ENEOS RACING Series Pro/Street
 

Eneos's new line of oil just hits the market recently. :eyebulge:
*atleast I didn't know about them till today.


Has anyone gave them a try yet? @viscositosis.rex @mav1178

http://www.eneos.us/products/eneos-racing-series/


Been using Sustina for the last 50k miles.... gonna give these bad boy a try next. :cheers:

I will try them out on my next oil change. I have been running Sustina from day 1.

Interesting. Wonder if it's just marketing hype or worth trying. Currently using Eneos 0w-20.

ohhh yesss :burnrubber::thumbsup:


Just try it with us it wont hurt. :cheers:

Lemme know where you end up ordering yours from and what variety you go with.

You can order them online at http://koruworks.com/search.php?sear...=eneos&Search=

They seem to be the only place online where you can order them already.


I will be getting mine at my local auto shop Uehara motor @ vegas, Been getting my supply from them for the last 4 years & they told me they will have the racing series in 2 weeks.

I just don't know what I wanna try first yet... another thing is that racing street is actually cheaper then sustina by a dollar every QT. so that's a saving of 6 dollars every oil change if they are just as good. :P

There's a lot of marketing hype and buzzwords on the Eneos site regarding what is actually different between the Street and Pro versions. My tiny brain is having trouble figuring out which one is better.

ENEOS RACING Series Pro/Street
 

No question that you’ll want to run the street version unless you have a 100% dedicated catless track car. The details aren’t out yet but I expect the track version to have higher ZDDP and no API or ILSAC certifications.

The street version has a nice shot of zinc for anti-wear and moly for friction modification. But phosphorus is low to get the API/ILSAC certification and to keep it cat friendly. It likely also has higher detergent levels.

NOACK volatility is within allowed limits but I’m surprised that it’s at 12% when the allowed limits are 15% and the better oils are closer to 10%. Probably due to the limitations of the Group III base stocks.

:popcorn: I will be keeping an eye on this thread... I ordered the Sustina 0w20 as I always have and saw the Racing/Street... Opted to stay with Sustina 0w20...:thanks:
Here are the spec sheets from the Eneos site between the two if that helps anyone. I've had no problems with the Sustina other than a lighter wallet, LOL.
:thumbup::lol:
Maybe someone more knowledgeable than I, can help dawn some light on the differences... I guess if I researched more, I could... but I know there are so many other "experts" out there. :thanks:

And I ordered my last case from the site mentioned previously: http://koruworks.com/search.php?sear...=eneos&Search=

I have not tried this new ENEOS Racing Street oil yet.

Looking at the numbers, it appears to be a highly specialized oil, intended for short term performance, and not high temperatures.

I look forward to seeing your results.

vis.

:w00t:

My Blackstone VOA on Sustina 0W20 actually showed phosphorus content significantly higher than zinc.

I point to high density as a positive attribute.

It astounds me that these oils with VI's of 229 and 239 have NOACK's of ~12.

I have used Ravenol 0W16 for ~ 50k miles w/10k OCI. It is designed with a reasonable NOACK, low VI, ~ 40% ester content, and 2x Mobil 1 trimer moly. It is quite stellar. PLEASE report this to Shannow.

FWIW, my new favorite oil is Valvoline Advanced Full Synthetic 5W20. VI 147. NOACK 7.6. I am now in a marathon mindset, aiming for such things as clean piston rings at 500k miles !

It is hoped that this Valvoline oil is a bluesubie approved oil, although maybe a little thin for your taste.

:)

O.O Not for high temperatures? or just basically a track oil type thing? :thanks:

I might change my mind if it can be substantiated that ENEOS used W Base here.

The VI of 239 suggests high dose VI improvers.

Read the product description.

No 5w-30?

So what's the best daily/track *high rpm friendly-ish" oil in your opinion? :bonk:

1. Sustina 0W20. HTHS 2.6 Maverick has tracked with it. I have used it for 20k OCI street use.

2. Red Line 0W20. HTHS 2.9

3.Ravenol 0W20 DFE. HTHS 2.7

4. Motul Specific VW 508.00/509.00 --Porsche C20 0W20. HTHS 2.5

5.Royal Purple 5W20 HPS w/Synerlec. HTHS 2.7

chaos/Clip.

I hope like heck you try this new ENEOS Track Oil w/wide open throttle & UOAs.
It would be very cool to have you substantiate what we think would happen.

:cheers:

ENEOS RACING Series Pro/Street
 

Check out the new Valvoline Modern Engine Motor Oil if you like Valvoline. Probably less of a need in an 86 though since intake valve deposits aren’t a concern like they are in the 2.0DIT.

The new Ascent specs 0W-20. Good luck to all of those beta testers!

That's a common misconception that zinc is an anti wear agent. It's actually there a friction additive for flat tappet vehicles, to help the tappets spin, rather than constantly wearing in the same spot.

I will be sure to check out the Modern Engine. TY bluesubie.

I don't know. I'm currently running regular Eneos 0w-20 with the Perrin oil cooler kit.

I'm just not sure there's a real need to spend more money on oil.

If you are happy with the plan you have in place, and the results are adequate, there is no need for me or anyone to muddy the water.

That said, there are profound differences, beyond price, between ENEOS 0W20 and Sustina 0W20.

:burnrubber:

:)

Before this I had Torco SR-1 0w-20, before that Eneos Sustina 0w-20, before that Eneos 0w-20, and before that factory fill. :)

I've never gotten a UOA though. :eek:


Edit: Also, at like 2k miles the first few months I had the car, I took it out on the factory fill with no oil cooler, and drove it hard with extended 4k-7k pulls for 3+ hours in 95+ degree heat.

I'm at 26k miles now and the engine still seems to be working. lol. :)

ENEOS RACING Series Pro/Street
 

Zinc is indeed an anti-wear additive . Actually, it’s a multi-functional additive also acting as an anti-oxidant.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forum..._its_Implicati

And it does also have friction enhancing properties.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forum...s_#Post4356007

And helps mitigate LSPI:

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forum...and_Engine_Oil

Ordered a case (6x 1qt) of the Eneos Racing Street 0w-20. $80 shipped.

Can you elaborate the importance if the HTHS you've listed in high RPM engines compared to the information on this site?
https://expert.q8oils.com/automotive/low-hths-oils/
It honestly sounds like the engine's engineered intended specs pairing with the correct HTHS is more important that whatever the oils are rated at.
"A lubricant with high HTHS viscosity offers better protection for engine parts. The engine type: Low HTHS oil in an engine designed for high HTHS oil can cause damage."

From what I can find, one of the criteria to be a (any)w-20 oil is to have a minimum of 2.6 HTHS.

https://expert.q8oils.com/wp-content...6329351897.png

Seeing as how our engine is rated for 0W20 or 5W30 (or 0W40 if you're hardcore track), it looks like our engine has an intended HTHS rating of 2.6 ~ <3.7.

With regards to the Eneos Racing Street 0W-20 - impressive stuff.
I've never seen 0W-20 oil 40°C viscosity of 28.6.
It has good CCS too.
So lots of cold start protection from an initial glance.

I really don't know how protective it is for the engine in the long run though with a TBN of 6.6.
I bet it would be one of the best oils for 5k oil change frequencies?

Edit: Is Eneos removing Sustina from their product line? I don't see it available for viewing on their US website anymore.

Over the years there has been an overabundance of engine oil myths. Here are some facts you may want to pass along to customers to help debunk the fiction behind these myths.

The Pennsylvania Crude Myth -- This myth is based on a misapplication of truth. In 1859, the first commercially successful oil well was drilled in Titusville, Pennsylvania.
A myth got started before World War II claiming that the only good oils were those made from pure Pennsylvania crude oil. At the time, only minimal refining was used to make engine oil from crude oil. Under these refining conditions, Pennsylvania crude oil made better engine oil than Texas crude or California crude. Today, with modern refining methods, almost any crude can be made into good engine oil.

Other engine oil myths are based on the notion that the new and the unfamiliar are somehow "bad."

The Detergent Oil Myth -- The next myth to appear is that modern detergent engine oils are bad for older engines. This one got started after World War II, when the government no longer needed all of the available detergent oil for the war effort, and detergent oil hit the market as �heavy-duty� oil.

Many pre-war cars had been driven way past their normal life, their engines were full of sludge and deposits, and the piston rings were completely worn out. Massive piston deposits were the only thing standing between merely high oil consumption and horrendous oil consumption. After a thorough purge by the new detergent oil, increased oil consumption was a possible consequence.
If detergent oils had been available to the public during the war, preventing the massive deposit buildup from occurring in the first place, this myth never would have started. Amazingly, there are still a few people today, 60 years later, who believe that they need to use non-detergent oil in their older cars. Apparently, it takes many years for an oil myth to die.

The Synthetic Oil Myth -- Then there is the myth that new engine break-in will not occur with synthetic oils. This one was apparently started by an aircraft engine manufacturer who put out a bulletin that said so. The fact is that Mobil 1 synthetic oil has been the factory-fill for many thousands of engines. Clearly, they have broken in quite well, and that should put this one to rest.

The Starburst Oil Myth -- The latest myth promoted by the antique and collector car press says that new Starburst/ API SM engine oils (called Starburst for the shape of the symbol on the container) are bad for older engines because the amount of anti-wear additive in them has been reduced. The anti-wear additive being discussed is zinc dithiophosphate (ZDP).

Before debunking this myth, we need to look at the history of ZDP usage. For over 60 years, ZDP has been used as an additive in engine oils to provide wear protection and oxidation stability.

ZDP was first added to engine oil to control copper/lead bearing corrosion. Oils with a phosphorus level in the 0.03% range passed a corrosion test introduced in 1942.

In the mid-1950s, when the use of high-lift camshafts increased the potential for scuffing and wear, the phosphorus level contributed by ZDP was increased to the 0.08% range.

In addition, the industry developed a battery of oil tests (called sequences), two of which were valve-train scuffing and wear tests.

A higher level of ZDP was good for flat-tappet valve-train scuffing and wear, but it turned out that more was not better. Although break-in scuffing was reduced by using more phosphorus, longer-term wear increased when phosphorus rose above 0.14%. And, at about 0.20% phosphorus, the ZDP started attacking the grain boundaries in the iron, resulting in camshaft spalling.

By the 1970s, increased antioxidancy was needed to protect the oil in high-load engines, which otherwise could thicken to a point where the engine could no longer pump it. Because ZDP was an inexpensive and effective antioxidant, it was used to place the phosphorus level in the 0.10% range.

However, phosphorus is a poison for exhaust catalysts. So, ZDP levels have been reduced over the last 10-15 years. It's now down to a maximum of 0.08% for Starburst oils. This was supported by the introduction of modern ashless antioxidants that contain no phosphorus.

Enough history. Let's get back to the myth that Starburst oils are no good for older engines. The argument put forth is that while these oils work perfectly well in modern, gasoline engines equipped with roller camshafts, they will cause catastrophic wear in older engines equipped with flat-tappet camshafts.

The facts say otherwise.

Backward compatability was of great importance when the Starburst oil standards were developed by a group of experts from the OEMs, oil companies, and oil additive companies. In addition, multiple oil and additive companies ran no-harm tests on older engines with the new oils; and no problems were uncovered.

The new Starburst specification contains two valve-train wear tests. All Starburst oil formulations must pass these two tests.

- Sequence IVA tests for camshaft scuffing and wear using a single overhead camshaft engine with slider finger (not roller) followers.

- Sequence IIIG evaluates cam and lifter wear using a V6 engine with a flat-tappet system, similar to those used in the 1980s.

Those who hold onto the myth are ignoring the fact that the new Starburst oils contain about the same percentage of ZDP as the oils that solved the camshaft scuffing and wear issues back in the 1950s. (True, they do contain less ZDP than the oils that solved the oil thickening issues in the 1960s, but that's because they now contain high levels of ashless antioxidants not commercially available in the 1960s.)
Despite the pains taken in developing special flat-tappet camshaft wear tests that these new oils must pass and the fact that the ZDP level of these new oils is comparable to the level found necessary to protect flat-tappet camshafts in the past, there will still be those who want to believe the myth that new oils will wear out older engines.
Like other myths before it, history teaches us that it will probably take 60 or 70 years for this one to die also.

Special thanks to GM's Techlink
- Thanks to Bob Olree � GM Powertrain Fuels and Lubricants Group

VI is a worthless metric for oil performance.

It's still something useful to know - I've found engines to operate smoother in the cold with lower viscosity oils at 40°C. Often (although not always) this translates to lower MRV and CCS as well.