Jump to content
SAU Community

Engine Oil When Considering Turbo Choice

Granthem

By Granthem,
in Engines & Forced Induction

 Share

Recommended Posts

Granthem Mentor

Granthem

Posted
Posted

Hi guys,

A few quick questions. I've been thinking lately about my RB25 and the oil it runs. Now the old owner always ran 10w40 magnatec (yup cheap stuff!), but being said, its run that for 5+ years and everything seems to be going fine! Considering its a 96 model motor, I dont believe a semi synthetic would be an issue for it at all. Being $30 bucks a bottle, I can do 3 times the amount of oil changes in the same period as say, a bottle of royal purple fully syn oil.

However, I then started thinking about what it best for the turbo. It runs a HKS GT-RS turbo, obviously somewhat 'new' technology. That made me think maybe the bearings in the turbo are better suited to a fully syn oil, as opposed to a semi.

Anyway, I was wondering whether anyone has thought about this dilemma before, ie older model engine with far newer model turbo.

What would you guys recommend? Does anyone believe it would be detrimental to the HKS turbo running semi syn oil (I mean after all its just a b/b turbo like came standard on the R33 i guess?)

Dale FZ1 Veteran

Dale FZ1

Posted
Posted

There are many types/specs of Magnatec. What you and the previous owner have been using is most likely synthetic fortified or modified, and not a bad lubricant. The main thing is that whatever slippery stuff is in your sump continues to do its job for the required service life you expect from it. For extreme duty use, and/or longer service intervals the full synthetic is good stuff and cost justified.

If you service frequently, continue as-is and keep your oil spec the same.

wlspn Proficient

wlspn

Posted
Posted
(I mean after all its just a b/b turbo like came standard on the R33 i guess?)

Just to clarify, R33s didn't come out standard with a bb turbo...

As for oil, personally I would use full synthetic. Its not much dearer. Castrol Edge can be had for as little as $50-$55

At the end of the day but the choice is yours....

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Kapr
      RB20DE NEO smallbox clutch.

      By Kapr · Posted

      For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • GTSBoy
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • Kinkstaah
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • GTSBoy
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • Kinkstaah
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...