Any low cal high mag high zinc 5w40's out there?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
21
Location
Alberta Canada
It seems all the Xw40's are all high calcium.

Technically I should only be using the recommended D1G2 5W30 for my gm 2.0L Turbo engine. But if a guy were to run an Xw40 oil. Which one would be as close as possible to an anti LSPI D1G2 oil in your opinion?
 
Mobil 1 HM 10w40 Calcium 958 ppm, Magnesium 680 ppm Zinc 914 ppm
Mobil Delvac 1 5w40 Calcium 1258 ppm Magnesium 925 ppm. Zinc 1287 Newer jugs are rated SN. They might bring the zinc down for that.

Calcium levels of 900 to 1700 ppm are common in D1G2 oils.

I can’t comment on how close the base oil is to D1G2 or what the NOACK or TBN are.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the response guys, I had a brain [censored] and didn't feel like looking up the periodic table of elements lol. Do pardon me!


M1 was on sale last week for 50% off. I should have asked sooner lol. Gf grabbed 3 jugs of 5w30 for our stock. Its specced for her car too. Castrol is on sale this week for 40% off so I was hoping someone would have their say on their stuff. I imagine their Euro formula is high Ca?



Is anyone even in agreement that there's any merit to using a 5w40 when gm recommends 5w30?!
 
Only reason to run a 5w-40 would be to help with fuel dilution I’d suppose. If it were me I’d stick with a solid, easy to find 5W-30 and change it more often.
 
Originally Posted By: Roland1


Is anyone even in agreement that there's any merit to using a 5w40 when gm recommends 5w30?!



A true Bitoger never uses the owners manual recommendations.
Let the heavy viscosity guys chime in.

coffee2.gif
35.gif
36.gif
23.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Roland1
Technically I should only be using the recommended D1G2 5W30 for my gm 2.0L Turbo engine.

Ok, why not just go with the factory recommendation instead of calling an audible?
You have an expensive ($20,000) piece of equipment with a known and reasonably understood technological shortcoming (LSPI).
You also have an oil spec specifically developed, selected, and proven to combat that issue, and it's cheap ($25).

Yet for some completely unsubstantiated reason, you seem to want to wave your hands and make up a second completely unproven attempt at addressing the issue.

No reasonable engineer or scientist (that would want to keep their job) would do this. You shouldn't either.

Please don't turn around and say your GM 2.0t needs Xw40.
No.
It doesn't.

Tons of very valid data out there to substantiate the OEM spec, very little valid data to back up the Xw40 on the 2.0t.

Follow the OEM spec man, it isn't that hard.
You can do this.
 
Rotella T6 5W40 used to be a great call here, but I think it's been reformulated with higher Ca within the last few years.
Used to be under 1000ppm of Ca...I will poke around see if I can verify that it has actually changed from that.
To be continued...

EDIT - found a BITOG thread about a 2017 VOA, Ca went up a lot.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4408001/VOA_Shell_Rotella_T6_May_2017

One approach here could be to look for dexos2 oils, they are also tested for LSPI and XW40s are common on the list of licensed oils. Having a hard time finding them on the shelves here in the US, though...

EDIT 2 - Ha, somebody just posted this VOA!

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4740199/mobil_1_delvac_5w-40_ESP_UOA
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Imp4
Originally Posted By: Roland1
Technically I should only be using the recommended D1G2 5W30 for my gm 2.0L Turbo engine.

Ok, why not just go with the factory recommendation instead of calling an audible?
You have an expensive ($20,000) piece of equipment with a known and reasonably understood technological shortcoming (LSPI).
You also have an oil spec specifically developed, selected, and proven to combat that issue, and it's cheap ($25).

Yet for some completely unsubstantiated reason, you seem to want to wave your hands and make up a second completely unproven attempt at addressing the issue.

No reasonable engineer or scientist (that would want to keep their job) would do this. You shouldn't either.

Please don't turn around and say your GM 2.0t needs Xw40.
No.
It doesn't.

Tons of very valid data out there to substantiate the OEM spec, very little valid data to back up the Xw40 on the 2.0t.

Follow the OEM spec man, it isn't that hard.
You can do this.



While I appreciate your passionate reply it is readily apparent you haven't been around here very long because your answer is not accurate. There are tons of enginerds that would do exactly the same thing as the OP, knowing that in general the thinner oils are a result of CAFE standards not because it is what best protects an engine. The manufacturer of the same vehicle and engine in other countries as close as Canada and Mexico recommend a heavier weight oil.
 
LSPI is only an issue if you leak significant quantities of oil into the combustion chamber.

Re-engineer your crankcase ventilation system, inspect stem seals and rings, and if necessary use with fuel with an appropriate octane rating for the SCR.
 
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
One approach here could be to look for dexos2 oils,

Why?
Why does this make more sense than running the OEM spec?
Dexos2 is designed, formulated, and tested for diesel engines.
Data please!
And please don't say 'thats what they do in Europe' because we both know that the fuel quality is much different and that it's a straw man argument.

Looking forward to your response!
 
Originally Posted By: InhalingBullets
While I appreciate your passionate reply it is readily apparent you haven't been around here very long because your answer is not accurate. There are tons of enginerds that would do exactly the same thing as the OP, knowing that in general the thinner oils are a result of CAFE standards not because it is what best protects an engine.


Data please.

Preferably data that shows that Xw40 accomplishes statistically significant improved wear protection to the point that it is worth while to trade off fuel savings.

Reasonably cared for, by that I mean PM'd on a regular basis, automotive engines, in general, don't require you to go to off spec oil to get appreciable anti-wear characteristics.

And if you're going to claim they do require off spec oil, I'm just asking that you bring the data to prove it.

Not just an off hand comment about what you think enginerds may or may not do. (Those enginerds should bring data also. Let's not give them a pass by making sweeping statements in their regard either.)

Looking forward to your response!
 
Last edited:
Hey, InhalingBullets, I think I lifted the best statement for your position from the Machinerylubrication article. It states:
Quote:
The best protection against wear is probably a product that is a little thicker (such as SAE 10W-30 or 15W-40) and has more antiwear additives than the oils that support the warranty. The best oil for your vehicle depends on your driving habits, the age of your engine and the climate you drive in, but it is not necessarily the type of oil specified in the owner’s manual or stamped on the dipstick.

This is actually very interesting because even if we were to take it as true for the sake of the discussion, we would then also need to take as true the statement that internal engine wear, in the preponderance of circumstances, is not going to be the failure mode that shortens the life of the engine.

Basically, off spec, thicker oil is a solution looking for a problem.

And, depending on how off spec it is, it can actually lead to more instances of LSPI and significant engine damage.

How do we know this? We know this because the D1G2 spec oil has been specifically formulated to address LSPI.

Now if we say we want to go off spec 'just cuz'. Well, that's fine, but please don't say that you would go off spec to preserve the life of the engine in any appreciable form that would impact the ownership experience.

Looking forward to your response!
 
Last edited:
OK, I don't own a DI Turbo motor and prolly never will ... But, if you live outside the rust belt, a car can last a long time. So somewhere around 100~150K the motor becomes loose enough that things start to rattle and bang around (timing chains usually). At that point a slightly heavier oil is needed to cushion the now floppy bits and the now larger bearing clearances.

At some point, it will need a timing kit and some other work. Crank, rods, pistons and rings may go out to 300K, but not all the parts will ...
 
Last edited:
Quote:
This is actually very interesting because even if we were to take it as true for the sake of the discussion, we would then also need to take as true the statement that internal engine wear, in the preponderance of circumstances, is not going to be the failure mode that shortens the life of the engine.

How does the latter necessary follow from the former? Maybe I shouldn’t ask that, since it doesn’t get to what I really want to know. What I want to know is, in your opinion, what affects does increasing the viscosity have in an engine, assuming reasonable ambient temperatures and typical driving?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top