'94 Grand Am GT GM Cold Climate PSF 11697 OCI

Joined
Jan 3, 2004
Messages
6,110
Location
northern Alabama
Previous oil used had been Red Line. The turkey baster method had been used until near 100% RL PSF was achieved. The same applies with the GM fluid until the indicated 56% of the subject oil has been achieved. There is no filter on this car. I'm not sure why they provided TBN instead of TAN.
 Code:
Oil used   	GM Cold Climate	
Sample Date	Jul-3-2009 	
Miles on oil	11,697	
Miles on car	192,318		
Make-up oil	None 
Filter		N/A
% Tested Fluid	56
TBN:		4.3	
Aluminum:	0	
Chromium:	0	
Iron:		74	
Copper:		45	
Lead:		33	
Tin:		2	
Molybdenum:	2	
Nickel:		0	
Manganese:	3	
Silver:		0	
Titanium: 	0	
Potassium:	5	
Boron:		59	
Silicon:      	18	
Sodium:		4	
Calcium:  	1567	
Magnesium:	37	
Phosphorus:	1279	
Zinc:		1290	
Barium:		1	
Viscosity:	5.53	
Flashpoint:	395	
Fuel: 		-	
Antifreeze: 	-	
Water:		0.0	
Insolubles:	0.0	
 
 
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
1,347
Location
Arizona
One question. WHy in the world did you drain the RL for GM PSF? Cause im quite confident the RL has better cold flow properties so that can't be why.
 

benjamming

Thread starter
Joined
Jan 3, 2004
Messages
6,110
Location
northern Alabama
It's difficult to tell since there are small step changes due to the turkey baster method. It's basically a 50/50 mix right now. In other words, nothing drastic - no suprise there though.
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
8,756
Location
RI
I'd love to see a VOA of both. 150ppm of wear/tear makes you wonder why psf filters or maintenance intervals aren't required by most automakers. This is one reason why I siphon/refill once at every oil change. To remove ANY amount of the wear and top off with fresh clean fluid prevents me from ever having to change out the pump.
 
Top