[Track/S]

Originally Posted by chris719

There are studies that show the oil can impact this. So, I wouldn't call his posts absurd.

However, you are correct that the engine design is the most important factor and probably dominates the oil's contribution to intake valve deposit formation.

Exactly, the s55 engine is the one that accumulates the least carbon, and this is due to its construction and in no way due to the lowsaps of the oil....
My experience has shown me that the engine in which the oil is changed without exceeding 10,000 km/1 year does not leave any residue, and another fact, if the highsaps oil leaves a carbon residue, why is there no carbon in the top of the head (the site with the highest concentration of oil vapor)? You have the sample on the engine that I posted earlier, that engine never did the oil changes when needed, the brown color there...

Originally Posted by F87source

Exactly, if you want to eliminate carbon build up that is immensely "easy", just convert your pcv setup to vent atmospherically - problem solved. Alot of n54 guys do this, especially big single guys who have alot of boost and thus inevitably alot of crank case pressures and in turn alot of blow by.


However not many people will go that route because it is invasive. Hence why when combating carbon build up, i.e. doing as much as one can feasible do without having to by pass the pcv setup, one must look at all aspects. Oil catch cans, better fuel, and oil. That was the whole topic of contention. To debate this by saying a diesel doesn't have issues with carbon build up thus we shouldn't even examine all the details is absurd. It's like asking for a solution on how to fix a flat tire, and someone else says don't worry about it I have runs flats I just keep driving.


The whole goal is doing whatever we can to mitigate issues, every single possibility counts. So we must do whatever is scientifically proven to help, if you want to combat things.

Scientifically in your head it is proven....

You did well to mention the oil, in this way you are learning things that you did not know before.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by chris719

It’s not just as simple as that, there are many engines that have very different levels of buildup but don’t vent to atmosphere. Those Audi engines will look like crap no matter what, but Porsche 9A1 has few problems despite running M1 FS factory fill.

That's true from engine to engine, such as the n55 to n54, a major improvement in blow by generation and carbon build up. Piston ring tolerances are also a factor and thus break in as well.

I'm just saying the easiest solution is atmospheric venting (I would do it with an inline catch can to eliminate the smell and greasy hood). I'm not saying venting to atmosphere is why some cars produce more or less blow by. That is a much more complex issue of how the pcv system is made, how it is opened (under boost vs. vaccum state) and thus how it deals with oil mist. If you look at subaru's EJ257, that pcv system was a nightmare to work on, and explains the complexity at hand when talking about pcv systems.

Again the topic was mitigation not elimination.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by Prodrive_X

Exactly, the s55 engine is the one that accumulates the least carbon, and this is due to its construction and in no way due to the lowsaps of the oil....
My experience has shown me that the engine in which the oil is changed without exceeding 10,000 km/1 year does not leave any residue, and another fact, if the highsaps oil leaves a carbon residue, why is there no carbon in the top of the head (the site with the highest concentration of oil vapor)? You have the sample on the engine that I posted earlier, that engine never did the oil changes when needed, the brown color there...

1) I never said SAPS content was the reason why carbon build up changes from engine architecture to engine architecture, I am saying low SAPS is how to help mitigate it. I have stayed consistent in this point the entire time, you are the one waffling back and forth from different talking points.

2) Oil change intervals don't have anything to do with blow by. It might slightly help with carbon build up if the additives are fresher. But again your sample size is yourself, vs. the large majority of the community showing that carbon build up occurs regardless of oil change interval - low OCI n54's still create blow by. It is dependent on how much oily vapors get put into the PCV tract. Once more a sample size of 1 person is statistically irrelevant, and you cannot draw any statistically significant conclusions based off of that. You don't have controls, you don't have different use cases, it is super hard to make anything of that data. Even UOA's are hard to draw conclusions on if you only have 1 test, you need multiple tests and utilize different oils while keeping the car the same. It would also help to have a massive pool of data doing the same testing on different cars, hence why BIOTG is so helpful because you get to see these things from many users with many replicates.

3) There is no carbon build up in the head because of constant oil flow, the same cannot be said about the valves where it is hot, and easy for oil to condense and dry up on. The pcv system also vents the oil vapors there.

4) Again that example has nothing to do with carbon build up on the valves. What you are showing is an abused S55 and a result oil burning and coking up the metal components. Largely irrelevant once again.

[Track/S]

Originally Posted by F87source

1) I never said.

You just have to read and learn.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by Prodrive_X

You just have to read and learn.

Im not the one refuting established knowledge and going against oil experts, atleast provide a detailed explanation backing up your thoughts but you can't do that either.

[Track/S]

Originally Posted by F87source

Im not the one refuting established knowledge and going against oil experts, atleast provide a detailed explanation backing up your thoughts but you can't do that either.

Knowledge established by bitog? Well look, after so many years today you learned something that was always in your head but in the wrong way.....

The oil experts know about oil, they have little idea of ​​engines, that's what engineers are for who build engines and improve them with the mistakes of the previous ones.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by Prodrive_X

Knowledge established by bitog? Well look, after so many years today you learned something that was always in your head but in the wrong way.....

The oil experts know about oil, they have little idea of ​​engines, that's what engineers are for who build engines and improve them with the mistakes of the previous ones.

You do realize you have to understand how engines work to formulate oil right? What do you think oil certifications mean? LL01- is an oxidation test + integrates a timing chain test to ensure the oils do not damage the timing chain - as high zinc oils don't play well with timing chains that are poorly designed. SN+ deals with LPSI testing specifically prevelant on low displacement engines. Porsche A40 deals with high stress multi hour runs on the nordeschliffe, and how the oil deals with those conditions in a combustion engine. It is impossible to formulate oil without understanding how engines work. Your accusations about these guys not understanding engines are unfounded - especially with the fact that many of them are car enthusiats. What are your qualifications, what makes you so superior, how long have you been on this engine platform?


You also do realize that if oil ends up in the intake tract - and it does (to varying degrees on the s55 and n55 as shown by oil catch can testing) then oil will absolutely play a part in carbon build up right? Sure the n55 and s55 don't suffer as badly as the n54 - but it does suffer from it as do all GDI engines. Therefore SAPS matter.


Here an n55 (same pcv setup as the s55):


https://e84.xbimmers.com/forums/show....php?t=1424121






It doesn't seem like you understand engines or oil.

[F87source]

Don't forget, oil formulaters are chemical engineers that often work closely in tandem with race teams to build oils for specific engine requirements. You don't get oem approvals by doing what you want, you get oem approvals by understanding what the manufactuer's engine needs and making the oil for them. You also don't get contracts to make oem oils sitting on the side lines, you get it by going and working with the engine designers to make optimal oils for that particular engine, and this takes knowledge of an engine.

Look at what shell and mobil1 had to go through in order to engineer oil with high enough shear strength but low enough viscosity to not cause parastic losses, so ferrari and honda could operate their f1 engines at 50% thermal efficency. You don't just mix oils and hope for the best based on theoretical knowledge of what makes a good oil - because that could mean super high hths and super high zinc additives (as zinc is good for wear protection), but this could be a horrible mix for cars with bad timing chains, so you have to understand what the engine operates and what it needs in order to make a good oil.


So saying these guys only know oil is misfounded and nonsensical.

[edycol]

Originally Posted by Prodrive_X

We are going to the other way since you are not able to understand that the oil has no effect/COMBAT in any combustion engine. Try to use the oil that you like SUPERLOWSAPS in the 2.0tfsi gen1 engine, it is the engine with the most carbon accumulation that I have seen, clean the ducts and valves leaving it completely clean, and then use your super lowsaps oil, at 50,000 km disassemble the intake manifold again, I assure you will hit your head against the wall and you will stop posting absurd messages

As I mentioned Lubrizol did study about how much CBU different oils leave. High SAPS oil VW502.00 left 167% more than VW504.00/507.00 tested on, engine you mentioned, EA113.
Eyeballing CBU is not any scientific method. Might be good for you, but on this planet, it is not.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by edycol

As I mentioned Lubrizol did study about how much CBU different oils leave. High SAPS oil VW502.00 left 167% more than VW504.00/507.00 tested on, engine you mentioned, EA113.
Eyeballing CBU is not any scientific method. Might be good for you, but on this planet, it is not.

And that should wrap things up here.

[Track/S]

Originally Posted by edycol

As I mentioned Lubrizol did study about how much CBU different oils leave. High SAPS oil VW502.00 left 167% more than VW504.00/507.00 tested on, engine you mentioned, EA113.
Eyeballing CBU is not any scientific method. Might be good for you, but on this planet, it is not.

You can use oil with 10263617283162738% more saps at 50,000km you will have the same result in the intake ducts and valves, you still do not respond because in diesel engines there is no carbon even after 800,000km.

[edycol]

Originally Posted by medphysdave

Blackstone suggested it held up very well in my 300whp Miata that saw track time.

T6 is definitely not the best choice for track and generally gas engines.
It is heavy oil to get decent HTHS as oil bade is fairly cheap. Also, KV100 and VII indicates heavy base (cheap).
In addition, TBN on simple laboratory analysis that Blackstone or Polaris etc. do, won't tell you exactly what polymers are there, sulphuric additives used (extremely important for track use) etc.
T6 is oil designed not just to combat soot for example, but with mind that oil sump is extremely large. It became really popular with VW and Subaru folks. VW folks liked it bcs. KV100 allowed longer drain as it took longer time to shear down due to excessive dilution.
In Miata it will fair good bcs. engines are not demanding (regardless of whp). What you probably don't know is what was oxidation of that oil. Do you have TAN? TBN without TAN reading is irrelevant. Also, Blackstone always say it is good, unless clear signs of problems.
Also, running T6 will affect your performance on track. Such heavy oil will create more resistance and heat. That is why heavier doesn't mean better on track. Oils approved for Porsche A40 are gold standard for track as they are tested whether they can sustain 8X1hrs run on Nordschleife. When I worked on testing this was actually done on track. Now they use sump rig for it. You will have to watch on YouTube:

[edycol]

Originally Posted by Prodrive_X

You can use oil with 10263617283162738% more saps at 50,000km you will have the same result in the intake ducts and valves, you still do not respond because in diesel engines there is no carbon even after 800,000km.

Where did I say you won't have? I said 167% MORE! I didn't say: not at all.

Design of engines and emissions requirements require a lot of different components that affect performance, longevity etc. Any diesel that is not rigged, will have CBU. You know or you should know this very well with M57 335d crowd. But, difference between High SAPS and Low SAPS oils means some 100,000k longer running DPF, longer longevity of back pressure sensors etc.
Yes, we could run in diesels all kind of oils if all operated like VW Golf 1.6d from 1985. But, Toyota 2.2 D4-D could not make 100k km due to LSPI and sensitivity to calcium in oil.
So, all what you are saying is wishful thinking. When oils are made they are made at standard that manufacturers set in cooperation with oil companies, not a guy who is rigging vehicles.

[edycol]

Another thing, Sulfated Ash is BYPRODUCT! Lower SAPS means that oil base, polymers and additives have to be much more sophisticated than before. Lower SAPS means oils that generally have higher flash point, and are much cleaner. They leave far less deposits that high SAPS oils around journal bearings, piston rings etc. It is not all about CBU.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by Prodrive_X

You can use oil with 10263617283162738% more saps at 50,000km you will have the same result in the intake ducts and valves, you still do not respond because in diesel engines there is no carbon even after 800,000km.

Yeah now I'm convinced you're just stubborn and can't admit you're wrong - and now proven by research done by a billion dollar company (I don't see any real evidence on your end). You also don't seem to understand correlation and causation - which is required to make any kind of claim. You might want to read up on this.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by edycol

Another thing, Sulfated Ash is BYPRODUCT! Lower SAPS means that oil base, polymers and additives have to be much more sophisticated than before. Lower SAPS means oils that generally have higher flash point, and are much cleaner. They leave far less deposits that high SAPS oils around journal bearings, piston rings etc. It is not all about CBU.

At this point I'm pretty sure he just can't admit being wrong, and is trying everything to justify his initial oil choice.

[Track/S]

Originally Posted by edycol

Where did I say you won't have? I said 167% MORE! I didn't say: not at all.

Design of engines and emissions requirements require a lot of different components that affect performance, longevity etc. Any diesel that is not rigged, will have CBU. You know or you should know this very well with M57 335d crowd. But, difference between High SAPS and Low SAPS oils means some 100,000k longer running DPF, longer longevity of back pressure sensors etc.
Yes, we could run in diesels all kind of oils if all operated like VW Golf 1.6d from 1985. But, Toyota 2.2 D4-D could not make 100k km due to LSPI and sensitivity to calcium in oil.
So, all what you are saying is wishful thinking. When oils are made they are made at standard that manufacturers set in cooperation with oil companies, not a guy who is rigging vehicles.

Well, that's it, the dirt that forms in the ducts and valves will not decrease or increase with low or high saps oil.

Unmanipulated diesels have carbon due to the exhaust gases introduced in the intake manifold, in no case due to the type of oil.

The paranoia that oil COMBAT carbon buildup is an urban legend.
I hope it is clear to the freak of the forums and youtube....

[edycol]

Originally Posted by Prodrive_X

Well, that's it, the dirt that forms in the ducts and valves will not decrease or increase with low or high saps oil.

Unmanipulated diesels have carbon due to the exhaust gases introduced in the intake manifold, in no case due to the type of oil.

The paranoia that oil COMBAT carbon buildup is an urban legend.
I hope it is clear to the freak of the forums and youtube....

AGAIN, AGAIN, 167% more CBU due to higher SAPS oil.
CBU is SAPS, a byproduct of oil burn or evaporation of oil (Noack). SAPS is byproduct of metallic additives, various polymers and certain compounds in base oil. Higher Noack means exhaust will contain oil vapors! Just bcs. engine does not burn oil visible to the eye doesn't mean it is not there. Since SAPS is metallic compound, it cannot burn, and collects on the intake valves. Lower SAPS oils means additives used are of such nature that they have lower SAPS "production." That means lower CBU, lower DPF/GPF pollution. That does not mean elimination of the problem itself! No one here claimed that. But, low SAPS oil will buy you more time if CBU needs to be cleaned or might pollute DPF/GPF in such manner that one doesn't need to be changed during lifetime of a vehicle.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by edycol

AGAIN, AGAIN, 167% more CBU due to higher SAPS oil.
CBU is SAPS, a byproduct of oil burn or evaporation of oil (Noack). SAPS is byproduct of metallic additives, various polymers and certain compounds in base oil. Higher Noack means exhaust will contain oil vapors! Just bcs. engine does not burn oil visible to the eye doesn't mean it is not there. Since SAPS is metallic compound, it cannot burn, and collects on the intake valves. Lower SAPS oils means additives used are of such nature that they have lower SAPS "production." That means lower CBU, lower DPF/GPF pollution. That does not mean elimination of the problem itself! No one here claimed that. But, low SAPS oil will buy you more time if CBU needs to be cleaned or might pollute DPF/GPF in such manner that one doesn't need to be changed during lifetime of a vehicle.

You should probably give it a break, I've run into a few of these types on the forum before, they will never ever change their stance despite being given actual hard evidence. I literally pointed out (showed him diagrams, and even an actual picture of the m235i with the front bumper off) to one guy that the m235i had an aux radiator on some particular US delivered models and the guy still refuted it.

[edycol]

Originally Posted by F87source

You should probably give it a break, I've run into a few of these types on the forum before, they will never ever change their stance despite being given actual hard evidence. I literally pointed out (showed him diagrams, and even an actual picture of the m235i with the front bumper off) to one guy that the m235i had an aux radiator on some particular US delivered models and the guy still refuted it.

I had this type of conversation with my 1st grader today. It comes handy as exercise 😂

[F87source]

Originally Posted by edycol

I had this type of conversation with my 1st grader today. It comes handy as exercise ��

I encounter this all the time when debating scientific results (either at confrences or presentations etc), especially with people not versed in the subject. Oh man does it get annoying, and the one thing that never ends is whataboutism and denialism. "What about this" "what about that". And there never seems to be any form of understanding about causation and correlation, so 99% of the time the responses make no sense.




Oh yeah and another really interesting thing for anyone that has done mathematical proofs (induction), is when someone tries to prove a universal claim (infinite subset) with a limited subset. That is always a hilarious statement.

[Track/S]

Originally Posted by edycol

AGAIN, AGAIN, 167% more CBU

You don't need to explain anything to me, it's already been quite clear, explain to the freaky of bitog and youtube.