Search results

Short-term, nothing. But you'd be foolish to keep it that way IMO. That's not a diesel rated oil and towing really isn't the issue. I can't think of a valid reason why it should remain in there any longer.

Here is what Chamberlain says on their website. That seems crazy short to me:

As you note, nothing is going to stick to such a material without some kind of surface modification. I wouldn't expect much no matter what.

My similar Chamberlain chain drive openers are both 26 years old, I replaced the drive gear assembly once, perhaps twice. We have a standby generator so I never needed a battery, nor is it a detached garage where I can't get in other than the door. Like everyone else I say keep it.

One of the many uncontrolled variables here and a good example of why this type of analysis is not used for comparative wear comparisons.

Apparently they do. Apologies I was confusing it with their expressly monograde oils.

No, some comes off in particles that are filtered out to protect the ICP. You need some preprocessing of the sample to measure that, or a different analytical method.

There is more than one standardized test that is part of the Sequence IIIG or IIIH, ASTM D7320 or D6891. Similar ones for compression engines plus others that aren't part of the Sequence. None of them are a UOA and for good reason. I'm not sure why you keep stating LSJr should be part of this...

The only reason to avoid the no-VII would be because of the winter rating. IIRC HPL said it was approximately a 15W. If that works for you then no doubt it would be superior due to the absence of VII.

Based on spectrographic analyses?. Again, not the test for comparative wear between oils. Not "close enough", not "a rough look" not a "field test". This is the problem. There is no DATA here that concludes anything. Yet, it is being offered as some sort of quantitative proof and is then being...

"Euro" means it has European approvals. VW 504 00 is a demanding approval and that oil has it.

My old BMW had the battery under the rear seat, and that did seem to contribute to the longevity. On the other hand my Japan-built ECHO came with a Panasonic battery (under the hood) and that lasted over 11 years.

Shear in a Euro oil is a phantom that just won't die. Besides, it is highly dependent on the engine. A Euro approval oil isn't using inferior VII, and early every UOA on here that has supposed shear either has significant fuel dilution or is an analysis from somewhere like Blackstone that simply...

I didn't think so either but that seemed to be the entire point of this thread. Either way, a 3.5+ HT/HS oil will have sufficient ZDDP for his engine and will help to prevent wear.

HT/HS is more of a must if you're attempting to avert destruction from a material or design defect. Moreso than ZDDP in my opinion.

With those being Blackstone analyses there is no way to discriminate a viscosity deviation between actual mechanical shear of the VII and fuel dilution. Fuel dilution is far more common than shear of the VII, so I would not suspect shear. Blackstone's estimation method for fuel is often wildly...

It’s not really them. They are just complying with what’s regulatory.

Perhaps look into the specific technical requirements for both approvals, and see what the actual differences are. Copies of the Afton handbook are still around. You may find that much like Longlife-01/Longlife-04 there is minimal difference between 502 00/504 00 that has any real significance...

Understand though that the automaker's "planned/accommodated/designed/accounted for in the system" is based on providing acceptable wear and performance under most circumstances, in accordance with what their objective is to achieve CAFE and EPA rules. As a result it's not wholly a technical...

Unfortunately he cannot grasp some rather basic science. I'd rather be technically correct than anything else.