2.3L TST Optimization Thread

[ypena02]

What I was really trying to get at were the following points:

1. AMSOIL was cited as a risk based primarily on the fact that LSPI failures tend to have oils with high calcium, yet it has one of the lowest volatility of the tested oils (your correct it's not THE lowest, that's my bad on the wording), meaning it will be one of the least likely to deposit calcium into the chambers despite it's higher content as a stabilizer.

2. Calcium has no direct link to the actual cause of LSPI failures, we only known that LSPI failed engines tend to have used oils with higher calcium content. This would be expected however as TDI engines require a higher quality oil given the thermal strain that turbos place on oil life. This is a very reasonable alternative explanation. Also, calcium is not a highly volatile or flammable element, it should not have any significant effect on chamber temperature or fuel volatility unless it's interacting with other elements or compounds some how.

I agree that we don't want to make this into an oil debate or a "you say, I say" debate. And I think it's good that some one is challenging advice / understanding / ways of doing things, because honestly I was only vaguely aware of LSPI prior to your mentioning it and now I have a better understanding of it, origins, affected engines, frequency of occurrence and likely root causes.

But it's expected I defend my reasoning unless I see very convincing data or path of reasoning that invalidates my conclusion, in which case I would have to change it and that's why I countered. But anyway, what ever the case, as you pointed out people can draw their own conclusion from the information you and I both provided, at least until the actual cause is documented and determined, if ever.

Have you actually read the research regarding Calcium and LSPI? The thread below has a link to the article.

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47658

Sponsored

 

[Glenn G]

Have you actually read the research regarding Calcium and LSPI? The thread below has a link to the article.

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47658

Exactly, there has been a direct link established by the SAE
http://papers.sae.org/2014-01-2785/

 

[TheLion]

"Lube formulations are a current focus, but in time attention may turn to fuels. There have been some published results that indicate different fuels, whether due to regional variations, tank aging, or other factors, could have an impact. This can be of particular concern to OEMs that might, for instance, be selling products in China at a time when the government mandates a change in fuel composition – perhaps as part of an effort to reduce CO2 emissions.

“You can get a wide range of severity of the problem, depending on the fuel,” said Briggs."

From what I had read on the thread, they clearly point to fuel sources as being a bigger part of the issue.

The SAE links point primarily to oil additives. So there's a bit of a conflict. But I found this: https://www.oronite.com/products/lspi.asp

Now the question is, are there any oils as good as the amsoil signature siries that have low calcium content that are LSPI resistant? Further more this illustrates the need for a good quality catch can in the interim.

Given this information, I will change my recommendation on the AMSOIL, I didn't realize it was now conclusively known to be the cause as the information I had found indicated it was only a suspect at that point. However, it seems fuel quality is also part of the potential issue and considering compression and heat, a good quality spark plug is an essential.

Ultimately to mitigate LSPI, everything except the oil choice would be the best route.

 

[Busser48]

How does the rotella stack up?? Been using it for 30k and no issues

 

[TheLion]

"Lube formulations are a current focus, but in time attention may turn to fuels. There have been some published results that indicate different fuels, whether due to regional variations, tank aging, or other factors, could have an impact. This can be of particular concern to OEMs that might, for instance, be selling products in China at a time when the government mandates a change in fuel composition – perhaps as part of an effort to reduce CO2 emissions.

“You can get a wide range of severity of the problem, depending on the fuel,” said Briggs."

From what I had read on the thread, they clearly point to fuel sources as being a bigger part of the issue. Also engine architecture has by far the greatest impact. You can LPSI an NA engine if you wanted to...

The SAE links point primarily to oil additives. So there's a bit of a conflict between SAE and some other studies cited. But I found this: https://www.oronite.com/products/lspi.asp

It's interesting that it gets so much attention, yet it is not the exclusive cause, only a contributing factor.

However, it seems fuel quality and engine design play a much more prominent role. I wouldn't see an issue running the AMSOIL Signature series if you have a catch can, especially if your under warranty. It's a SAE compatible oil. But is there something that is nearly as good with lower cc content?

Ultimately to mitigate LSPI, everything mentioned prior from fuel quality to spark plugs to IC to catch cans would help mitigate this issue. Also I have not seen much evidence of this being a common issue in more recent TDI engines. There's quite a few out there from Ford, VW, GM, huyndai etc. It seems the majority of issues occurred on Hyundai/Kia and Mazda early TDI engines.

Ecoboost architecture has evolved since 2009, but it's been around in some form or another now for 7 years without this being a common issue...unless I'm in the dark on this one and EB's are dropping like flies from LSPI...

I think we can safely say that other than the oil recommendation, the IC, Spark Plugs and Catch Can all aid in reducing that risk, regardless of the oil you choose to use. They also go a long way in maximizing fuel energy (efficiency) and helping the EB engine make consistent power, pull after pull even in track conditions (assuming you add an oil cooler and sufficient radiator).

 

[Juben]

Now the question is, are there any oils as good as the amsoil signature siries that have low calcium content that are LSPI resistant? Further more this illustrates the need for a good quality catch can in the interim.

Look into Redline oil. Redline oil is a Group V (Ester based) full synthetic oil. Cleaning is a very strong point with esters too. From what I've seen from VOAs, the calcium content of the Redline is usually 1,200-1,500 ppm less than that of AMSOIL. It's also worth noting that Redline being a Group V oil means that it also handles fuel dilution very well and it's low in SAPS, which are also very important aspects to look at when using in a DI engine. In my opinion, it'd be hard for any oil to beat Redline's oil in any independent, fair testing.

However, with all that said, if there is a better oil, I'd be more than willing to change over to it.

 

[Glenn G]

Look into Redline oil. Redline oil is a Group V (Ester based) full synthetic oil. Cleaning is a very strong point with esters too. From what I've seen from VOAs, the calcium content of the Redline is usually 1,200-1,500 ppm less than that of AMSOIL. It's also worth noting that Redline being a Group V oil means that it also handles fuel dilution very well and it's low in SAPS, which are also very important aspects to look at when using in a DI engine. In my opinion, it'd be hard for any oil to beat Redline's oil in any independent, fair testing.

However, with all that said, if there is a better oil, I'd be more than willing to change over to it.

You guys are taking me back to my 1st year classes at university, Awesome discussion.
A few points I remember

-Calcium: bad for LSPI in DI Engines but super important anyways, not only is it a detergent, but it helps prevent coaking and sludge build up which kills turbos faster than anything if they are shut down hot and is needed to keep additive packages in suspension. If you have a decent additive package, you need high levels of calcium or it will just fall out and settle on the bottom of the oil pan doing nothing. There is good news however, there is a point (I don't remember exactly but like 2500 ppm) where additional calcium does not keep increasing the probability of LSPI, It just levels off there.
The EPA likes high calcium in oil for emissions, so don't expect to find many API certified oils below the threshold.

About that additive package:
-Molybdenum, an anti wear agent, dramatically reduces the probability of LSPI. Moly is heavy and requires lots of calcium to keep it in suspension but high Moly oils made LSPI disappear in all but the most hamfisted attempts to get it to happen despite the high calcium needed to keep it in the oil.
-Zinc, another anti-wear metal found to help reduce LSPI.
-Phosphorus, no one still understands why this chemical, normally volatile helps reduce LSPI but it does. The additive ZDDP contains both, has wonderful anti wear properties and enough of it makes your GTDI engine really resistant to LSPI.

Unfortunately everything good for us, the EPA hates and have been mandating less Moly and ZDDP for API oils.

Lastly, oils with lower volatility have been shown to help prevent it as well.

So if you are like me and show your love of the EPA with a Catless downpipe, please let me direct you to the oil I use.

Not API Certified because of the additive package but look at what it has on the label!

HPS is a little lower on Moly than I'd like ~100 ppm but has huge amounts of Zinc and Phosphorus >1000 each offsetting the relatively high Calcium content. 40 weight is a far better match for a turbo that gets run hard.
See the attached document.

I've heard nothing but good things about Amsoil but back when I was an engineering student, RP dominated all of the lab results like film strength and volatility, which was confirmed again by my catch can results from the factory fill (some), Mobil 1(Lots) and RP (barely anything). I've never had amsoil to test when I had access to my equipment so I may not be giving it a fair shake but I'm staying with what I know for sure works.

 

[TheLion]

Interesting point on the 2500ppm threshold.

AMS OIL Signature has 152ppm of Moly., 229 boron, 882 zinc.

- Highest base number of all the tested oils (around 13.5)
- Lowest cold crank viscosity (this is a big one for me as Ohio hits -20 on extreme days and regularly sees 0-20F during Jan-Feb)
- Second lowest thermal oxidation, very good for turbos
- Third in the NOAC test at 7.5 (tied with Penzoil, RP hit 5.5, best of bunch)

The ONLY pitfall is the high calcium content of 3900ppm. However if percentages above 2500ppm have little additional effect, then there is no practical difference between red line and AMSOIL Sig.

Redline has about 2469ppm of calcium, near the 2500ppm wall (but it's also higher in Magnesium and zinc): http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2635056

AMSOIL: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2465940

At this point, I don't think AMSOIL represents a threat of LSPI any more than Red Line or other high end snythetics, especially given it's very low volatility and other additives that counteract LSPI, the fact that current TDI's are very well protected against LSPI and the fact that we have good catch cans available should anything get past the factory PCV / Oil Separator. Which is highly unlikely in the first place given the volatility ratings of these tip tier oils.

I'll stick with AMSOIL until something comes out that's better and meets the GF-6 standards (which to my knowledge nothing does at it's not even an official standard yet). Primarily because the Red Line did very poorly in cold cranking tests. Ohio can see temps down to -25 in the worst case, average temps 0-20F during Jan-Feb, so that is an important metric for my specific location and is my primary reason. Price is about the same, so it comes down to climate.

Interestingly, Red Line also did poorly in the TEOST Test (ASTM D6335) aka thermo-oxidation test...which I wouldn't expect for a synthetic. Is it because of the base oil used?

 

[TEXAS HEAT]

This thread is getting interesting! I like all of the tech being brought to the table, keep it up!

 

[PRG3k]

How does the rotella stack up?? Been using it for 30k and no issues

Decent oil for the money. A lot of us use it, including myself.

 

[TheLion]

Here's some food for thought, Ford couldn't blame an LSPI failure on the oil if one were to ever occur (which I don't know of a single documented 2.3L EB LSPI failure, yes there are a few that threw the rods, but those were modded) if the oil used was Motorcraft, as it's Ford's house brand.

According to PQIA, their synthetic blend has about 2237ppm of calcium which is near the 2500ppm wall (which we can safely say is about the worst case calcium content as higher levels add little to the LSPI probability): http://www.pqiamerica.com/January2012A/January2012R2/motorcraft.htm

2250~2500 seems to be par for the course on literally almost all modern oils...

Yet their oil's volatility is rated at 14.3, Moly only at 40 and zinc 884 (about same as AMSOIL). High volatility coupled with high calcium is the worst case for LSPI...yet they find it suited for all of their TDI engines, which the vast majority of have been running strong since 2009.

The AMSOIL / Red Line has a far lower volatility and much higher moly content (a counter agent to LSPI). Given the approximate 2500ppm wall, none of the oils listed pose significantly more risk compared to OEM hous brand oils based on calcium content alone, but in fact pose a much greater risk due to volatility. I think it's safe to say LSPI risk was heavily mitiageted through engine architecture, testing, safegaurds etc. This would be the case for Ford, Subaru, VW and others as TDI engine's make up about 1/4 of gasoline engines in North America currently and projected to hit 39% within the next couple of years.

I think the following might be a reasonable summary of the take aways:
- Calcium content exceeding 2500ppm poses little to no additional risk of LSPI, thus it is a max threshold and only values below 2500ppm can be considered a meaningful difference between oils
- Volatility plays a critical role, it does not matter how high the calcium content is in the oil if the oil isn't vaporizing and getting through the PCV system, hence its not getting into the combustion chamber
- Other additives such as Molybdenum and Boron (possibly zinc) have shown to reduce the occurrences of LSPI even with no other changes
- The primary solution found to LSPI wasn't in the oil however, it was in developing engines to withstand the worst case LSPI event and to design the engine to prevent LSPI from occurring through proper cooling, filtering and ignition control
- Fuel quality also plays a very significant role in prevention of LSPI, higher octane fuels are less volatile and less likely to ignite unintentionally, this is nothing new, even older NA engines with occasional knock can benefit from higher octane
- Ford's own house brand oil has a high volatility index, high calcium content and low Moly. content, which is considered the worst case possible for LSPI prone oils, yet it's their standard oil in every Ecoboost engine on the market. Since Ecoboost engines do not have an abnormal catastrophic failure rate like the Mazda Speed 3's experienced or the Hyundai Veloster's first gen TDI engines, I think we can conclude that LSPI has been taken into account in engine design (hence the presence of a factory oil separator) and testing.

Also note, if you have the smoking tail pipe issue due to the restrictive first gen oil separator, it does not pose an LSPI risk as it does not allow additional oil into the intake, quite the opposite actually in that it is too restrictive and builds enough pressure to push oil out the turbo bearing seals on the exhaust / drive side (leading to turbo failure over time and significant oil consumption).

Key Items to Make the 2.3L EB even less LSPI Prone:
1. Good spark plugs, I'd suggest high performance plugs such as copper or silver instead of iridium, which is both a poor thermal conductor and electrical conductor. Generating a strong and properly timed spark and having the proper heat range plug is absolutely critical to igniting the fuel exactly when desired.
2. Use higher octane fuels, I would think at least 91 which should be available everywhere, most places offer 93, which is the recommended octane rating for optimal performance.
3. A high quality intercooler, Stage 1 or higher is fine, as long as it's from a reputable manufacturer, even Stage 1 is a significant improvement in keeping air temps down over the factory unit. Cooler air = less chance of knock and greater timing margin. LSPI is classified as a super knock and has amplified effects.
4. Use a Low volatility oil, the best would be a low volatility and low calcium content oil, but these combinations are rare if not non-existent at the moment. AMSOIL, Red Line and other similar synthetics are all good choices.
5. Use of a Catch Can also goes a long way in preventing any oil that is vaporized from ever getting into the intake and eventually the combustion chamber. While the 2.3L EB does have an oil separator, there are plenty of catch cans with oil in them to show the oil separator isn't 100% and a high efficiency secondary system is excellent added protection.

Or you could buy the V8...just kidding :-)

 

[Turbong]

About the CC, so to clarify your saying the single CC protects from 0-50 and the DVCC works from 50-100?

 

[TheLion]

About the CC, so to clarify your saying the single CC protects from 0-50 and the DVCC works from 50-100?

All 2.3L ecoboost engines have an oil separator. The catch can does the same thing as the oil separator, however the integrated separator is a no-maintenance item. While I'm sure it goes a long way in helping mitigate oil from getting through the PCV system, it's not 100% effective.

I'm suggesting you use a catch can as a secondary stage of filtration. Single valve catch cans work until you hit WOT. DV catch cans work under any load condition. The best prevention you could possibly use is a DVCC, which will work to catch anything that gets past stage 1 of the PCV oil filtration (aka the built in oil separator). If your not doing alot of WOT runs, I'm sure a single valve catch can would be more than adequate, although there's no harm in going the extra step.

I think auto makers have stayed away from catch cans because it entails an extra maintenance step. It also posses a liability if the can over fills due to insufficient emptying intervals. If you can change you own oil however, you can empty a catch can so for the even minutely savy it's a good investment on any engine.

 

[PRG3k]

I think auto makers have stayed away from catch cans because it entails an extra maintenance step. It also posses a liability if the can over fills due to insufficient emptying intervals. If you can change you own oil however, you can empty a catch can so for the even minutely savy it's a good investment on any engine.

Agree

 

[Busser48]

As far as plugs, you say not iridium which is what adam sells and I run. Name some alternatives then

Sponsored