For clarification, isn't the term "pour point" based on a given sample volume of motor oil under investigation showing some minimal sign of movement on an incline after five minutes at a specific temperature, or something like that? (This implies that the sample under consideration is more nearly an inert glob than a liquid!) For a real-world comparison of actual flowability in an engine it seems the cold cranking pumpability figures would be more meaningful to compare.
Best Motor Oil For Engine Wear - The Facts Only - No Hype Zone Here
- Thread starter Engine_Mapper
- Start date
- Status
An oil like the Delo 0w-30 are formulated for use in diesel engines in artic conditions . The very light cSt PAO's blended into it and the large amount of VII's will burn off and or shear in the severe service seen in most of the passenger cars built and used in the USA . The oil is also not friction modified and will not protect as well as Chevrons own 5w-30 Supreme IMO which has more than adequate cold start pumping ability .If you were to call and speak with one of their " Chevron " enginneers I think you will find that they will concur with me on this concerning the use of their 0w-30 vs their PCMO 5w-30 or 10w-30 and the latter oils offering more for less
The HT/HS of the Chevron 0w-30 is going to be around 2.8-2.9 vs around 3.1-3.2 for their Supreme Xw-30wts .
Even Mobils 5w-30 Supersyn is a better choice overall than their 0w-30 for all season use in most engines for much the same reasons but the M1 0w-30 is at least heavily friction modded vs an Artic formulated oil .
The best choices and about only currently for a 0w-30 in NA is the :
Synergyn 3w-30- actually an 0w
Castrol 0w-30
Pentosin Pentospeed 0w-30 VS -deluxe hard to find
The soon to be released Motorex B-XL 0w-30
And if one got lucky and found the old stock Gold colored bottle 0w-30 at a Saab dealer which is the imported Fina ELF .
There are some great synthetic 5w-30's available though which give great cold and hot weather protection and Pentosin is but only one of many in that viscosity .
BTW , welcome to the forum .
[ March 23, 2004, 08:04 AM: Message edited by: Motorbike ]
If you read my original post above, you'd know there is more there than 2 data points. Try to READ AGAIN.
The 0w is the best to use. That number does matter. The oil is less thick and flows to bearings, etc., faster at startup. Why anybody (outside of racing) would use a 5w or 10w is beyond me. If the goal is reducing lifetime engine wear, then using a 5w or 10w is self-defeating. The startup issue dominates. I think the only reason American car manufacturers specify that 5w-30 is OK to use is because of 2 main reasons:
(1) They don't give a rat's *** about lifetime engine wear, warranty period is all thats important to them.
(2) They assume you'll use conventional (non-synthetic) oil, not available in 0w-30.
That being said, my 2003 Silverado owners manual does say I can use a 0w-30, so its warranty legal.
Finally, someone who shares my thoughts on the importance of warming a vehicle up slowly. There have been many posts on this subject and there are others out there that don't succumb to this theory. I think that if your not anywhere near freezing and your in the hot south, the "W" doesn't matter. You mean to tell me that all vehicles that have gotten over 300K miles have done so with a 0W oil?
Good point. I admit I'm a little obsessive about "using the best possible" of anything. It could very well be that good enough is good enough. But thats boring, to me anyway.
Well I disagree.
How about the fact that GC 0w-30 will be thicker on "cold" start in the summertime than M1 10w-30 will be?
How about the fact that GC 0w-30 will be thicker on "cold" start in the summertime than M1 10w-30 will be?
There are hundreds of UOA's on this site in that section. The 2 oils you mentioned don't always show the best wear numbers when compared to other oils in the same vehicle. No matter what you theorize about where the wear comes from, the UOA's don't lie.
For instance, I'd bet that Mobil 1 5W-30 or 10W-30 will consistantly show every bit as good of numbers as their 0W-30...
Yes. And actually they seem to perform better. M1 10w-30 has shown to be their best 30wt so far.
The point is: Fleet Wear Numbers and sound engineering analysis don't lie, not somebody coming on and saying "I did one oil analysis and I got.... or I think...." This is a little like a jury verdict based on evidence or not. (With human nature like it is, its no wonder so many people get locked up by juries that ignore sound logic and evidence.) Remember the conclusions are better when a fleet is involved, as it tends to average out the other variables.
Also, I need to investigate whether M1 10W-30 has lower viscosity at, say, room temperature (summer cold start), than German Castrol 0w-30. That sounds wrong.
With an OHC engine, would an oil that clings to the parts be better? One of the few knocks I have seen regarding sythetics is that they flow back down to the oil pan too easily. I believe I read something on the RP site where they tout their oil's ability to cling to parts. I am not an RP user, but this aspect has me intrigued.
Thats a great question. It was the whole idea behind the former Slick 50 marketing hype. Slick 50 was supposed to decrease metal-to-metal contact when there was no oil pressure, among other things they hyped it to do. All the engineers who have looked at this tell me, based on real evidence, not conjecture, that you need oil pressure to avoid wear. Without oil pressure, wear soars to high levels and nothing prevents that much.
Can you post some of these statistics?? I am using M1 10W-30, but I have an open mind.
I've poured my oil at -10F and a 0W and I can't tell a difference, so I'm not sure my pump or engine can.
I decided to run this 10W-30 year round because it seems totally fluid at my temps. What am I missing?
I've poured my oil at -10F and a 0W and I can't tell a difference, so I'm not sure my pump or engine can.
I decided to run this 10W-30 year round because it seems totally fluid at my temps. What am I missing?
dunno. sounds like you're ignoring the actual viscosity at the temps in use. if you graph viscosity vs temp, it's not linear. this is why you can see pretty big variation in 40 degree C viscosity for the same oil "ratings."
as an example, 5W30 M1 is thinner at 40 C than 0W30 GC. i can't remember the exact number for the GC, but the 10W30 M1 might even be thinner.
also, i tend to think a data sheet doesn't really tell you everything about how good an oil is. this is why there exists research and development in the automotive field.
-michael
i take it you're not in the engineering field? because engineering analysis lies all the time. ask NASA.
-michael
Multiple analysis numbers on the same vehicle don't lie either, and they are more accurate for that given vehicle than any fleet data from other vehicles. Sound engineering analysis is only sound when it can be backed up with empirical data. There are plenty of other factors to consider besides startup viscosity. As has been mentioned, M1 0-30 has shown consumption issues in some engines and it's additive package seems to be weaker than some other grades of M1, along with it's shear stability. There are better oils in a lot of applications I'm sure, and Mobil will be the first to tell you this.
Myself, when I first came here I thought I knew something about oil. Now I've found I've learned more about it in the few months I've been here than in all the years before...
I'm an aerospace/mechanical engineer (20 years). I worked with NASA on the X-33 a few years back and was around some space shuttle folks. Your view of the culture is flawed. Trust me your are confusing management and politics with sound engineering analysis. When 2% of engineering analysis is in error, you don't throw it all away.
More importantly, will there it make enough difference to matter 66F to 90F above your single data point for both oils. I think not.quote:
Originally posted by Motorbike:
If oil A has a MRV TP-1 rating of 28,500 @ -35c
And oil " B " has an MRV TP-1 of 23,800 @ -40c
Which oil will pump better at 35f and again at 50F ?
ah, but you're assuming the studies you thump have no errors in either data gathering, nor data analysis. plus, you're making assertions based on a spec sheet as published by the manufacturer. all this is so flawed in my book that it seems a prime example of engineering analysis error.
-michael
- Status
Similar threads
- Article
