube oil (cylinder wall wetting by side-mounted direct fuel injectors allows fuel to contaminate the lube oil)
- increased oxidation and deposits from higher operating temperatures and pressures
#1 Blow-by is property of oil life. I know this from my oil burning saga with other car. While oil is fresh it is minimal, after about 3000km it ramps up until it reaches maximum engine-specific rate and stay there. I don't know why this is, but I first-hand observed this as oil consumption related to blowby problems (scraper rings flaw).
#2 Fuel dilution would be seen in the oil analysis, but is property of oil change interval.
#3 Older oil doesn't take temperature as well, this is acceptable when operated under 'normal' circumstances, but they are now running oil at the limit.
#83
05-09-2016, 03:58 PM
Interesting your Forum name is OverBlown considering you prescribe to the 15000 mile manta..... My forgein car mechanic (40 years in the business) stated that if you drive this car like your grandmother you'll get away with 15000 miles service intervals. If you drive it like you stole it change it at 7500..... I think I'll go on the side of caution.
Second, I don't "subscribe" (the word I assume you actually meant) to one or another mantra. I do however believe that there is a ton of unnecessary hype and unsubstantiated claims when it comes to this amazingly polarizing and divisive topic, oil.
Dont worry, not many know. And thats the point!! folks who dont know just believe all is well. I can explain in detail what the timing chain has to do with the oil change interval. But first read it from an authority on the subject, so as to take the pursuant academic debate and hairsplitting out of it.
Please use the thanks button if you find my contribution helpful. Do note that even Jaguar is not giving you this heads-up.
ILSAC To Add Timing Chain Wear Test To GF-6
Gasoline direct injection (GDI) and turbocharged GDI (GDI-T) engines are expected to capture 60 to 65% of the North American new passenger car market by 2019. GDI and GDI-T engines are headed for dominance and for good reason: better fuel economy, better torque, and better power from the same size engine versus indirect port fuel injection (PFI) engines. A turbocharged GDI engine can also be downsized and deliver the same peak power along with significantly better fuel economy.
Blue area is GDI forecast
Red area is PFI forecast
Source: HIS Global Insight
Compared to PFI engines GDI and GDI-T engines have several unique features:
ILSAC has proposed a timing chain wear test for their new ILSAC GF-6 passenger car engine oil specification click here to view the draft specification proposed for first API licensing on 1/1/2017. Ford is developing the chain wear test in a 2.0 L I-4 EcoBoost GDI-T engine. The wear test procedure is proposed to assure that ILSAC GF-6 engine oils can meet the timing chain durability requirements in GDI and GDI-T engines.
The rest of the world is faced with the same challenge. The European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) is discussing the problem with counterparts in the oil and additive industry with a view of developing a suitable test in the furutre.
The timing chain is constantly facing unfavorable mixed and boundary layer lubrication regimes. Click video link below to learn more about boundary layer lubrication. Mixed and boundary layer lubrication regimes are not the ideal hydrodynamic lubrication regime where metal surfaces well separated by a protective oil film. GDI and GDI-T engine field experience shows in addition to timing chain wear more aggressive oxidation, viscosity gains, and related increases in varnish deposits. None of this is good, so improvements in lubricant performance is nessesary to enable the successful introduction of this new engine technology.
Lubrizol is developing high performance advanced additives packages for high performance GDI and GDI-T engine technology which will soon dominate the passenger car market. Lubricant additives can minimize wear, combat oxidation and control deposits. New lubricant chemical additives require development involving years of test results before commercialization. Given long lead times for lubricant product development, testing, and commercialization there is a growing urgency to proceed with the ILSAC and ACEA programs if the requested commercializations dates are to be met.
Please use the thanks button if you find my contribution helpful. Do note that even Jaguar is not giving you this heads-up.
ILSAC To Add Timing Chain Wear Test To GF-6
Gasoline direct injection (GDI) and turbocharged GDI (GDI-T) engines are expected to capture 60 to 65% of the North American new passenger car market by 2019. GDI and GDI-T engines are headed for dominance and for good reason: better fuel economy, better torque, and better power from the same size engine versus indirect port fuel injection (PFI) engines. A turbocharged GDI engine can also be downsized and deliver the same peak power along with significantly better fuel economy.
Blue area is GDI forecastRed area is PFI forecast
Source: HIS Global Insight
Compared to PFI engines GDI and GDI-T engines have several unique features:
- increased production of fine carbon particulates during combustion which can enter the crankcase via blow by and cause excessive wear
- increased fuel dilution of crankcase lube oil (cylinder wall wetting by side-mounted direct fuel injectors allows fuel to contaminate the lube oil)
- increased oxidation and deposits from higher operating temperatures and pressures
- higher initial cost than PFI engines for the higher-pressure fuel injection system
ILSAC has proposed a timing chain wear test for their new ILSAC GF-6 passenger car engine oil specification click here to view the draft specification proposed for first API licensing on 1/1/2017. Ford is developing the chain wear test in a 2.0 L I-4 EcoBoost GDI-T engine. The wear test procedure is proposed to assure that ILSAC GF-6 engine oils can meet the timing chain durability requirements in GDI and GDI-T engines.
The rest of the world is faced with the same challenge. The European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) is discussing the problem with counterparts in the oil and additive industry with a view of developing a suitable test in the furutre.
The timing chain is constantly facing unfavorable mixed and boundary layer lubrication regimes. Click video link below to learn more about boundary layer lubrication. Mixed and boundary layer lubrication regimes are not the ideal hydrodynamic lubrication regime where metal surfaces well separated by a protective oil film. GDI and GDI-T engine field experience shows in addition to timing chain wear more aggressive oxidation, viscosity gains, and related increases in varnish deposits. None of this is good, so improvements in lubricant performance is nessesary to enable the successful introduction of this new engine technology.
Lubrizol is developing high performance advanced additives packages for high performance GDI and GDI-T engine technology which will soon dominate the passenger car market. Lubricant additives can minimize wear, combat oxidation and control deposits. New lubricant chemical additives require development involving years of test results before commercialization. Given long lead times for lubricant product development, testing, and commercialization there is a growing urgency to proceed with the ILSAC and ACEA programs if the requested commercializations dates are to be met.
Interesting read. What I see there, is proof that we need BETTER oils not more frequent changes of what we are currently using. In fact, I see no mention that the oil being currently used is ever fully up to the task of protecting the metal satisfactorily, even when new. Nor any mention of oil change intervals at all. This study seems to indicate that todays oils are just not up to the task of protecting this new engine technology as it needs to be and that the solution is higher performing lubricants which are in the works.
It also makes me wonder what, if anything, could be done as an improvement on the metallurgy side of things. Could a better made chain be a cheaper and easier solution then higher tech oil? What do you guys think?
#84
05-09-2016, 04:02 PM
Veteran Member
That might have been the case back before the 1930's, but empirical engineering went the way of the horse and buggy a long time ago. All engineering development is now conducted in a highly scientific manner.
#85
05-09-2016, 04:05 PM
I guess I'll add my experiences with timing chain tensioners and oil changes.
So my prior cars were s2000s. 2.0-2.2 liters of 9000 RPM redline goodness. All years of the s2000 suffered from a failing timing chain tensioner that rattled when it can no longer hold the correct tension. Turns out that certain oils became too thin at high heat/age/mileage to sustain the oil pressure needed for the chain tensioner so you ended up with a rattling noise.
Mobil 1 was notorious for becoming thin on the s2000. Everytime I heard the rattling noise start up, I knew it was time to do an oil change which ranged between 3500-5000 miles like clockwork. I switched to Redline or Amsoil and never had to deal with the rattling noise again. I ultimately switched to an aftermarket tensioner which was more robust.
Can be same here. Failing tensioners from lack of oil pressure because oil quality degraded from high heat/age/mileage, etc
So my prior cars were s2000s. 2.0-2.2 liters of 9000 RPM redline goodness. All years of the s2000 suffered from a failing timing chain tensioner that rattled when it can no longer hold the correct tension. Turns out that certain oils became too thin at high heat/age/mileage to sustain the oil pressure needed for the chain tensioner so you ended up with a rattling noise.
Mobil 1 was notorious for becoming thin on the s2000. Everytime I heard the rattling noise start up, I knew it was time to do an oil change which ranged between 3500-5000 miles like clockwork. I switched to Redline or Amsoil and never had to deal with the rattling noise again. I ultimately switched to an aftermarket tensioner which was more robust.
Can be same here. Failing tensioners from lack of oil pressure because oil quality degraded from high heat/age/mileage, etc
The following 2 users liked this post by WhiteTardis:
Queen and Country (05-09-2016),
SinF (05-09-2016)
#86
05-09-2016, 04:12 PM
Veteran Member
Now let me esplain the problem Lucy.
Its whats called a Runaway- a compounding problem. I should have credit in this matter because I was sounding the alarm long before these articles started appearing.
The chain is longer than normal because it has to drive the crazy high pressure fuel pump. So the more links you have- the more slack you will end up with. Say that each link wears by 0.1mm, when you have a 100 of them that 10mm. Because you have the extra load of the pump on the chain- its being stressed really hard. Then there is the fact that you have a hydraulic tensioner in the path; which is a whole nuther can of worms, and then you variable cams which lots of white papers have been written about- then you have a dry sump- i.e there is no oil at crank.
Its whats called a Runaway- a compounding problem. I should have credit in this matter because I was sounding the alarm long before these articles started appearing.
The chain is longer than normal because it has to drive the crazy high pressure fuel pump. So the more links you have- the more slack you will end up with. Say that each link wears by 0.1mm, when you have a 100 of them that 10mm. Because you have the extra load of the pump on the chain- its being stressed really hard. Then there is the fact that you have a hydraulic tensioner in the path; which is a whole nuther can of worms, and then you variable cams which lots of white papers have been written about- then you have a dry sump- i.e there is no oil at crank.
#87
05-09-2016, 04:16 PM
Veteran Member
I guess I'll add my experiences with timing chain tensioners and oil changes.
So my prior cars were s2000s. 2.0-2.2 liters of 9000 RPM redline goodness. All years of the s2000 suffered from a failing timing chain tensioner that rattled when it can no longer hold the correct tension. Turns out that certain oils became too thin at high heat/age/mileage to sustain the oil pressure needed for the chain tensioner so you ended up with a rattling noise.
Mobil 1 was notorious for becoming thin on the s2000. Everytime I heard the rattling noise start up, I knew it was time to do an oil change which ranged between 3500-5000 miles like clockwork. I switched to Redline or Amsoil and never had to deal with the rattling noise again. I ultimately switched to an aftermarket tensioner which was more robust.
Can be same here. Failing tensioners from lack of oil pressure because oil quality degraded from high heat/age/mileage, etc
So my prior cars were s2000s. 2.0-2.2 liters of 9000 RPM redline goodness. All years of the s2000 suffered from a failing timing chain tensioner that rattled when it can no longer hold the correct tension. Turns out that certain oils became too thin at high heat/age/mileage to sustain the oil pressure needed for the chain tensioner so you ended up with a rattling noise.
Mobil 1 was notorious for becoming thin on the s2000. Everytime I heard the rattling noise start up, I knew it was time to do an oil change which ranged between 3500-5000 miles like clockwork. I switched to Redline or Amsoil and never had to deal with the rattling noise again. I ultimately switched to an aftermarket tensioner which was more robust.
Can be same here. Failing tensioners from lack of oil pressure because oil quality degraded from high heat/age/mileage, etc
Yes Mobil 1 is not even synthetic.
#88
05-09-2016, 04:17 PM
Thank you Foosh.
I have seen a few early adopters in the high performance area suggest more frequent oil changes. The same type that adopted synthetics long before OEM did. However lets not muddy up the water by leaning on the word of tweakers.
What we do know from reliable sources is that oil will cause sludge if left in too long. The question we need to ask is how long is too long. Unfortunately OEMs cant be trusted in this matter.
One other data point is that not everyone has suffered chain wear. And the $64,000 question is in what way is their driving habit different. In either case, you can see there is a lot of grey area and when in doubt...dump it out.
I have seen a few early adopters in the high performance area suggest more frequent oil changes. The same type that adopted synthetics long before OEM did. However lets not muddy up the water by leaning on the word of tweakers.
What we do know from reliable sources is that oil will cause sludge if left in too long. The question we need to ask is how long is too long. Unfortunately OEMs cant be trusted in this matter.
One other data point is that not everyone has suffered chain wear. And the $64,000 question is in what way is their driving habit different. In either case, you can see there is a lot of grey area and when in doubt...dump it out.
Plus, if 15,000 miles is too much, then what is to say 7500(made up number) isn't as well? Do you remember when manufacturers first started recommending changes ever 8000 miles? Everyone lost their minds and said it was a conspiracy and insanity and that they would keep changing it every 5000 like they always had. Well, I feel like we're going through the same thing now, just our numbers are different.
Engineering is often not an exact science, but a set of educated guesses based on available data. We know that engines are comparable in manufacturing processes (e.g. cylinder lapping techniques, alloys used) and oils are comparable in chemical characteristics. If you see one set of engineers estimating that acceptable oil change interval is Z, and other A then see Z blow up. Based on that you can conclude that 'blow up' is an issue between 0 and Z, and you need to determine if A, within natural variability, is also prone to 'blow up'.
In other words, if you see two wires on the ground. See someone electrocuted by one of them, what would you assume about the other wire?
In other words, if you see two wires on the ground. See someone electrocuted by one of them, what would you assume about the other wire?
What I'm getting at though, is if company A says go 20,000 miles or 2 years before changing your oil, and a bunch of their engines start failing. How do you take that data and say look, theirs are failing so ours will too if we change our oil at 15,000 miles or 1 year. So lets change it at.......7500(or insert your own number) instead and tell everyone that 15,000 miles is too much. I just can't get behind that logic my friend.
In doing so, you are completely ignoring the fact that you're removing an entire year and 5,000 miles from the equation. That's huge!
Last edited by Overblown; 05-09-2016 at 04:22 PM.
#89
05-09-2016, 04:23 PM
Veteran Member
Regarding changing oil at 7500 vs 15000
Well, there is a clear difference, 15000 is the upper limit with no margin for error. I.e. ideal conditions. 7500 gives you twice the margin of error based on the science from the 15000 mile guys.
Also 2 points were missed, the finding of extra contaminants and fuel dilution. So in the case of 7500 miles, it would be half of what it is at 15000.
Well, there is a clear difference, 15000 is the upper limit with no margin for error. I.e. ideal conditions. 7500 gives you twice the margin of error based on the science from the 15000 mile guys.
Also 2 points were missed, the finding of extra contaminants and fuel dilution. So in the case of 7500 miles, it would be half of what it is at 15000.
Last edited by Queen and Country; 05-09-2016 at 04:26 PM.
#90
05-09-2016, 04:39 PM
This is a good, fun debate but honestly there is no proof that either of us is right. And naturally, I feel like there is more data suggesting that JLR is fine in their specs than not. From what I can see, the real solution is either a better design, or a better lubricant.
#91
05-09-2016, 05:03 PM
Veteran Member
Overblown, thank you for your questions. I feel we have moved the discussion forward. We went from not knowing there was a known problem with timing chains, to then not knowing how it was related to oil- to now knowing that the International oil committee is mandating a timing chain wear standard. Its a lot of progress for one day.
Lets sleep on the question: how bad does a problem have to be for 2 different oil standard committees to get involved and demand solution. There isnt the same for crankshafts, cams, valves, etc. Food for dreams.
Lets sleep on the question: how bad does a problem have to be for 2 different oil standard committees to get involved and demand solution. There isnt the same for crankshafts, cams, valves, etc. Food for dreams.
#92
05-09-2016, 05:05 PM
This entire conversation can be summed up entirely by the philosophical principle of Pascal's Wager.
If one chooses to not believe in God, but God exists, you are infinitely screwed. If one chooses to believe in God, but God doesn't exist, you were perhaps finitely inconvenienced by forgoing certain things in life. Which is the safer bet?
God changes his oil sooner than 15k.
If one chooses to not believe in God, but God exists, you are infinitely screwed. If one chooses to believe in God, but God doesn't exist, you were perhaps finitely inconvenienced by forgoing certain things in life. Which is the safer bet?
God changes his oil sooner than 15k.
The following users liked this post:
plums (05-10-2016)
#93
05-09-2016, 05:14 PM
Veteran Member
The reason for not putting too much trust in JLR's infinite wisdom is that clearly they did not see the timing chain problem. They followed in the footsteps of the rest of the industry with DI. Then the question arises, did they also have the same wisdom about oil. How could they foresee one without the other?
Totally agree on the Pascal's Wager. Especially since the cost of the alternative is inconsequential.
Totally agree on the Pascal's Wager. Especially since the cost of the alternative is inconsequential.
#94
05-09-2016, 05:23 PM
Overblown, thank you for your questions. I feel we have moved the discussion forward. We went from not knowing there was a known problem with timing chains, to then not knowing how it was related to oil- to now knowing that the International oil committee is mandating a timing chain wear standard. Its a lot of progress for one day.
Lets sleep on the question: how bad does a problem have to be for 2 different oil standard committees to get involved and demand solution. There isnt the same for crankshafts, cams, valves, etc. Food for dreams.
Lets sleep on the question: how bad does a problem have to be for 2 different oil standard committees to get involved and demand solution. There isnt the same for crankshafts, cams, valves, etc. Food for dreams.
It will be interesting to see what comes of it. Ever forward.
This entire conversation can be summed up entirely by the philosophical principle of Pascal's Wager.
If one chooses to not believe in God, but God exists, you are infinitely screwed. If one chooses to believe in God, but God doesn't exist, you were perhaps finitely inconvenienced by forgoing certain things in life. Which is the safer bet?
God changes his oil sooner than 15k.
If one chooses to not believe in God, but God exists, you are infinitely screwed. If one chooses to believe in God, but God doesn't exist, you were perhaps finitely inconvenienced by forgoing certain things in life. Which is the safer bet?
God changes his oil sooner than 15k.
#95
05-09-2016, 06:25 PM
Veteran Member
Interesting read. What I see there, is proof that we need BETTER oils not more frequent changes of what we are currently using. In fact, I see no mention that the oil being currently used is ever fully up to the task of protecting the metal satisfactorily, even when new. Nor any mention of oil change intervals at all. This study seems to indicate that todays oils are just not up to the task of protecting this new engine technology as it needs to be and that the solution is higher performing lubricants which are in the works.
It also makes me wonder what, if anything, could be done as an improvement on the metallurgy side of things. Could a better made chain be a cheaper and easier solution then higher tech oil? What do you guys think?
Last edited by Foosh; 05-09-2016 at 10:09 PM.
#96
05-09-2016, 06:45 PM
Veteran Member
#98
05-09-2016, 08:14 PM
Veteran Member
#99
05-09-2016, 09:43 PM
2. There is no precedence for the current direct injected engines. Otherwise a conventional engine has been around for donkey's years. In the DI engines, the problem is two-fold, smaller oil passages and an engine more prone to create sludge. Then you have a runway, sludge begets sludge and carbon buildup on the valves.
I think Subaru has a good idea in that their DI system also has intake port injectors. The hybrid injection scheme takes advantage of the benefits of both.
#100
05-09-2016, 09:51 PM
I had my oil analyzed and at about the 6K mile point metals were continuing to increase. Nothing alarming, but the analyst recommended I should consider a change. I did. I went the full recommended interval with my Volvo because analysis indicated I was safe. That analysis included checking the TBN (Total Base Number, indicative of additive levels). As Reagan said about the Russians, while stealing from a Russian proverb, "Trust, but verify."