VR4 Oil Filters

[bradc]

Cool thanks. I've got the exact same setup at home and wasn't sure how to mount it.

 

[naughtika]

Trev, is there much pressure drop while having that setup?

 

[jungle]

That's fully pro-spec Trev

 

[timmae2006]

I never even knew anything like that ever existed!!! How often do you change your oil trev with that setup?

 

[SiliconAngel]

Cool thanks. I've got the exact same setup at home and wasn't sure how to mount it.

I just used aluminium flat bar to make up four brackets to hang it under the battery location. How easy is it to get under your CAI? If you do something similar, make sure you offset the angle of the flat-bar brackets, otherwise you may get movement/vibration if they're all angled the same way. Additionally, when you're lining it up make sure you dummy-fit the filters to the dual-bypass mount, as they are fatter than you would otherwise estimate and you may end up too close to the plastic guard.

Trev, is there much pressure drop while having that setup?

Uncertain Chris, as I haven't got my oil pressure sender unit hooked up. Unfortunately if mounted in-line at the original oil filter mount, the hose connectors get pushed down too far which puts undue pressure on the hoses, as their bends are drastically exaggerated, but mounting on the dual-bypass system pushes the filter down, causing it to foul against the plastic guard, which I'm really unhappy about. Due to space restrictions the only way I think I can fit it is if I angle the bypass mount, which isn't great either, as a vertical orientation is optimal. But then, I'm not too concerned about it until I get the time to make up a gauge pod anyway - thus far, the engine is running smoothly, temps are good and the oil is still amber (I did another double-flush with 5W30 synthetic - yes, I'm crazy), and as I'm not giving the car much stick I'm not that concerned. If I'd been forced to mount the filters much higher or horizontally, though, pressure would be a far more imminent consideration.

I never even knew anything like that ever existed!!! How often do you change your oil trev with that setup?

Well I've only done about 3,000km since I installed it, but at a guess it should be good for 100, maybe 150,000kms. I'll be getting oil analysis done every 10,000kms anyway, just to stay on top of things - that's what that petcock on the end of the filter mount is for, so I can take oil samples without having to undo anything important (like a sump plug...). Before you spit your coffee all over your keyboard, there is extensive precedent for this - there are fleets of buses and trucks in the US that go as much as 200,000 MILES per oil change, because once you remove the contaminants from the oil, the oil itself is chemically stable and reliable at the temperatures and pressures involved. Also bear two other things in mind - this system has been designed and extensively tested for Amsoil lubricants only - do not try this with any other brand, as I'm not aware of anything else that will last anything like this long. Additionally, the filters DO need to be replaced periodically, so it will be interesting to see just how frequently this is necessary. I already have three of each though (and enough oil to do three more full services), so I'm pretty well covered

 

[timmae2006]

Did you source the by pass setup from Amsoil?

 

[bradc]

Cool thanks Trev

Tim - yes the whole setup is an amsoil thing.

 

[Jsteel]

Z142A... i just done a oil change yesterday but im starting to think from reading this i may have gone the wrong direction with the oil... Penrite 15w40?? mixed with moreys heavy duty oil stabilizer??? maybe i should do another change to fully synth?? any ideas?? thanks.

 

[Guest]

Getting quite thick there.

 

[SiliconAngel]

any ideas??

Yes, quite a lot, but I recommend you take the time to read the relevant existing threads on oil as there's very little we could add the the already quite well informed discussion.

 

[ttgvr4]

Funny thing is SKR said nothing but 15-50 in the 6a13 engine, and at the end of the day he has pulled lots of 6a13 and 4g63 engines down and raced plenty to victory. So please stop saying that 5-30 is the way to go when 15-50 protects the internals way better people, mine runs 15-50 and is serviced through SKR and makes no lifter noise and with summer around the corner 5-30 is way to thin, god help me:/

 

[Jsteel]

thanks trev, and cheers steve for backing it up.. basically what im seeing is (and i know sweet f.a about the 6a13tt) that its a turbo engine right so i has to be running hotter than a non-turbo. which makes the oil thinner because its hotter.. so start with a thick oil and when i gets hot it will thin out a bit and be at the right thickness to still protect everything.. thats what im thinking anyways correct me if im wrong..

 

[Jsteel]

btw since i did the oil change the car has not been blowing any black smoke (burning oil) so maybe what ever was in the engine before was too thin.

 

[AUSVR4]

btw since i did the oil change the car has not been blowing any black smoke (burning oil) so maybe what ever was in the engine before was too thin.

Black smoke is fuel. Blue smoke is oil.

 

[SiliconAngel]

Sorry Steve, I don't want to sound like I'm attacking you here, but as I feel it's likely you will take it that way, I apologise in advance. There's nothing personal in my comments, merely discussion / dissection of your argument.

Funny thing is SKR said nothing but 15-50 in the 6a13 engine, and at the end of the day he has pulled lots of 6a13 and 4g63 engines down and raced plenty to victory.

So because someone has raced a car with a particular engine, or pulled several (or indeed, many) of them apart, that automatically makes them a qualified expert in fluid dynamics, lubrication and mechanical engineering? Don't get me wrong - it's perfectly possible that such a person is in fact qualified to make such statements, and even be correct in them. My point, however, is that the qualifications provided tell the reader nothing about the accuracy or trustworthiness of the quoted statement(s).

Please also bear in mind that race conditions are often VERY different to those experienced by road vehicles. For example, a track car will completely replace all lubricants and fluids after every meet, whether it's a drag car (so the lubricants only have to last eight or nine seconds, or three or four for top fuellers), a drifter or an endurance racer; cars that race never retain their lubricants for anything like the 5 to 10,000kms a road car will. They also operate right at the extreme of the temperature and performance range. It's actually very difficult to get a VR4 to handle the heat involved at the mid to high 200km/hr speeds (and thus excessive rev range) experienced on a track for more than a short period of time. The car was never designed for it, thus you have to make quite a lot of changes to get it to that stage. My point is there's often no point in making comparisons between track cars and street vehicles because both their operating conditions and componentry are so vastly different. Some things apply, absolutely. But many don't, and it's something a great number of people who talk about cars fail to understand.

So please stop saying that 5-30 is the way to go when 15-50 protects the internals way better people, mine runs 15-50 and is serviced through SKR and makes no lifter noise and with summer around the corner 5-30 is way to thin, god help me:/

I fear that your reliance upon a fictional deity to assist you in this matter is about as sound a proposal as the rest of the statement. Please allow me address them specifically: I personally have never advocated the use of 5W30, preferring instead to opt for the manufacturer specified 0W30 fully synthetic. Why do I simply repeat manufacturer specifications as though they were in any way accurate? Well, the several (possibly tens of) millions of dollars Mitsubishi would have spent on R&D on these engines and the correct lubricants has something to do with it. Then there's the tolerances the engine was designed to, the heat range, the requisite viscosity of oil required to adequately lubricate the engine components given these parameters and the fact that a substantially thicker lubricant, while no doubt providing adequate protection of the components it has reached, won't be capable of providing any lubricating buffer to those engine components whose tolerances simply don't have the physical space for a thicker lubricant to penetrate.

The reason your lifters make less noise on a thicker oil is because it is more difficult for it to seep out past the (faulty and worn) diaphragm - it's thicker, so it stays put better. You haven't fixed anything, you're simply masking the problem (which admittedly isn't likely to ever be a big issue, as I've explained (with regards to these lifters) on a couple of occasions in the past).

I understand why Simon (Jungle) uses a thicker viscosity oil in his engine; because he has extensive experience with a high performance engine that gets heavy track use and his personal experience demonstrates after numerous rebuilds that his chosen lubricant is doing an excellent job in that scenario. Because of that, he chooses a similar oil for his other engines. Perfectly acceptable and reasonable argument. And I don't doubt that his VR4 will have a reliable engine for years to come. But that doesn't mean that the lubricant he is using in his modified VR4 should be used or recommended in other cars. Because more than one person's personal experiences, many tens of thousands of hours have gone into selecting the correct lubricants for these engines, and choosing to mess with that on a whim or someone else's necessarily limited experiences doesn't sound like a good idea to me. But hey, what do I know? Knock yourself out - I'm just some f@#%ing idiot on the interwebz, after all.

 

[bradc]

I've tried to explain it a few times recently Trevor, but no one seems to listen! The owners manual from Mitsi says to use a 30 weight oil all the way up to 40C ambient temps with an arrow going past 40C. The water cooling system and thermostat are designed to keep the engine in a narrow operating range around 95-100C regardless of the ambient temp, and in turn the oil temp will be kept under control as well.

But hey, Steve, if you want to run with very thick oil that doesn't allow enough flow to properly lubricate the engine, then go for it, you'll get worse fuel economy and will suffer more engine problems than the people using a properly specced oil.

 

[king_panther]

I would like to hear more about all these 6A13s that have been raced to victories by this company? Didn't realise someone was doing it in Oz.

 

[bradc]

He won't, he just thinks his lack of knowledge of 4g63t oil requirements makes him a similar 'expert' when it comes to 6a13tt's

 

[SiliconAngel]

The water cooling system and thermostat are designed to keep the engine in a narrow operating range around 95-100C regardless of the ambient temp, and in turn the oil temp will be kept under control as well.

Yea I realised after I made that post that I should have included this, given the most common argument for running a higher viscosity oil is the difference in temps between Japan and Aus...

A basic primer for the unsatisfied reader - your thermostat opens a certain amount at certain temperatures. So at 80ºC for example, it is only open a small amount, but by 100ºC it is fully open. This controls the amount of coolant flow through the water jacket in the block and head. The result is, if you're driving in 0ºC ambient temperatures, the overall operating temp of the engine is the same as if it was 40ºC ambient - it just takes another five minutes or so before the engine warms up to this temp. But the thermostat still opens the same amount at the same temp, so you get essentially the same level of cooling regardless of the ambient temp - it's just that at colder ambient cooling efficiency is increased, so the engine will cool faster and the thermostat will open and close more actively. A substantial benefit is of course the effect of intercooled charged air temps, but that has absolutely no bearing on oil viscosity.

Again, the only time this scenario will change is when the engine is forced outside its designed operating temperature, which will occur if you stick a street car on a race track for more than a minute or two. The engine operating at such constant high revs will generate more heat than the liquid cooling system is able to eliminate. In such a scenario you need a substantial radiator upgrade and it may indeed be necessary to use a higher viscosity lubricant. However the correct weight should be carefully selected based on intended and sustainable operating temp, which will vary vastly with radiator capability and revs, hence overall engine temp is also a function of the type of driving and even the individual track in question (as more straights will increase speed, revs and temp, while a bend-heavy track will put more stress on tires, brakes and gearbox, but the engine will get more of a break (relatively speaking)).

As Brad said, it's your engine and your choice and not only is it not my business, I don't really care what you choose to do with your car. The reason I'm taking so much time refuting the high viscosity oil argument is to ensure that anyone else reading it hopefully has either enough information to make a somewhat more informed decision, or at least has enough of a question in their mind to take the time to do further reading.

 

[ttgvr4]

Each to there own i guess