Oil Starvation a Known Design Flaw?
 

Well, I went to visit my FRS at the dealership today (had left my garage door opener in it when I dropped it off) and finally got a chance to talk w/ their master tech at length about my car. I'm starting a new thread because, although my major problems seemed to begin after the recall work was done, the discussion I had with the tech today has got me pondering thoughts about the engine in general, outside of the recall issues...


Background - 2013 FR-S, 71K miles on it, fully stock except for K&N air filter. Other than scheduled maintenance, the only other work done has been resealing of the cam coverplate by dealership twice (failed both times, so i got their blessing to replace it myself w/ the Raceseng plate and it's been bone dry ever since), and resealing of the timing chain cover at about 55K miles. The recall work was done at 71K miles.



OK.. Today, tech tells me that when he did the work for the recall, he noticed some metal shavings in the oil and some scoring on cam and bearing surfaces that concerned him. He checked with Subaru folks and was told that was normal for these engines, and that it was OK to go ahead and complete the valve spring procedure, so he did. 570 miles later... lots of problems. I saw the engine today; he used the correct sealant, and I saw no evidence of over- or incorrect application. He showed me the worn bearings and pictures of the scored camshafts. He and the service manager went to bat for me and a new engine is forthcoming, and I'M NOT posting this to throw shade at my dealership.. they seem to be going out of their way to do right by me.



Here's the question.. according to what he told me, these engines are known for having oil circulation issues, and that they're stacked up like cordwood at Subaru dealerships. The 60 bajillion dollar question is.... IS THERE ANY TRUTH TO THAT? He complimented me on how obviously I take great care of my car, that mine is a prime example of a perfectly cared for stock vehicle, that my clutch was still in excellent condition, and that obviously the vehicle had never been abused. I got lucky, in a sick way, this time because the engine isn't going to cost me anything. However, if this engine design is known to wear to this point after 70K, I'm not interested in this car for the long haul.



Some more interesting data.. got my oil analysis back today. This is on oil that had been in the engine for 620 miles, post-recall. Interesting deviations from the norm (oil after 4800 miles according to Blackstone) are as follows...keep in mind the oil only had 620 miles on it...


Iron: 36 - norm is 10
Silicon: 81 - norm is 22
Magnesium: 485 - norm is 268


Also interesting is the note I got from Blackstone; I had included a note when I sent in the sample that it was 620 miles after having valve spring work done. Here's the note, verbatim, that they sent with the results:


"...Metals and silicon are high in this sample, but wear-in is probably to blame at this point, and with that in mind, we'll just look for improvements as the wear-in washes out. ... You probably don't need to change this oil out yet, but it woudln't hurt to do so as that'll help wash the wear-in stuff out faster."


What wear-in?!? Are they suggesting that the high metal count is typical wear-in from new valve springs? Certainly could be.. I don't know enough to guess either way. Hoping that some of you experts can weigh in.



As a point of comparison, I did an oil/filter change in our 2005 Land Cruiser w/ 140K miles on it before doing a 2600 mile road trip over the last two weeks. I checked the oil when we got home.. hadn't burned a drop, and it's still pale honey-colored and clear. The oil I drained after 620 miles in my post-recall FRS was dark, dark, Guiness-brown.



I really DO trust the guys at the dealership. They've taken great care of us for a long time, and I didn't even buy this car, or any other vehicle, from them. Is there anything to their opinion of this engine, objectively? I know we all love this car.. but... ?

people say never buy a car in their first or second year of their production... i think since it came out at 2013, the FA20 is just simply in their early year of production and isn't quite perfect as the engines that has been out for more than a decade. My factory FA20 on the supercharger blew up on the previous owner and he swapped a newer FA20 with couple thousand miles on it, and from the recall engines mostly been earlier year models i think it's just because the manufacturer doesn't have experience to make the engine perfect in the first place.

eh, plenty of folks have gotten clean oil tests, so unless you can give me a large sample size a handful of tests mean nothing in the scope of all things considered. At the end of the day the dealer & mechanic are really only going to mainly experience customer vehicles with problems, so while they perceive a lot are coming in with problems, it does not mean we're all SOL.

There have been a quite a few oil starvation threads over the years, especially for '13s but the way I see it, virtually the majority of modern engines are small displacement & overly complex so I would much rather own a simpler setup with a NA engine with low torque and if I get affected oh well, still probably better reliability odds than going with many other powerplants out there. Kinda shitty to go through this but what can ya do..

Those numbers seem weird. I added my results from Blackstone in red, and my oil has 10,751 miles on it. Blackstone did point out my somewhat elevated Silicon levels, but suggested "it almost has to be harmless."

Considering that my oil had less than 1/10 as many miles on it as yours did, it sure looks like my magnesium and iron levels are WAY out of whack. It was sure nice of my engine to sacrifice itself so that my oil wasn't anemic? The silicon (silicone?... their spelling looks weird to me) count is higher on yours, though. I was thinking that the silicon(e) may have been a sign of excess sealant leaching into the oil, but your results belay that theory.

My car spun a bearing but even then the cams looked perfect. Being a skeptic I’d say they didn’t see any of this damage until AFTER the engine failed post recall and are doing a little CYA.

Silicon is a hard crystalline solid used for production of aluminium-silicon alloys in the automotive industry.

It is used to produce silicon wafers for the semiconductor industry.

It is also the basis for a synthetic polymer called silicone.

Silicone is either liquid or rubber-like, used in sealants, adhesives, breast and testicle implants . . .

Who knew? :iono:

I sure didn't - :confused0068:


humfrz

So THAT'S why it's called "Silicon Valley" and not "Silicone Valley." The latter would be a little scarier. Thanks for the science lesson.. much appreciated.

Isn’t blackstone considered to be like the Walmart of oil testing?

I know 996 guys had moved past them years ago, something specific you should be keeping an eye on that blackstone doesn’t even test for. I believe one of the rennlist vendors was facilitating testing at a more robust technical lab.

We use ALS Tribology at work, fuel testing more than anything.


Edit: Looks like the ALS kit is available at O’reilley in a WIX box for $20 or so.

Edit 2: TBN (total base number) is what you want, ALS includes it, others charge extra.

My last change after 14 track days (4 20 min sessions each) and 4500 total miles was 12 for iron, and 19 for silicon. They told me the averages were 10 and 28. Odd silicon is different in their norms vs. yours.

I think magnesium is an additive some companies put into oil -- can make it hard to use as any sort of wear indicator.

The oil analysis comparisons and observations are interesting and appreciated. I still seem to win the "Most Iron-Rich Oil" award by a long shot, especially for essentially freshly changed oil. However, the larger question remains.. is there something inherently fragile in this engine that makes it more susceptible to oil starvation and wear than other engines?

Regarding the original post....

High revving engines typically do have oil pressure issues. At high speeds, there are several issues, especially cavitation and starvation. In *most* cases, the issues can be solved by using higher viscosity. I can only hope that the oil pumps meet the pressure requirements, and only let down by viscosity. But if the pump itself isn't rated for those pressures and RPMs, then the whole car should be avoided.
My BRZ is my only experience with Subaru engines, but I can speak for other OEM engines with high redline. I worked on lubrication issues on engines with redlines 8600rpm (flat-plane mid-engine Corvette), but we were never able to get past 7500 without spun bearings and completely destroyed con-rods.

I feel the pain. When I first bought the BRZ, I thought I would keep it till I die, as long as I prevent rust..... but with all these issues, I'm seriously wondering if modern cars are even worth becoming future classics.

Let's get the perspective right on this. There are virtually no reported oil starvation issues of the 14+ model years. This problem is restricted to the 13s. Not even all of the 13s seem to be affected.
I am not going into the whole problem description again since people are probably sick of hearing it. The problem is evident and repeated so not sure why the trend is to attempt to search out some other obscure and mysterious cause. It was a manufacturing error for a period in 2013 and that is it.