That’s because a $30 spectrographic analysis is the wrong tool for that job. You’ve got it backwards.
20W50 HDEO insane MPG.
- Thread starter BigTimeTA
- Start date
A friend of mine has Opel Insignia calling for 5W30, no problem at all, he was driving it like he stole it until about the 65k miles, cam lobes were badly worn out and there was excessive blow-by and piston rings eventually worn out and he had to rebuild his engine.. why? Because he didn't listen to me telling him that 5W50 will fit his driving style. I have no problem with lower viscosity at all, actually I used 5W30 in my Mazda 3 since I had it in 2014 and it is crossing 170k miles and the engine is still smooth like day one, but I know also that I always drive it gently and, well, like a grandpa. Recently I opted for 5W40 because I want to keep her in good shape for another 3 years. So the final verdict is, driving style is a huge factor for selecting the appropriate viscosity. It's not about which viscosity is better than the other, it's about what is appropriate for the driving style.
I highly doubt anyone is doing full on racing/track days with 5W-30 in their motorcycles. I also highly doubt Blackstone breaks out a special data analysis for race only machines, or has data for the same race use bike using different brand and viscosity of oil on the track.
Quote Gmtech94
When I raced we were sponsored by an oil company and helped with the
research of their product .The thought at the time was to run 20w50
race oil to provide for the best lubrication under racing conditions
hence no oil related failures . After many races and a lot of real
data research the conclusion was in this case to run a 10w30 oil as it
provided better lubrication and less engine wear over a long period of
time ,remember endurance racing in 24 and 30 hour races . Although we
never had an engine failure due to oil properties we did have a lot of
feedback on engine wear as well as transmission and clutch wear . I
have to say we did abuse these bikes on occasion with spinning the
back wheel to turn the bike as well as the occasional fall .The
ignition was a weak link but I could change out the pulsers in about
17 seconds once the bike was in the pits . In conclusion 10w30 ran
cooler and did not break down as much as the thicker oils did.
... run a 10W-40.I drained the oil last night, didn't smell like gasoline at all (I used to deal with fuel dilution), hardly a dark brown in color (indicates better oxidation stability? Because FS 5W40 would turn carcoal black toward the end of the interval) and short of a few drops 
(measured 680 from 700 ml that went in)
Previously, the engine used to burn out around 150 ml using FS 5W40. Also could be around 300 ml using cheap conventional 20W50.
Now that the oil does not smell like gasoline and oil consumption went down quite a bit. The assumption could be that engine might have stuck piston rings and MX III might have worked out well at releasing the rings again, thus, improving fuel efficiency in the way. I don't know if that was the reason for the increased mileage, but that's just the only assumption that I have in mind, and there're these observations to back it up.
(measured 680 from 700 ml that went in)Previously, the engine used to burn out around 150 ml using FS 5W40. Also could be around 300 ml using cheap conventional 20W50.
Now that the oil does not smell like gasoline and oil consumption went down quite a bit. The assumption could be that engine might have stuck piston rings and MX III might have worked out well at releasing the rings again, thus, improving fuel efficiency in the way. I don't know if that was the reason for the increased mileage, but that's just the only assumption that I have in mind, and there're these observations to back it up.
but how they measured it?
because if car is designed with strong tappets and high piston ring pressure (for example old porsches) then a thinner sae will do some damage.
if each owner uses recommended grade, then of course no damage to be done.
but the main idea here is to use different grade than factory recommended. in this case labs have no chance to find the important data from information noise.
having like thousands analyses from each sae grade, statistically looks normal.
but are they close to each mfg recommended sae grade, or some ppl changed a few sae steps away ?
Last edited:
Spectral Exam: Establishes the levels of wear metals, silicon, and additives present in the oil.
Good questions Pete... I think you'll find your answers in their sample report...
The "Universal Average" column is basically useless, especially if it's based on thousands of UOA samples. And it says "from the same type of engine", so it doesn't even break out the different viscosities ran in the same engine type. Like mentioned earlier, the same race bike would have to be ran the same way with many different oils and viscosities to have a meaningful comparison. The individual UOAs would have to be compared from that exact machine.
thanks.
for example there is rotella 15w40 on some navistar.
i dunno if : 1) that sae is recommended by maker for that vehicle, 2) hdeo´s are recommended by car/pickuptruck makers
afaik, on this site i seen some those reports with car info missing.
in eu , hdeo are meant only for big hauling trucks. anything else is just pcmo.
for example there is rotella 15w40 on some navistar.
i dunno if : 1) that sae is recommended by maker for that vehicle, 2) hdeo´s are recommended by car/pickuptruck makers
afaik, on this site i seen some those reports with car info missing.
in eu , hdeo are meant only for big hauling trucks. anything else is just pcmo.
Mercy Zee UA are not useless... they are a tool as explained by David Newton...
Used Oil Analysis - Bob is the Oil Guy
How your Blackstone sample is processed by David Newton Used Oil Analysis – we all talk about it, and many can understand the results, but few people have had the opportunity to actually see how the process works. One of the more popular analysis labs is Blackstone Laboratories of Fort Wayne...
bobistheoilguy.com
The way that nearly everyone on here uses them they are. For one thing they aren’t used to make comparative oil quality determinations. Again, not the way it’s used here.
Read what I said ... I said the Universal Average is basically useless, not that the whole UOA is useless. Mercy .... lol.Mercy Zee UA are not useless... they are a tool as explained by David Newton...
Used Oil Analysis - Bob is the Oil Guy
How your Blackstone sample is processed by David Newton Used Oil Analysis – we all talk about it, and many can understand the results, but few people have had the opportunity to actually see how the process works. One of the more popular analysis labs is Blackstone Laboratories of Fort Wayne...bobistheoilguy.com
dnewton3
Staff member
Since I got dragged into this, I get the opportunity to defend my position ...
UOAs are fantastic tools, but nearly everyone here on BITOG does not use them correctly.
In macro-data analysis, UOAs can give us a great understanding of how our data compares/contrasts to others, when considering ALL reall world inputs (drivers, distances, environments, brands/grades, etc ...). You can see what is "normal" for a broad range of applications. But the macro-data can't tell you how any one specific input manipulates the groupings because it's muddled in with all the rest. It's incredibly easy to get enough data for these type studies; tens of thousands of them exist.
In micro-data analysis, you get to choose the exact inputs to include and manipulate. And you must be diligent about holding all others as constants, as best possible. The minimum data needed for credible analysis is a very, very large burden that most people here don't have the time/money to collect. Whereas a single or few samples are easy to get, collecting enough data (30 samples for any selected variable, and then 30 more for it's competitor) takes WAY longer.
Blackstone's UOAs can be used for providing data for either type of analysis, just as any other UOA service that includes spectral analysis for metals, etc. But do not lean on any of those UOA companies for actual "analysis" of the data; they only analyze the oil. It's true that Blackstone has made some generalized statements, and when considering macro-data, their position is reasonably defendable. But IN NO WAY does that apply to micro-analysis.
I think you're taking a LOT of liberty with their generalized statements. Here's the only thing I'm aware of them stating on their FAQ page ... I have NEVER seens them make statements about "mileage expectations" or wear data in micro-analysis
www.blackstone-labs.com
What’s the best oil to use?
Singular UOAs are good tools for confirming that nothing is wrong (no abnormally high wear rates, no significant contaminant intrusion, etc). Small groups of UOAs can show a trend, if present. But having only a few UOAs can not, in any way, provide a meaningful, credible view of individual choices or options.
I would willingly offer my analytical skills if someone actually needs it in micro-analysis. But I'm very strict in the development of DOEs (design of experiment) and the payoff will be WAY down the road, because it'll take a LONG time and a LOT of money to get the true answer(s).
UOAs are fantastic tools, but nearly everyone here on BITOG does not use them correctly.
In macro-data analysis, UOAs can give us a great understanding of how our data compares/contrasts to others, when considering ALL reall world inputs (drivers, distances, environments, brands/grades, etc ...). You can see what is "normal" for a broad range of applications. But the macro-data can't tell you how any one specific input manipulates the groupings because it's muddled in with all the rest. It's incredibly easy to get enough data for these type studies; tens of thousands of them exist.
In micro-data analysis, you get to choose the exact inputs to include and manipulate. And you must be diligent about holding all others as constants, as best possible. The minimum data needed for credible analysis is a very, very large burden that most people here don't have the time/money to collect. Whereas a single or few samples are easy to get, collecting enough data (30 samples for any selected variable, and then 30 more for it's competitor) takes WAY longer.
Blackstone's UOAs can be used for providing data for either type of analysis, just as any other UOA service that includes spectral analysis for metals, etc. But do not lean on any of those UOA companies for actual "analysis" of the data; they only analyze the oil. It's true that Blackstone has made some generalized statements, and when considering macro-data, their position is reasonably defendable. But IN NO WAY does that apply to micro-analysis.
BusyLittleShop said:
I think you're taking a LOT of liberty with their generalized statements. Here's the only thing I'm aware of them stating on their FAQ page ... I have NEVER seens them make statements about "mileage expectations" or wear data in micro-analysis
Gas & Diesel Questions | Blackstone Laboratories
All your gas and diesel engine oil sampling questions answered, in one handy section!
www.blackstone-labs.com
Come on, you’re holding out on me. I should use synthetic, right?
Singular UOAs are good tools for confirming that nothing is wrong (no abnormally high wear rates, no significant contaminant intrusion, etc). Small groups of UOAs can show a trend, if present. But having only a few UOAs can not, in any way, provide a meaningful, credible view of individual choices or options.
I would willingly offer my analytical skills if someone actually needs it in micro-analysis. But I'm very strict in the development of DOEs (design of experiment) and the payoff will be WAY down the road, because it'll take a LONG time and a LOT of money to get the true answer(s).
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked