Megane 265 full fat cup

Loving the update. Looking like good progress.

Regarding the oil, you may want to consider using a product with the manufacturer approval RN17 RSA. You also need to use a W-40.

Id not worry too much, but the C3 lubricant you have in your engine will increase component wear, over time.

 

Sorry, that's my bad eyes, i thought the can was a 5W-30. I should stop using my phone to look at photos.

How certain are you that Renault genuine oils are supplied by Castrol and Elf evolution SXR 900 is a C3?

 

Thank you for the reply.
I'll come clean, I've worked in the industry for several years (and still do), with a number of major manufacturers, one of them being Total. I'm technically trained.

If I can refer you to this website: ACEA Engine Oil Specifications - oilspecifications.org

Can I also refer you to : UKLA - United Kingdom Lubricants Association

There is good reason why the product you are using does not have Renaults approval. You may find this answer with the UKLA, you may not. I'll leave you to work this out.

I'm not sure if you mean ACEA C3, rather than G3 and I'm also not sure what G4 is either.

 

If you would like to educate me on how this is the case, I'm keen to learn something new.

 

Oh boy! This is the kind of thread because I like the forum/club
In my case, I use a 5w50 of Valvoline. As @D7DPJ say, don´t have the RN710 for Renault, but I know my car will be protect at high RPM, that is the usual.

 

C spec oils are "Catalyst compatible oils". Explained here on page 21: https://www.infineuminsight.com/media/1816/5-engine-oil-specifications-na.pdf. Also some more information here a few pages down: https://www.penriteoil.com.au/assets/pdf/tech/Nov2015/Engine_Oils.pdf

Basically they have lower SAPS levels (Sulfated ash, phosporous and sulphur) which makes them compatible with DPFs and GPFs (particulate filters). Not needed on a Meg 3 but more than likely needed on the latest Meg 4 which has a GPF. But the key thing is both A3/B4 oils and C3 oils can meet the RN710 spec that is required for our cars, so you should be all good.

 

I see. This makes it correct when someone is selling to you.

Let's just say, I know distributors well and there is a significant difference between manufacturer advice and distributor advice.

Contact the technical department of a major oil company. Or alternatively, visit me at work.

 

Yes it's one of the few tells for non rs fans to spot some level of poke

 

Which standardized test shows it prevents component wear better than what oil?

I have never heard of awards in the industry. The usual award is demanding approvals, like Mercedes-Benz approval 229.5. And there is not one ester, it is hundreds of different ester formulas existing, and alot of them does not belong in any motor oil at all. So which one is in this oil then?

How do you know how this oil achieves compared to a RN17 oil? Do you know the values for all the requirements in the RN17 tests and how this Miller oil does in all those tests? That is usually propriatery info.

A manufacturer approval is the only measurable, validated way to know an oils performance. Low/no approvals means that you have no idea what performance the oil in the container have on your RN17 requiring engine. And with the fine balance of 20-30 ingredients in a motor oil, the likelyness of it having poorer performance than an RN17 oil is very large. Remember, there is no good proofs.

Many racing oils with ester have very low amount of magnesium and calcium in it, and low SAPS. It makes them low on starting total base number (TBN). An ester oil will have a high starting total acid number. That makes these racing only oils suitable for extremely short intervals. With long intervals you will se accelerated metal wear from oxidizing in your engine. ACEA C3 has lower starting TBN than A3/B4 oils.

The RN17 is basically a ACEA A3/B4 test with additional parameters. That means A3/B4 is a lower spec than the RN17 approval.

There is no high temperature test other than the TEOST and alike and Noack volatility test. If they are tested at different temperatures then there would be hard to compare them. All the proof that exists is with what manufacturer approvals they meet or have.

The lubrizol comparision is a great tool, but it doesn't have all aspects you want to compare in a engine oil in that chart. That is what we have the full manufacturer approvals for. The lubrizol chart should also not compare specs from different manufacturers. ACEA specs can be compared within ACEA, and Renault specs can be compared within Renault only.

It is interesting to see that uneducated persons thinks to know better what their engines need than the Renault engineers.

 

Aren't you concerned about the VII content of that 5W-50 oil? Are the VIIs of a type that fits in a petrol engine or diesel engine?

Petrol engine VIIs usually are not so shear stable, but copes with higher local temperatures without leaving deposits. A spread that is so large usually is from high amounts of VII (plastics). It is often VII-unloaded a 5W-30 oil or about that, and VII loads them up 5W-50. VIIs shear temprarily in the engine, and the shear rates differ from where in the engine the oil is. I have seen 5W-30s that is thicker in those high shear areas than the 5W-50s and even 10W-60. That means that where you need it the most the oil is thin, and nothing is gained. It exists lots of VII types, but the best ones cost most money. The approvals will tell you what types of engines they are made to suit the best.

 

Svenia I fear your post will not be understood, hence my stopping in replying.

My experience with these types of threads is the know it alls stop at nothing to prove their position but often do so with unreferenced statements and assumptions.

It's clear as glass. Manufacturer approval every time.

 

I don´t think that, this is a great forum to learn ones from anothers. Personally, appreciate a lot any advice or opinion. But we have to understand to many RS owners whose cars don´t know the needle under the 4000rpm. Maybe those cars need a different oil to protect the engine at those rpms. Is my opinion, and obviously can be wrong.

 

As one seldom get an oil with all the benefits and not any drawbacks, there is ways to get better oils suited for a specific use, as long as one can live with the drawbacks. Tried and tested racing oils, one example is a 5W-40 Motul 300V, would probably do better in areas where on track, but this oil is for a very short oil changing intervals, so has drawbacks for street use, altho can be bared for a very short interval on street too. Another thing about that oil is that none other than Motul themselves know the propriatery information about how it will fit the requirements in the RN approvals. So there is hard to know if it actually is any better than the RN17 oils. Used oil analysis doesn't really help, and the tests required will cost you from 100.000 £ to 1 million. The third way would be just filling it and see when your motor blows up. It is the third way that uneducated persons usually choose. Absolutely not the smartest one. There is much to be lost by looking at advertisement claims.

I usually choose petrol engine oil to engine without direct injection and GPF, from oils with the following approvals simultanously: Mercedes-Benz approval 229.5, BMW LL-01, Porsche A40. These three at the same time, will have the most stringent criterias to meet, which is on the market today. And I always look at the Mercedes BEVO site, to see if an oil actually has their approval, or if the oil is just faking it. Lots of fake oils around, and lots of manufacturers that list approvals or specs they doesn't actually meet. When choosing oil from a big vendor you are much more safe with both the actual approvals and that the content in the can is genuine. When I say big vendor I mean like Castrol, Mobil1, Total, and so on, and when buying from a trusted source, I mean not the usual newcommer ebay store. The first thing about identifying a counterfeit oil is the way they lists their viscosity. I saw the other day a Youtube film of someone pouring in a 5W40 labeled oil in their Megane RS. The correct SAE way to label an oil is 5W-40. Which means this youtuber doesn't have a clue the actual viscosity of the oil pouring in, or if it's actually used frying oil in the container, when it obviously isn't up to the branches standard and then can contain whatever.

The last tool I use to choose between oils that is comparable with another is a tool for calculating theoretical high temp full shear viscosity (one step above HTHS - high temp high shear viscosity), as this HTFS can't yet be measured with the technology we have today. As this is not an completely exact and 100% verifiable tool, there is some procents marginal error. It can also show a estimate of the VII/VM (viscosity index improver/viscosity modifier) content in oils. Normally it is best with a low VII content and high HTFS/HTHS, but there is drawbacks of course too. This tool is focusing on just some parts of the whole oil, and needs to be understood with a good to very good basis knowledge about how to use the tool and what one is actually seeing in the tables.

 

I think this is a great discussion and many interesting points have been raised, but some of the implied comments towards D7DPJ are a bit harsh. Let's be fair, they've done a very normal thing and gone to Opie who are very well regarded in the UK, and presumably stated they have a remapped Meg and want some quality oil, to which they've recommended Millers. The vast majority of people would not question that, particularly when Millers documents states it's a "track ready" oil that exceeds Renault and various other manufacturer standards.

Where you guys are absolutely correct and what's quite shady is the wording used by Millers. "Recommended for X specification", which between the lines basically means they don't want to pay to get their oils officially tested and approved, and makes their claims pretty baseless. I've also think Opie seemingly pushing Millers an awful lot is a bit shady too, particularly if customers want officially approved oils when Millers do not offer such products but other manufacturers who Opie also sell for do offer this.

In reality D7DPJ's car will be fine running on the oil purchased, but I completely agree that approved should be the way to go (unless you car is a track queen, in which case use Motul 300V and change more regularly). People get sucked up by the marketing but when you actually look in depth into these things, it's all just hot air. The datasheet for the Millers product in question is pathetically small, and combined with no official approvals this is quite the red flag in my opinion. This discussion spurred me to look into various oils and try to find the "best" based on datasheets. The 3 that stood out were Motul X-Cess Gen2, Shell Helix Ultra, and Ravenol VST. All have official Renault approval plus other stricter approvals (VW, Merc, BMW) and show very good numbers in their datasheets (probably doesn't matter but was interesting for comparison purposes).

Btw guys it's RN710 that a Meg 3 needs, not RN17. There are no 5W-40 oils in the RN17 spec, as RN17 does not cover RS or Alpine cars. Closest new spec would be RN17RSA specifically for the Meg 4 and Alpines which run 0W-40.

 

The problem is when you leave info about oil on a forum, you are not just risking your own engine, but others might read and find it smart too. So maybe a disclaimer should be used when recommending something other than what Renault recommends. As a potential future owner of a Megane RS, I would like approved oils to have been used, and the same time not the car to be known for blowing engines. A bit harsh, I agree, everyone needs to pass the Dunning Kruger effect phase of oils too, and that is very normal. But this is the blood of the Megane, so I felt the need to intervene.

I agree, the three oils Vulcan3 mentions stands out are of good quality. Used oil analysis labs have confirmed that brand does not matter statistically when the correct approvals and service regimes have been used - no one stands out as having high failure rate, on the whole groups of engines. Nearly all groups have some engines that do fail, but the amount that doesn't bring the statistics up into the acceptable range. To sum that up; the manufacturer engineers that specify the approvals for their engine does a good job, and there is reason to listen to them. And from that info there is reason to get the cheapest RN0710 approved genuine oil, as the UOA wouldn't be any better with the pricey one compared to the cheap one. As long as it is correct genuine approved oil for the engine.

RN0710 yes, older and less demanding approval also, but with a higher HTHS target than RN17 and full-SAPS. RN17 and RN17+ is for GPF/DPF engines with medium demand on HTHS. I should have caught that for the Megane RS, as I have been doing some work on the Renault specs earlier, but some time ago, so I didn't.

RN17 with a medium HTHS requirement often have only xW-30 oils, where the xW-40 oils tend to have too high of a HTHS, and would need lots of VII to temporarily shear get into the medium HTHS range. The kinematic viscosity (KV) that is labeled on the bottles in groups (5W, -40) are often not the target for the approvals, but HTHS is. A 5W-30 3,5 cP HTHS oil usually have less VII and higher quality base stock than a 5W-40 3,5 cP HTHS oil. That means the 5W-30 can do a better job potentially, in this example.

The Millers oil with no approvals, as you say, that leads me to think a theory about that. Many small oil companies buy complete add packs for their oils, and follow a pre-made recipe from another oil company, usually to meet a certain spec. When blended within this recipe, you don't have to use money at developing it yourself, and that means you don't have to do all the different tests to see if your blend will pass it. That is economic. But then you might not be able to get the correct approvals without the test results. That is when they say it meets specs/approvals, but doesn't actually have them. Usually these oils will have an ACEA approval. There you can self-certify if you know the blend does meet the performance criterias. When there is no ACEA approval, then there must be either the blend does actually not comply with the ACEA approvals, is an outdated ACEA approval (oil ones can't be used on "new" oils), or they really have done too little testing on the oil at all so they don't know the performance results in the different tests needed. The last opportunity is that the oil is really racing inspired, so a lot of the long-term tests in approvals is not met, to suit racing better. But then again, there is no proof of how good it is for us outside of Millers.

As you say, the PDSes doesn't really mean much, as they show some statistic about the oil that is not all useful, and as the oil have 20-25 different jobs in an engine, it shows little about that, just glimps, which with statistics can be looked at at 100 different ways. It is nearly impossible to predict the oils performance from the PDS, but the approvals do tell really all there is needed to know for 99% of people. There is ways to "tune" a PDS, but with a lousy oil in reality. The oil blend has to be looked at as a whole.

 

It is quite easy so say that the Millers EE performance (C3?) oil is unsuitable for the Megane RS.

And it is quite easy to see that the label doesn't comply to the SAE regulation of how to write on the viscosity on the container. When they don't know how to write that, who knows what "rules" they follow with the content inside of the jug. I wouldn't have put this oil in my lawn mover. Red flags everywhere.

 

Anyway I think it's been lightly touched on.

Distributor= selling you what they have access to and is on the shelf.
Manufacturer= selling you only what they manufacture.
Automotive manufacturer = selling you want they have bought to spec at usually the lowest bidder who can meet said spec.

Result - buy the correct viscosity with the correct approval and be done.

Not all the information in this thread is accurate.

 

Lovely car and looking forward to watching the progress!

Hoping the car is back soon too.

 

Yeah the brake lines on these things have a habit of snapping like that. Once you get that sorted and new lines installed at least you won't ever have to touch them again!

 

I've got a spinning union on the rear of one of mine. Its holding fine for now, but needs changing when I get the rear braided hoses put on.

 

Glad it went well. One of the challenges I found with track days in cars, is the point and squirt brigade and every car is my next race scenario. Braking too close to the back of the car in front, diving up the inside like a race car would and general disregard for others. The megane is alot more capable than most think and as you have found out. Even those "faster" drivers would have a shock if you were a seasoned megane track driver at Brands.

Still it won't teach them

 

Awesome pictures mate. The Meg always looks right at home on a track

 

Oh man! I have in mind to replace the speakers, OEM ones are horrible when bass are strong. In fact, I bought a fistful of clips, for sure I´ll broke some removing the panels!
Awesome pics on track by the way, glad you had fun!