02 jeep 2.5/5k Bruceblend 0w-10 5100

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, in your case I can see why. I think that outside of some severe fuel dilution issue the most I'll see is thickening with this oil. It has no VII ..so there's nothing to shear.

or so I reason.
 
Didn't know GC contained absolutely no VIIs, but I guess that explains why it holds it's vis so well in the dozens of UOAs that have been posted. I don't think I've seen a 100C vis below 11.5 cSt or so.
On the other hand I've never seen a case of GC thickening.
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Didn't know GC contained absolutely no VIIs, but I guess that explains why it holds it's vis so well in the dozens of UOAs that have been posted. I don't think I've seen a 100C vis below 11.5 cSt or so.
On the other hand I've never seen a case of GC thickening.


Well, GC probably has some, but most users probably don't keep it in service long enough to shear too much (or it has a designed shear tolerance like M1 0w-40) or thickening due to oxidation. I imagine the base stock is highly resistant to thickening overall but has other aspects that take it out of service before that point (TBN, etc.). That oil falls more along the lines of M1 0w-40 in target market (imo). It's a YMMV oil as far as endurance. Some would be hard pressed to get 10k out of it in normal service. Others do just fine in more demanding usage.

..but with a 0w-10 ..there's nowhere to go. The only use of VII would be if you wanted to qualify for a 0w-20.


buster- Well, I surely wouldn't have asked Bruce if he could do this if it wasn't for my membership here. I can't imagine connecting all the dots without the influence and access that this site afforded. I would say that if one personality helped move me in this direction (for all I know it was "let see if Gary will do it
grin2.gif
" ), it would be our former member 427Z06.
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Didn't know GC contained absolutely no VIIs, but I guess that explains why it holds it's vis so well in the dozens of UOAs that have been posted. I don't think I've seen a 100C vis below 11.5 cSt or so.
On the other hand I've never seen a case of GC thickening.


Here is my UOA with GC and it only had 1500 miles on it.
l_a00c9ace4fca4a089f33382687524654.jpg
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Was there no factory fill for the RX-8?
1500 miles on unit, 1500 miles on oil?


Yes this UOA was after a double drain and fill of GC 0W-30 to get all of the the factory Mazda 5W-20 out, so this UOA was pure GC. I now am close to 3,000 miles on this fill of GC 0W-30 and if my UOA has not shown improvement I have a case of M1 0W-40 waiting to go in. I was really disappointed because I bought into the hype but now after reviewing a bunch of UOA's of GC, it doesn't appear to be all it's cracked up to be. Especially since there were no track days on this sample or hard driving. I can only imagine what it would have looked like after some hard track days in 100+ degree weather.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 9krpmrx8
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Was there no factory fill for the RX-8?
1500 miles on unit, 1500 miles on oil?


Yes this UOA was after a double drain and fill of GC 0W-30 to get all of the the factory Mazda 5W-20 out, so this UOA was pure GC. I now am close to 3,000 miles on this fill of GC 0W-30 and if my UOA has not shown improvement I have a case of M1 0W-40 waiting to go in. I was really disappointed because I bought into the hype but now after reviewing a bunch of UOA's of GC, it doesn't appear to be all it's cracked up to be. Especially since there were no track days on this sample or hard driving. I can only imagine what it would have looked like after some hard track days in 100+ degree weather.


your additive pack looks off, here is my last 4 GC UOA's

UOA_2009_06-138200.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hey, I'm heading out to do some shopping. You guys need anything? Beer is in the frig. The remote is by the Lazyboy. Make yourselves at home. I'll only be a few.



(it just seemed like a thing I'd say
grin2.gif
)

No, really ..carry on
55.gif
 
Quote:
your additive pack looks off, here is my last 4 GC UOA's



I don't find it severe. If you look at your first (1 of 4) it's comparable to his in zinc and most other additive levels.
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I had a line on some lab (it may have been Polaris) that did the tapered plug HTHS testing. The guy never got back to me beyond the initial exchange. I now have an email into the people that make the machines. They should either be running the tests too ..or refer me to one of their customers.

This stuff is $1400/55gallon drum. $125/5gallons. That's the producer costs at the time of the blending about a year ago. No labor (free) no handling (free) no ROI (lark project of Bruce)...let alone shipping a 40lb bucket across the nation. His insider bulk pricing. That is, it can only get worse from there.

It's no wonder Joe Gibbs and RLI are so expensive.



I figure the retail price with a modest profit would be say $20/qt? But if you got into serious volume production, maybe as low as $10/qt?

Gary and Bruce, what say you?
 
$10/quart would be the easy part...I think. Shipping it in 5 gallon lots @ 40lb+ would be the killer.
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Originally Posted By: Onmo'Eegusee
Didnt he project it as 2.6 or was that the old stuff?


It was more of a "sure >2.6 (easy)" type comment. It was more "open ended" to more or less say that it qualified at least in the SAE20 range for HTHS.


If that was the case, a HTHS of nominally 2.6 cP, then there was no greater risk in running this oil than any typical 2.6 cP 20wt and very possibly less since this oil won't likely shear unlike most dino and other GP III VII containing 20wt's.

Gary, earlier in this thread you made reference to oil pressures in the Jeep, does it have a gauge?
 
lol.gif
Good one, Jim. That's more like what my minivan looked like. Not as clean (not even close), but I was using it as a testing platform where gauges might be in there today and not tomorrow.

Yes, I've got a real OEM gauge. As much as people assert otherwise, mine is fairly accurate on both my wife's 99 and my 02. Accurate might not be the right word. The index can make it a guesstimate on what the true reading is since you've got 0-40-80 and divisions in between. On the 02, you can see the transition between full envelopment and where the relief closes as it eeeeeeases up to the peak pressure. On the wife's ..the HV oil pump slams the needle right up to the 58lb limit that the aftermarket company spec's for the pump.

That said, the lowest oil pressure I've seen would be at 215F coolant temp and a similar oil temp..at idle ..and it would be somewhere around 28psi. On my engine, the oil:coolant heat exchanger won't let the coolant go above the 195F thermostat setting until it gets to the point of low/limited/no exchange.

With a 40 grade, you're either at 50+/- ..or 40+ over all temp ranges.

I've reached over 10k on this sump. I'll be sending it in shortly to Bruce, Dyson, Blackstone ..and maybe Oil Analyzers.

I've experienced my first consumption with this oil. At about 7500 miles into it, I consumed approximately 16 oz. This was the same consumption seen with Delvac 1 5w-40 and Agip PC 5w-40 when driven at a rate of about 15k/year. This did not occur with back to back 13 month OCI's with RTS, but that was probably due to some mixology with fuel in the short(er) trip usage. Those OCI's were only around 9.5k over 13 months.

16oz. were also consumed with sampling at the 5k point. The sump was topped off with one quart of new oil @ the 7500 mile (+/-) mark.
 
Quote:
This stuff is $1400/55gallon drum. $125/5gallons.


$5.00 to $6.00 for components is not bad for tote blending, considering it's been stated he's using mostly GroupIII and PAO.

Barium compounds have typically been used in the following applications:

1. Rust inhibitors

2. Corrosion Inhibitors

3. Soot dispersants for diesel engines.

Of late, the concern over heavy metals has reduced the use of Barium compounds. One interesting facet of this fact is that Barium does not bioaccumulate as do other metals; I.E., it doesn't build up in most living cells.
 
Last edited:
It would surely be more difficult, in some creative sorta way, to manage a SN formulation. The SL phos/zinc levels surely made it easier.

Bruce has pondered an ash free formula. Whether or not that can be done in an ultra-light weight is something I do not know.

This has been a long trip. Assuming all looks well (to the degree that we can determine) I don't know what's next.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom