How best to run new engine in (again....)
02-12-2009, 01:40 PM
#22
Registered User
Sorry I meant every country other than Germany and Poland class Group III as synthetic.
Making a 0W-20 with mineral base oil is pretty much impossible.
To be honest on a new car you will be fine on the factory fill with a 5W-something grade as top up if needed. I would have the interim oil service at 4500miles and change to your prefered 'performance' oil for peace of mind.
I built an engine once, ran it in for about 70miles to a rolling road to meet a mate, we mapped it and then ran it on the dyno with about 100miles on the clock. That engine ran fine afterwards
Oh and lucky git, wish I was picking up a brand new 09 plate S2000.
Making a 0W-20 with mineral base oil is pretty much impossible.
To be honest on a new car you will be fine on the factory fill with a 5W-something grade as top up if needed. I would have the interim oil service at 4500miles and change to your prefered 'performance' oil for peace of mind.
I built an engine once, ran it in for about 70miles to a rolling road to meet a mate, we mapped it and then ran it on the dyno with about 100miles on the clock. That engine ran fine afterwards
Oh and lucky git, wish I was picking up a brand new 09 plate S2000.
02-12-2009, 01:56 PM
#23
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Cologne, Germany
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Si2k,Feb 12 2009, 11:40 PM
Sorry I meant every country other than Germany and Poland class Group III as synthetic.
Making a 0W-20 with mineral base oil is pretty much impossible.
Making a 0W-20 with mineral base oil is pretty much impossible.
And what kind of stuff is that Moly-additive?
Thank you
Edit:
let me ask the following:
Which factor do you consider more important for a brand new engine (not filled by the factory)?
A "0"-grade Oil ( 0W-20 or 0W-xx )
or a mineral oil even if it is 5W-xx or 10W-xx?
02-13-2009, 12:10 AM
#24
Registered User
Originally Posted by McHeizer,Feb 12 2009, 10:56 PM
And as what is it classified in Germany? (semi-synth or mineral?)
And what kind of stuff is that Moly-additive?
Thank you
Edit:
let me ask the following:
Which factor do you consider more important for a brand new engine (not filled by the factory)?
A "0"-grade Oil ( 0W-20 or 0W-xx )
or a mineral oil even if it is 5W-xx or 10W-xx?
And what kind of stuff is that Moly-additive?
Thank you
Edit:
let me ask the following:
Which factor do you consider more important for a brand new engine (not filled by the factory)?
A "0"-grade Oil ( 0W-20 or 0W-xx )
or a mineral oil even if it is 5W-xx or 10W-xx?
Moly means Molybdenum disulfide which is a friction modifier. Molybdenum disulfide is often a component of oils where low friction is sought, it is also a pretty effect anti-oxidant.
For a new engine the additives will be as important as the base oil. A 5W-30 is what I would use in an F20C, whether it is brand new or not.
02-13-2009, 03:02 AM
#27
Registered User
I know Toyota use a 0W-20 and most Japanese OEMs do aswell, I'll be honest though, I have no reliable source about the S2000.
The car is built in Japan, over there 5W-40 grades are very rare, 0W-20 and 5W-20 grades are much more common.
If you send me 100ml of oil from your car when you drain it out I will let you know for certain. Would be interesting to know exactly what they use.
To be honest though, it's at the point of nearly getting to anal now
The car is built in Japan, over there 5W-40 grades are very rare, 0W-20 and 5W-20 grades are much more common.
If you send me 100ml of oil from your car when you drain it out I will let you know for certain. Would be interesting to know exactly what they use.
To be honest though, it's at the point of nearly getting to anal now
02-13-2009, 02:19 PM
#28
Registered User
Thread Starter
[QUOTE=Si2k,Feb 13 2009, 04:02 AM] I know Toyota use a 0W-20 and most Japanese OEMs do aswell, I'll be honest though, I have no reliable source about the S2000.
The car is built in Japan, over there 5W-40 grades are very rare, 0W-20 and 5W-20 grades are much more common.
The car is built in Japan, over there 5W-40 grades are very rare, 0W-20 and 5W-20 grades are much more common.
02-15-2009, 11:39 AM
#29
Registered User
The current fill for the ZR (2007~current UK Production) Family of Toyota Engines is 0W-20. It used to be 5W-30 for the ZZ (1999~2008 UK Production) family of engines.
As for run in the problem most people have when they can't compare like for like in any sort of quantity. So many things can affect the Torque/oil consumption/blow-by (amount of combustion gas getting past the piston rings). Piston ring width, ring end gap, cylinder bore diameter/roundness/surface finish/cylindricity, piston profile, valve stem diameter, valve guide diameter, effectiveness of the valve stem seal (to name the ones I can be bothered thinking about right now). There's just too many variables that can affect it for the average person to check back to back vehicles and get a meaningful result.
Also the design doesn't just stand still. Every week we'll be tweaking something here or there (particularly at the introduction of an engine). I'm assuming Honda do the same which is why even though the engine in the S2000 has been the same for the last 10 years latter models use less oil than the newer ones by annecdotal evidence. Hence unless you buy two cars from the same production time and try different methods you'll not be testing equivalent engines
One part of my job is engine testing and evaluation for new engines/modifications. We have a set run in pattern we use for an engine during development and will proof it during evaluation stage. It will largely be the same but the timings, RPM, throttle loadings but will follow a largely similar pattern. It will start at idle and zero throttle load and step it up in about 10~15 stages until the engine is flat out and WOT.
Now if we run a number of engines run in properly and compare them against ones that have been run flat out from the start and compare key perameters as I mentioned above (Torque/oil consumption/blow-by)then the ones run in properly will be significantly more stable/predictable results. Those results will also more often than not be lower than the ones not run in correctly (although as I say with so many variables going into it it's not impossible to get a better performance out of an engine that's been run in badly)
What you're trying to do when you run an engine in is to smooth off the bearing surfaces from the manufacturing process'. The rings to the bore, the valves to the guides, the bearings to the journals. Therefore you need to build up the loads to wear high spots off those points without gouging into the surfaces.
The problem with the above running in method is it's nigh on impossible to do unless you have your own high speed bowl to run the vehicle in with. Therefore the closest approximation you can get away with for everyday driving is what they recommend in the handbook. Moderate revs and moderate loads and then gradually increasing.
HOWEVER an occasional blast (having to make an impromptue overtake manouver/slip road to motorway speeds) isn't going to destroy the engine and you're unlikely to notice any real difference long term
As for run in the problem most people have when they can't compare like for like in any sort of quantity. So many things can affect the Torque/oil consumption/blow-by (amount of combustion gas getting past the piston rings). Piston ring width, ring end gap, cylinder bore diameter/roundness/surface finish/cylindricity, piston profile, valve stem diameter, valve guide diameter, effectiveness of the valve stem seal (to name the ones I can be bothered thinking about right now). There's just too many variables that can affect it for the average person to check back to back vehicles and get a meaningful result.
Also the design doesn't just stand still. Every week we'll be tweaking something here or there (particularly at the introduction of an engine). I'm assuming Honda do the same which is why even though the engine in the S2000 has been the same for the last 10 years latter models use less oil than the newer ones by annecdotal evidence. Hence unless you buy two cars from the same production time and try different methods you'll not be testing equivalent engines
One part of my job is engine testing and evaluation for new engines/modifications. We have a set run in pattern we use for an engine during development and will proof it during evaluation stage. It will largely be the same but the timings, RPM, throttle loadings but will follow a largely similar pattern. It will start at idle and zero throttle load and step it up in about 10~15 stages until the engine is flat out and WOT.
Now if we run a number of engines run in properly and compare them against ones that have been run flat out from the start and compare key perameters as I mentioned above (Torque/oil consumption/blow-by)then the ones run in properly will be significantly more stable/predictable results. Those results will also more often than not be lower than the ones not run in correctly (although as I say with so many variables going into it it's not impossible to get a better performance out of an engine that's been run in badly)
What you're trying to do when you run an engine in is to smooth off the bearing surfaces from the manufacturing process'. The rings to the bore, the valves to the guides, the bearings to the journals. Therefore you need to build up the loads to wear high spots off those points without gouging into the surfaces.
The problem with the above running in method is it's nigh on impossible to do unless you have your own high speed bowl to run the vehicle in with. Therefore the closest approximation you can get away with for everyday driving is what they recommend in the handbook. Moderate revs and moderate loads and then gradually increasing.
HOWEVER an occasional blast (having to make an impromptue overtake manouver/slip road to motorway speeds) isn't going to destroy the engine and you're unlikely to notice any real difference long term
02-15-2009, 02:54 PM
#30
Registered User
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by fluffyninja,Feb 15 2009, 12:39 PM
The current fill for the ZR (2007~current UK Production) Family of Toyota Engines is 0W-20. It used to be 5W-30 for the ZZ (1999~2008 UK Production) family of engines.
As for run in the problem most people have when they can't compare like for like in any sort of quantity. So many things can affect the Torque/oil consumption/blow-by (amount of combustion gas getting past the piston rings). Piston ring width, ring end gap, cylinder bore diameter/roundness/surface finish/cylindricity, piston profile, valve stem diameter, valve guide diameter, effectiveness of the valve stem seal (to name the ones I can be bothered thinking about right now). There's just too many variables that can affect it for the average person to check back to back vehicles and get a meaningful result.
Also the design doesn't just stand still. Every week we'll be tweaking something here or there (particularly at the introduction of an engine). I'm assuming Honda do the same which is why even though the engine in the S2000 has been the same for the last 10 years latter models use less oil than the newer ones by annecdotal evidence. Hence unless you buy two cars from the same production time and try different methods you'll not be testing equivalent engines
One part of my job is engine testing and evaluation for new engines/modifications. We have a set run in pattern we use for an engine during development and will proof it during evaluation stage. It will largely be the same but the timings, RPM, throttle loadings but will follow a largely similar pattern. It will start at idle and zero throttle load and step it up in about 10~15 stages until the engine is flat out and WOT.
Now if we run a number of engines run in properly and compare them against ones that have been run flat out from the start and compare key perameters as I mentioned above (Torque/oil consumption/blow-by)then the ones run in properly will be significantly more stable/predictable results. Those results will also more often than not be lower than the ones not run in correctly (although as I say with so many variables going into it it's not impossible to get a better performance out of an engine that's been run in badly)
What you're trying to do when you run an engine in is to smooth off the bearing surfaces from the manufacturing process'. The rings to the bore, the valves to the guides, the bearings to the journals. Therefore you need to build up the loads to wear high spots off those points without gouging into the surfaces.
The problem with the above running in method is it's nigh on impossible to do unless you have your own high speed bowl to run the vehicle in with. Therefore the closest approximation you can get away with for everyday driving is what they recommend in the handbook. Moderate revs and moderate loads and then gradually increasing.
HOWEVER an occasional blast (having to make an impromptue overtake manouver/slip road to motorway speeds) isn't going to destroy the engine and you're unlikely to notice any real difference long term
As for run in the problem most people have when they can't compare like for like in any sort of quantity. So many things can affect the Torque/oil consumption/blow-by (amount of combustion gas getting past the piston rings). Piston ring width, ring end gap, cylinder bore diameter/roundness/surface finish/cylindricity, piston profile, valve stem diameter, valve guide diameter, effectiveness of the valve stem seal (to name the ones I can be bothered thinking about right now). There's just too many variables that can affect it for the average person to check back to back vehicles and get a meaningful result.
Also the design doesn't just stand still. Every week we'll be tweaking something here or there (particularly at the introduction of an engine). I'm assuming Honda do the same which is why even though the engine in the S2000 has been the same for the last 10 years latter models use less oil than the newer ones by annecdotal evidence. Hence unless you buy two cars from the same production time and try different methods you'll not be testing equivalent engines
One part of my job is engine testing and evaluation for new engines/modifications. We have a set run in pattern we use for an engine during development and will proof it during evaluation stage. It will largely be the same but the timings, RPM, throttle loadings but will follow a largely similar pattern. It will start at idle and zero throttle load and step it up in about 10~15 stages until the engine is flat out and WOT.
Now if we run a number of engines run in properly and compare them against ones that have been run flat out from the start and compare key perameters as I mentioned above (Torque/oil consumption/blow-by)then the ones run in properly will be significantly more stable/predictable results. Those results will also more often than not be lower than the ones not run in correctly (although as I say with so many variables going into it it's not impossible to get a better performance out of an engine that's been run in badly)
What you're trying to do when you run an engine in is to smooth off the bearing surfaces from the manufacturing process'. The rings to the bore, the valves to the guides, the bearings to the journals. Therefore you need to build up the loads to wear high spots off those points without gouging into the surfaces.
The problem with the above running in method is it's nigh on impossible to do unless you have your own high speed bowl to run the vehicle in with. Therefore the closest approximation you can get away with for everyday driving is what they recommend in the handbook. Moderate revs and moderate loads and then gradually increasing.
HOWEVER an occasional blast (having to make an impromptue overtake manouver/slip road to motorway speeds) isn't going to destroy the engine and you're unlikely to notice any real difference long term
RON