The shear monster. I’ve seen viscosity deviations per Blackstone. Is there shear?
Benefits of 0W
- Thread starter Trackspec
- Start date
Okay well.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I didn't run M1 in the Jeep, so I can't speak for it, but there was certainly shear with the Ravenol when compared to the HPL.
You are tempting me man. I have like 10qt of Castrol 0W30 and 40qt of Motul 5W40. But I see this as a challenge.
motul 300v is your UOA priority ,dont forget!
The second part of my hypothetical would be, should I really care if the M1 0w-40 fails to retain all the 40?
My application for it says 5w-30 on the cap, was later back spec'd 0w-20, and is not known for fuel dilution. Is the diet-40 not getting it done? It does not keep me up at night.
Very cool.
I live in SE TX. I once had a large supply of straight SAE 40 wt. Not a "10-40" but a straight 40wt. This 40wt. monograde performed perfectly for me. I knew it would because the 0 or 5 or 10 does not matter much at all in warm climates.
Do it for science but remember that I'm almost exclusively talking about M1 0w40 and a short interval of say under 5k miles. The only other 0w40's which I've seen shear on UOA's is Redline and one or two samples with Ravenol. The UOA database should be full of examples.
A nominal SAE 40 being around 550 cSt at room temperature. 15w-40 being 325.
It worked perfectly in my truck for years.
I read a paper on here some time ago said proper lubercation system function in side an ICE engine occurs with oil viscosity between 10 and 100 cSt.
So the sooner you can get the oil warmed up and thinner than 100 cSt but better I guess.
UOA doesn't show shear, people incorrectly ASSume that almost all drop in viscosity is due to shear.
KRL is the proper test to determine how much shear occurs (and the 20-hour test is extremely hard on the oil; 5000N continuous load), and while I generally won't credit LSJr's videos, didn't a recent one show that M1 0w40 shear was very minimal? There are some oils that are extremely robust; if you read my thread on 75w90s, Motul claims their Gear 300 is "virtually unshearable"; KRL testing showed that, while not perfect, it was very respectable. HPL has told us there are star VIIs that are very shear-stable, and XOM is certainly capable of making cutting-edge VIIs.
M1 FS 0w40 is almost a halo product for them because of its huge performance window and multiple Euro approvals. My assumption here is that any UOAs of M1 0w40 that show significant viscosity loss would show quite a bit of fuel if tested with GC, but it seems most of those "suspect" UOAs were done by Blackstone, whose results are "suspect" on a good day.
My Ravenol DXG UOAs showed significant viscosity loss as well. Blackstone tested those so it could be partially questionable; however, a subsequent sample that was done at WearCheck used GC and showed less than 1% fuel on a 14.4k sample of HPL. The DXG was out of grade in just over 6k, so I was not impressed at all for $90/5L plus shipping.
Okay ya, but for the discussion we're using the term "shear" in replace of "falling out of grade". I know BS viscosity results may be suspect but they seem to consistently show M1 0w40 dropping to a 30 grade early on with just a little bit of fuel. It's not a big deal, but it's what the UOA database appears to show. All people have to do is just search the UOA database.
Why should we continue to do something wrong just because other people are doing it?
There's several different mechanisms that can cause an oil to "fall out of grade", including if the previous oil change was a grade lower and the residual contributed to the lower viscosity; excessive fuel; and mechanical shearing. With the suspect samples we just have garbage data and can't make a reliable determination of the cause.
Semantics in a non-professional forum.
Anyways, I quickly pulled a couple of these.
Not thrilled with this.
Sample 1 was the second fill of QS Euro 5W-40. Earlier was QS 5w-30.
Sample 2 is M1 0W-40 FS SP.
This is the worst looking report I have gotten for this engine. I don't think "cleaning" is happening here. Usage patterns were slightly more severe in previous fills, as driving needs have changed.
Previous tests were with QSFS 5w-30 AND Castrol 0W-40.
Comments?
QS FS Non Euro 5W-30:
BL is VOA of that oil, both samples 1 and 2 are of QSFS w30 Non euro. Some titanium left over from Castrol 0w-40, which was used exclusively for about 90k miles...
Sample 1 was the second fill of QS Euro 5W-40. Earlier was QS 5w-30.
Sample 2 is M1 0W-40 FS SP.
This is the worst looking report I have gotten for this engine. I don't think "cleaning" is happening here. Usage patterns were slightly more severe in previous fills, as driving needs have changed.
Previous tests were with QSFS 5w-30 AND Castrol 0W-40.
Comments?
QS FS Non Euro 5W-30:
BL is VOA of that oil, both samples 1 and 2 are of QSFS w30 Non euro. Some titanium left over from Castrol 0w-40, which was used exclusively for about 90k miles...
12.5cst @100C is the floor for 40 grade.
Well, I thought most peoples' goal here was to become better educated than when they came here so we can all speak more intelligently on the subjects. I know you're generally on the reasonable side of discussions.Semantics in a non-professional forum.
Anyways, I quickly pulled a couple of these.
Sample 1 was the second fill of QS Euro 5W-40. Earlier was QS 5w-30.
Sample 2 is M1 0W-40 FS SP.
This is the worst looking report I have gotten for this engine. I don't think "cleaning" is happening here. Usage patterns were slightly more severe in previous fills, as driving needs have changed.
Previous tests were with QSFS 5w-30 AND Castrol 0W-40.
Comments?
QS FS Non Euro 5W-30:
BL is VOA of that oil, both samples 1 and 2 are of QSFS w30 Non euro. Some titanium left over from Castrol 0w-40, which was used exclusively for about 90k miles...
12.5cst @100C is the floor for 40 grade.
Anyways, I know what you're talking about with the M1, but several of your referenced threads kinda prove what I was talking about. Examples:
1. M1 0w40, added a quart of Stiction Eliminator (which is WAY thinner than a 40 grade), and short-tripped it. Pretty obvious here.
2. 2% fuel dilution, exhibits the "M1 caused increased wear because of the Fe ppm!" hysteria. Refer to the threads where almost every one switching to M1 sees a "spike" in iron that then drops way back down after a couple runs. Could be chelation as M1 removes the older contaminants & ZDDP from contact surfaces. There may be something here on viscosity loss, but one sample's not enough to make even a wild guess.
3. Full E85. Since flashpoint is high, would have loved to see this one done at a reputable lab. No comment on this one either way.
In the face of questionable (all of these UOAs were the "first" using M1), personally I would rely on the approvals it carries since you can't fake actual engine testing, and then fall back on the fact we need to see at least 3 samples to ensure we're getting a good look at the tested oil with only a tiny fraction or less of "other" oil in it.
"We" are not and you should not either. Viscosity deviation due to mechanical shear of the VM is a different problem and has different potential mitigation than a drop due to fuel dilution. Nowhere near the same issue, and no oil is immune to fuel dilution.
Similar threads
