Caterham, I agree with your first point. On mixing and synergy, I bring it up because of the research I've read on it, not because of something I've just made up in my mind. You know a lot about viscosity, which is great. I think your motor oil knowledge could become much more well-rounded if you spent a good amount of time researching the additive and chemistry side of oil formulating. Because I know you have the intelligence to grasp the knowledge and because you post very often, I'm saying this to you (essentially singling you out). It would benefit the forum if you shared the acquired knowledge. I would not expect a large company like XOM to inform customers and potential ones about synergy in motor oil formulations. I'd expect that you'd have to speak to an XOM oil formulator to hear something intelligent on the matter.
CATERHAM BLEND | 60%/40% | 15161KM(9420m)|G5 2.4L
- Thread starter cp3
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: 147_Grain
cp3:
Did you notice any difference on how your G5 2.4L Ecotec started (with the Caterham Blend) last winter (versus prior oil)?
Well the Duron has pretty decent cold numbers as well so maybe not a lot of difference but I would say it does rev freer on both than it did on previous fills.
The G6 I can say I noticed was better when cold. Other than that nothing else comes to mind in the 6, maybe uses a bit more oil but that's hard to say. The 5 is maybe a touch noisier on the blend and it did use oil for the first time on it. Again, nothing that would stop me from using it.
cp3:
Did you notice any difference on how your G5 2.4L Ecotec started (with the Caterham Blend) last winter (versus prior oil)?
Well the Duron has pretty decent cold numbers as well so maybe not a lot of difference but I would say it does rev freer on both than it did on previous fills.
The G6 I can say I noticed was better when cold. Other than that nothing else comes to mind in the 6, maybe uses a bit more oil but that's hard to say. The 5 is maybe a touch noisier on the blend and it did use oil for the first time on it. Again, nothing that would stop me from using it.
Originally Posted By: JAG
On mixing and synergy, I bring it up because of the research I've read on it, not because of something I've just made up in my mind.
I don't disagree that there are synergies at play in the way motor oils are formulated. That said OTC MOs are much more similar than they are dissimilar. And all formulators, even of super premium supposedly unique synthetic MOs go out of there way to dispel any fears the public might have in switching to their oil or even using their oil in a blend with other mineral or synthetic oils.
In blending any two oils there is a lot we can determine in addition to the resulting viscosity characteristics. The obvious AW additive and TBN levels for example.
I suspect it is what we can't determine that concerns some and therefore conclude a potential negative synergy and there may very well be but on a scale of 0 to 100 in importance I wouldn't
give it anymore than a 1.
I suspect you would rate it's importance higher but you haven't quantified your position. If you can name any two API oils that should not be blended I would like to hear it. We could then contact the respective companies and see if they agree with your concerns.
On mixing and synergy, I bring it up because of the research I've read on it, not because of something I've just made up in my mind.
I don't disagree that there are synergies at play in the way motor oils are formulated. That said OTC MOs are much more similar than they are dissimilar. And all formulators, even of super premium supposedly unique synthetic MOs go out of there way to dispel any fears the public might have in switching to their oil or even using their oil in a blend with other mineral or synthetic oils.
In blending any two oils there is a lot we can determine in addition to the resulting viscosity characteristics. The obvious AW additive and TBN levels for example.
I suspect it is what we can't determine that concerns some and therefore conclude a potential negative synergy and there may very well be but on a scale of 0 to 100 in importance I wouldn't
give it anymore than a 1.
I suspect you would rate it's importance higher but you haven't quantified your position. If you can name any two API oils that should not be blended I would like to hear it. We could then contact the respective companies and see if they agree with your concerns.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: JAG
On mixing and synergy, I bring it up because of the research I've read on it, not because of something I've just made up in my mind.
I don't disagree that there are synergies at play in the way motor oils are formulated. That said OTC MOs are much more similar than they are dissimilar. And all formulators, even of super premium supposedly unique synthetic MOs go out of there way to dispel any fears the public might have in switching to their oil or even using their oil in a blend with other mineral or synthetic oils.
In blending any two oils there is a lot we can determine in addition to the resulting viscosity characteristics. The obvious AW additive and TBN levels for example.
I suspect it is what we can't determine that concerns some and therefore conclude a potential negative synergy and there may very well be but on a scale of 0 to 100 in importance I wouldn't
give it anymore than a 1.
I suspect you would rate it's importance higher but you haven't quantified your position. If you can name any two API oils that should not be blended I would like to hear it. We could then contact the respective companies and see if they agree with your concerns.
+1
Originally Posted By: JAG
On mixing and synergy, I bring it up because of the research I've read on it, not because of something I've just made up in my mind.
I don't disagree that there are synergies at play in the way motor oils are formulated. That said OTC MOs are much more similar than they are dissimilar. And all formulators, even of super premium supposedly unique synthetic MOs go out of there way to dispel any fears the public might have in switching to their oil or even using their oil in a blend with other mineral or synthetic oils.
In blending any two oils there is a lot we can determine in addition to the resulting viscosity characteristics. The obvious AW additive and TBN levels for example.
I suspect it is what we can't determine that concerns some and therefore conclude a potential negative synergy and there may very well be but on a scale of 0 to 100 in importance I wouldn't
give it anymore than a 1.
I suspect you would rate it's importance higher but you haven't quantified your position. If you can name any two API oils that should not be blended I would like to hear it. We could then contact the respective companies and see if they agree with your concerns.
+1
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I think MolaKule's quote from another thread is perhaps relevant here:
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: INDYMAC
I guess you just have to figure out how much FM from the moly your engine actually needs to determine which formula to use. Is it possible that the OEM manufacturer's labeled engine oil has the proper balance of additives for their engines? The TGMO label says specially formulated for Toyota engines. I suppose other manufacturers contract with oil companies to achieve the same goal.
Exactly.
Depending on the application and the type of MoDTC you use, you test to determine how much friction reduction you really need without overloading your formulation with moly.
Again, formulation is a critical and sensitive balancing act.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: INDYMAC
I guess you just have to figure out how much FM from the moly your engine actually needs to determine which formula to use. Is it possible that the OEM manufacturer's labeled engine oil has the proper balance of additives for their engines? The TGMO label says specially formulated for Toyota engines. I suppose other manufacturers contract with oil companies to achieve the same goal.
Exactly.
Depending on the application and the type of MoDTC you use, you test to determine how much friction reduction you really need without overloading your formulation with moly.
Again, formulation is a critical and sensitive balancing act.
Originally Posted By: cp3
Originally Posted By: 147_Grain
cp3:
Did you notice any difference on how your G5 2.4L Ecotec started (with the Caterham Blend) last winter (versus prior oil)?
Well the Duron has pretty decent cold numbers as well so maybe not a lot of difference but I would say it does rev freer on both than it did on previous fills.
The G6 I can say I noticed was better when cold. Other than that nothing else comes to mind in the 6, maybe uses a bit more oil but that's hard to say. The 5 is maybe a touch noisier on the blend and it did use oil for the first time on it. Again, nothing that would stop me from using it.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
I think MolaKule's quote from another thread is perhaps relevant here:
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: INDYMAC
I guess you just have to figure out how much FM from the moly your engine actually needs to determine which formula to use. Is it possible that the OEM manufacturer's labeled engine oil has the proper balance of additives for their engines? The TGMO label says specially formulated for Toyota engines. I suppose other manufacturers contract with oil companies to achieve the same goal.
Exactly.
Depending on the application and the type of MoDTC you use, you test to determine how much friction reduction you really need without overloading your formulation with moly.
Again, formulation is a critical and sensitive balancing act.
It's not exactly relevant because we are blending two PCMOs that are already formulated.
Originally Posted By: 147_Grain
cp3:
Did you notice any difference on how your G5 2.4L Ecotec started (with the Caterham Blend) last winter (versus prior oil)?
Well the Duron has pretty decent cold numbers as well so maybe not a lot of difference but I would say it does rev freer on both than it did on previous fills.
The G6 I can say I noticed was better when cold. Other than that nothing else comes to mind in the 6, maybe uses a bit more oil but that's hard to say. The 5 is maybe a touch noisier on the blend and it did use oil for the first time on it. Again, nothing that would stop me from using it.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
I think MolaKule's quote from another thread is perhaps relevant here:
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: INDYMAC
I guess you just have to figure out how much FM from the moly your engine actually needs to determine which formula to use. Is it possible that the OEM manufacturer's labeled engine oil has the proper balance of additives for their engines? The TGMO label says specially formulated for Toyota engines. I suppose other manufacturers contract with oil companies to achieve the same goal.
Exactly.
Depending on the application and the type of MoDTC you use, you test to determine how much friction reduction you really need without overloading your formulation with moly.
Again, formulation is a critical and sensitive balancing act.
It's not exactly relevant because we are blending two PCMOs that are already formulated.
Originally Posted By: cp3
Originally Posted By: 147_Grain
cp3:
Did you notice any difference on how your G5 2.4L Ecotec started (with the Caterham Blend) last winter (versus prior oil)?
Well the Duron has pretty decent cold numbers as well so maybe not a lot of difference but I would say it does rev freer on both than it did on previous fills.
The G6 I can say I noticed was better when cold. Other than that nothing else comes to mind in the 6, maybe uses a bit more oil but that's hard to say. The 5 is maybe a touch noisier on the blend and it did use oil for the first time on it. Again, nothing that would stop me from using it.
It's probably worth repeating that since this blend has the same HTHSV of 3.0cP as M1 AFE 0W-30 (VI 166), the only temperature at which they have the same viscosity is at 150C. At all temp's below that the 200+ VI TGMO/M1 0W-40 blend will be progressively lighter since the blend's VI is so much higher. This of course is most noticeable on cold start-ups but also to a certain extent at normal operating temp's. So if we wanted to run a blend with the same operational viscosity at normal operating temp's of say 90C you will have to increase the M1 SM 0W-40 portion to about 60%. This will give you a heavier 0W-30 with a HTHSV of about 3.2cP but only a marginally lower VI of 198. This oil will still be lighter on start-up compared to a 5W-20 at temp's of 50F and below; about 10% lighter at 32F.
Compared to M1 AFE 0W-30 it will still be lighter at temp's below 140F, 10-15% lighter at room temperature and 25% lighter at 32F.
This heavier blend is not maximizing cold start performance at the expense of a lower normal operating viscosity but rather benefiting from the blends inherently higher VI to improve both cold start performance as well as greater high temperature protection.
This heavier blend may reduce oil consumption.
Originally Posted By: 147_Grain
cp3:
Did you notice any difference on how your G5 2.4L Ecotec started (with the Caterham Blend) last winter (versus prior oil)?
Well the Duron has pretty decent cold numbers as well so maybe not a lot of difference but I would say it does rev freer on both than it did on previous fills.
The G6 I can say I noticed was better when cold. Other than that nothing else comes to mind in the 6, maybe uses a bit more oil but that's hard to say. The 5 is maybe a touch noisier on the blend and it did use oil for the first time on it. Again, nothing that would stop me from using it.
It's probably worth repeating that since this blend has the same HTHSV of 3.0cP as M1 AFE 0W-30 (VI 166), the only temperature at which they have the same viscosity is at 150C. At all temp's below that the 200+ VI TGMO/M1 0W-40 blend will be progressively lighter since the blend's VI is so much higher. This of course is most noticeable on cold start-ups but also to a certain extent at normal operating temp's. So if we wanted to run a blend with the same operational viscosity at normal operating temp's of say 90C you will have to increase the M1 SM 0W-40 portion to about 60%. This will give you a heavier 0W-30 with a HTHSV of about 3.2cP but only a marginally lower VI of 198. This oil will still be lighter on start-up compared to a 5W-20 at temp's of 50F and below; about 10% lighter at 32F.
Compared to M1 AFE 0W-30 it will still be lighter at temp's below 140F, 10-15% lighter at room temperature and 25% lighter at 32F.
This heavier blend is not maximizing cold start performance at the expense of a lower normal operating viscosity but rather benefiting from the blends inherently higher VI to improve both cold start performance as well as greater high temperature protection.
This heavier blend may reduce oil consumption.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
It's not exactly relevant because we are blending two PCMOs that are already formulated.
Sure it is. Once you blend them, the formulation changes. If I mix 91 octane gas with 87 octane gas, I don't have "awesome gas" that retains its 91 octane, even though both of them are already "formulated" fuels in this case.
If I blend Shell 91 with 7-11 87, even though both are already "formulated" fuels, I don't magically create some sort of awesome detergent blend. And in fact the detergent package from the Top Tier 91 fuel is most likely diluted by the non-TT 87.
Assuming that by blending two oils, because they are already blended products, we don't potentially compromise some characteristic of each of the blends is ludicrous and the definition of a fools errand. While it may not result in a perceptible, or perhaps even measurable sub-par performance in a given application, there is no guarantee that the combination of two lubricants will pass all the relevant tests that a purpose-blended PCMO does.
ANY un-tested mix is, by definition, a gamble, because IT IS UNTESTED. Until it passes the relevant testing protocols, the performance characteristics of the blend are, at best, an educated guess. One cannot simply sit and posit that they've created an "uber lube" because they mixed two oils together and nothing blew up. It's a ridiculous assumption with no actual data backing it. You need real performance data, like what comes from manufacturer testing and approval, the relevant ACEA/API protocols and the like before the relative success of the "product" can be claimed.
One cannot simply extrapolate success from the absence of failure.
It's not exactly relevant because we are blending two PCMOs that are already formulated.
Sure it is. Once you blend them, the formulation changes. If I mix 91 octane gas with 87 octane gas, I don't have "awesome gas" that retains its 91 octane, even though both of them are already "formulated" fuels in this case.
If I blend Shell 91 with 7-11 87, even though both are already "formulated" fuels, I don't magically create some sort of awesome detergent blend. And in fact the detergent package from the Top Tier 91 fuel is most likely diluted by the non-TT 87.
Assuming that by blending two oils, because they are already blended products, we don't potentially compromise some characteristic of each of the blends is ludicrous and the definition of a fools errand. While it may not result in a perceptible, or perhaps even measurable sub-par performance in a given application, there is no guarantee that the combination of two lubricants will pass all the relevant tests that a purpose-blended PCMO does.
ANY un-tested mix is, by definition, a gamble, because IT IS UNTESTED. Until it passes the relevant testing protocols, the performance characteristics of the blend are, at best, an educated guess. One cannot simply sit and posit that they've created an "uber lube" because they mixed two oils together and nothing blew up. It's a ridiculous assumption with no actual data backing it. You need real performance data, like what comes from manufacturer testing and approval, the relevant ACEA/API protocols and the like before the relative success of the "product" can be claimed.
One cannot simply extrapolate success from the absence of failure.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
It's not exactly relevant because we are blending two PCMOs that are already formulated.
Sure it is. Once you blend them, the formulation changes. If I mix 91 octane gas with 87 octane gas, I don't have "awesome gas" that retains its 91 octane, even though both of them are already "formulated" fuels in this case.
If I blend Shell 91 with 7-11 87, even though both are already "formulated" fuels, I don't magically create some sort of awesome detergent blend. And in fact the detergent package from the Top Tier 91 fuel is most likely diluted by the non-TT 87.
Assuming that by blending two oils, because they are already blended products, we don't somehow compromise some characteristic of each of the blends is ludicrous and the definition of a fools errand. While it may not result in a perceptible, or perhaps even measurable sub-par performance in a given application, there is no guarantee that the combination of two lubricants will pass all the relevant tests that a purpose-blended PCMO does.
ANY un-tested mix is, by definition, a gamble, because IT IS UNTESTED. Until it passes the relevant testing protocols, the performance characteristics of the blend are, at best, an educated guess. One cannot simply sit and posit that they've created an "uber lube" because they mixed two oils together and nothing blew up. It's a ridiculous assumption with no actual data backing it. You need real performance data, like what comes from manufacturer testing and approval, the relevant ACEA/API protocols and the like before the relative success of the "product" can be claimed.
One cannot simply extrapolate success from the absence of failure.
Thanks for posting this,100% spot on!
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
It's not exactly relevant because we are blending two PCMOs that are already formulated.
Sure it is. Once you blend them, the formulation changes. If I mix 91 octane gas with 87 octane gas, I don't have "awesome gas" that retains its 91 octane, even though both of them are already "formulated" fuels in this case.
If I blend Shell 91 with 7-11 87, even though both are already "formulated" fuels, I don't magically create some sort of awesome detergent blend. And in fact the detergent package from the Top Tier 91 fuel is most likely diluted by the non-TT 87.
Assuming that by blending two oils, because they are already blended products, we don't somehow compromise some characteristic of each of the blends is ludicrous and the definition of a fools errand. While it may not result in a perceptible, or perhaps even measurable sub-par performance in a given application, there is no guarantee that the combination of two lubricants will pass all the relevant tests that a purpose-blended PCMO does.
ANY un-tested mix is, by definition, a gamble, because IT IS UNTESTED. Until it passes the relevant testing protocols, the performance characteristics of the blend are, at best, an educated guess. One cannot simply sit and posit that they've created an "uber lube" because they mixed two oils together and nothing blew up. It's a ridiculous assumption with no actual data backing it. You need real performance data, like what comes from manufacturer testing and approval, the relevant ACEA/API protocols and the like before the relative success of the "product" can be claimed.
One cannot simply extrapolate success from the absence of failure.
Thanks for posting this,100% spot on!
Quote:
Again, formulation is a critical and sensitive balancing act.
Exactly. And Molekule is a formulator, unlike CATERHAM. CATERHAM just throws that important piece out the window due to his obsession with VI, which multiple people well knowledgeable on motor oil dismiss as being super important.
Again, formulation is a critical and sensitive balancing act.
Exactly. And Molekule is a formulator, unlike CATERHAM. CATERHAM just throws that important piece out the window due to his obsession with VI, which multiple people well knowledgeable on motor oil dismiss as being super important.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
It's not exactly relevant because we are blending two PCMOs that are already formulated.
Sure it is. Once you blend them, the formulation changes. If I mix 91 octane gas with 87 octane gas, I don't have "awesome gas" that retains its 91 octane, even though both of them are already "formulated" fuels in this case.
If I blend Shell 91 with 7-11 87, even though both are already "formulated" fuels, I don't magically create some sort of awesome detergent blend. And in fact the detergent package from the Top Tier 91 fuel is most likely diluted by the non-TT 87.
Assuming that by blending two oils, because they are already blended products, we don't potentially compromise some characteristic of each of the blends is ludicrous and the definition of a fools errand. While it may not result in a perceptible, or perhaps even measurable sub-par performance in a given application, there is no guarantee that the combination of two lubricants will pass all the relevant tests that a purpose-blended PCMO does.
ANY un-tested mix is, by definition, a gamble, because IT IS UNTESTED. Until it passes the relevant testing protocols, the performance characteristics of the blend are, at best, an educated guess. One cannot simply sit and posit that they've created an "uber lube" because they mixed two oils together and nothing blew up. It's a ridiculous assumption with no actual data backing it. You need real performance data, like what comes from manufacturer testing and approval, the relevant ACEA/API protocols and the like before the relative success of the "product" can be claimed.
One cannot simply extrapolate success from the absence of failure.
+1
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
It's not exactly relevant because we are blending two PCMOs that are already formulated.
Sure it is. Once you blend them, the formulation changes. If I mix 91 octane gas with 87 octane gas, I don't have "awesome gas" that retains its 91 octane, even though both of them are already "formulated" fuels in this case.
If I blend Shell 91 with 7-11 87, even though both are already "formulated" fuels, I don't magically create some sort of awesome detergent blend. And in fact the detergent package from the Top Tier 91 fuel is most likely diluted by the non-TT 87.
Assuming that by blending two oils, because they are already blended products, we don't potentially compromise some characteristic of each of the blends is ludicrous and the definition of a fools errand. While it may not result in a perceptible, or perhaps even measurable sub-par performance in a given application, there is no guarantee that the combination of two lubricants will pass all the relevant tests that a purpose-blended PCMO does.
ANY un-tested mix is, by definition, a gamble, because IT IS UNTESTED. Until it passes the relevant testing protocols, the performance characteristics of the blend are, at best, an educated guess. One cannot simply sit and posit that they've created an "uber lube" because they mixed two oils together and nothing blew up. It's a ridiculous assumption with no actual data backing it. You need real performance data, like what comes from manufacturer testing and approval, the relevant ACEA/API protocols and the like before the relative success of the "product" can be claimed.
One cannot simply extrapolate success from the absence of failure.
+1
There was an infineum paper showing moly levels in different amounts and the impact on Cf. 80ppm - 200pm max was the most effective.
Taking CATERHAM's advice, he'd have you add RL (using a different moly) to another brand just to raise the VI ignoring all the other chemistry differences.
Taking CATERHAM's advice, he'd have you add RL (using a different moly) to another brand just to raise the VI ignoring all the other chemistry differences.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Assuming that by blending two oils, because they are already blended products, we don't potentially compromise some characteristic of each of the blends is ludicrous and the definition of a fools errand.
One cannot simply extrapolate success from the absence of failure.
By your logic your being pretty foolish switching from M1 0W-40 to PU 5W-40 in your M5 resulting in a blend from two difference companies with the intent of switching back to M1 0W-40 for the winter resulting in a perpetual blend. Or are you just being hypocritical?
And yes one can certainly presume success from the absence of failure.
Assuming that by blending two oils, because they are already blended products, we don't potentially compromise some characteristic of each of the blends is ludicrous and the definition of a fools errand.
One cannot simply extrapolate success from the absence of failure.
By your logic your being pretty foolish switching from M1 0W-40 to PU 5W-40 in your M5 resulting in a blend from two difference companies with the intent of switching back to M1 0W-40 for the winter resulting in a perpetual blend. Or are you just being hypocritical?
And yes one can certainly presume success from the absence of failure.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
By your logic your being pretty foolish switching from M1 0W-40 to PU 5W-40 in your M5 resulting in a blend from two difference companies with the intent of switching back to M1 0W-40 for the winter resulting in a perpetual blend. Or are you just being hypocritical?
By my logic, really?
You are seriously stating that by removing 7L of M1 0w-40 and replacing it with 7L of PU 5w-40, which results in MAYBE a .5L + 7L blend (probably a lot less given the semi dry sump setup) of M1 0w-40 with PU 5w-40, both oils which meet LL-01, that I'm doing the same as you doing a 60/40 mix?
That's beyond laughable!
Quote:
And yes one can certainly presume success from the absence of failure.
Only if your definition of success is simply the absence of failure. I suppose if one makes the definition of their endeavour narrow enough that not failing could indeed be touted as a success. But in the effort of creating a superior lubricant, if your only marker is the fact that an engine didn't blow up, that's not mine, nor any OEM's definition of success. That's why we have those silly testing protocols in place that actual MEASURE the performance of a lubricant. Otherwise we could all just play amateur chemist and toss whatever oils we wanted together and make SUPER BREW'S!!! Who's claim to fame would be whatever trait we argue to be superior, rather than relying on actual data, right?
By your logic your being pretty foolish switching from M1 0W-40 to PU 5W-40 in your M5 resulting in a blend from two difference companies with the intent of switching back to M1 0W-40 for the winter resulting in a perpetual blend. Or are you just being hypocritical?
By my logic, really?
You are seriously stating that by removing 7L of M1 0w-40 and replacing it with 7L of PU 5w-40, which results in MAYBE a .5L + 7L blend (probably a lot less given the semi dry sump setup) of M1 0w-40 with PU 5w-40, both oils which meet LL-01, that I'm doing the same as you doing a 60/40 mix?
That's beyond laughable!
Quote:
And yes one can certainly presume success from the absence of failure.
Only if your definition of success is simply the absence of failure. I suppose if one makes the definition of their endeavour narrow enough that not failing could indeed be touted as a success. But in the effort of creating a superior lubricant, if your only marker is the fact that an engine didn't blow up, that's not mine, nor any OEM's definition of success. That's why we have those silly testing protocols in place that actual MEASURE the performance of a lubricant. Otherwise we could all just play amateur chemist and toss whatever oils we wanted together and make SUPER BREW'S!!! Who's claim to fame would be whatever trait we argue to be superior, rather than relying on actual data, right?
Oh boy, here we go again. What I don't understand is that this is a mixture of two Mobil oils and so those of you mentioning the mixture of Redline with for example Shell or Mobil are quite honestly off topic. Though UOA's aren't the end all and be all of good oil formulations and performance, it should be acknowledged that these many Caterham mixes have performed admirably. The VOA also looks quite good.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
By your logic your being pretty foolish switching from M1 0W-40 to PU 5W-40 in your M5 resulting in a blend from two difference companies with the intent of switching back to M1 0W-40 for the winter resulting in a perpetual blend. Or are you just being hypocritical?
By my logic, really?
You are seriously stating that by removing 7L of M1 0w-40 and replacing it with 7L of PU 5w-40, which results in MAYBE a .5L + 7L blend (probably a lot less given the semi dry sump setup) of M1 0w-40 with PU 5w-40, both oils which meet LL-01, that I'm doing the same as you doing a 60/40 mix?
That's beyond laughable!
No I'd say more like a litre or 15% of the old oil remains in every nook and cranny including every trace of oil film on every part of the engine.
But regardless, you are just rationalizing that a certain small percentage of a different oil is okay but a higher percentage is not. Sorry, but it's either one or the other.
This really sounds like sour grapes to me. Blending two quality high VI oils together from the same company with their blessing to make a high VI 0W-30 that isn't commercially available at any price has you and others green with envy. Hence the OTT ridicule.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
By your logic your being pretty foolish switching from M1 0W-40 to PU 5W-40 in your M5 resulting in a blend from two difference companies with the intent of switching back to M1 0W-40 for the winter resulting in a perpetual blend. Or are you just being hypocritical?
By my logic, really?
You are seriously stating that by removing 7L of M1 0w-40 and replacing it with 7L of PU 5w-40, which results in MAYBE a .5L + 7L blend (probably a lot less given the semi dry sump setup) of M1 0w-40 with PU 5w-40, both oils which meet LL-01, that I'm doing the same as you doing a 60/40 mix?
That's beyond laughable!
No I'd say more like a litre or 15% of the old oil remains in every nook and cranny including every trace of oil film on every part of the engine.
But regardless, you are just rationalizing that a certain small percentage of a different oil is okay but a higher percentage is not. Sorry, but it's either one or the other.
This really sounds like sour grapes to me. Blending two quality high VI oils together from the same company with their blessing to make a high VI 0W-30 that isn't commercially available at any price has you and others green with envy. Hence the OTT ridicule.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
No I'd say more like a litre or 15% of the old oil remains in every nook and cranny including every trace of oil film on every part of the engine.
Another WAG, wonderful! So we can WAG performance, WAG how much oil remains in my engine, anything else you want to add sir?
Quote:
But regardless, you are just rationalizing that a certain small percentage of a different oil is okay but a higher percentage is not. Sorry, but it's either one or the other.
Of course that's what I'm rationalizing! If it wasn't OK, we'd be forced to stick to a particular brand/blend. And even if there was additive package clash, there sure as [censored] is going to be a lot less of it with a .5L/7L mix than there is with the percentages you've trumped up here.
Quote:
This really sounds like sour grapes to me. Blending two quality high VI oils together from the same company with their blessing to make a high VI 0W-30 that isn't commercially available at any price has you and others green with envy. Hence the OTT ridicule.
Are you high? How the [censored] can this be sour grapes? I don't mix oils, never have mixed oils, have ZERO aspiration to mix oils because I don't play home chemist! I'm not naive nor foolish enough to think that I can toss together a few OTS products with the end result being something better than those products on their own, or ASSUME that my concoction will magically pass all the relevant testing protocols in place that make those products what they are!
If you can provide data beyond "it didn't blow up", "it works because I say so" or "it has a high VI, it has to be better", something along the lines of actual data PROVING performance, like what these oils go through during their development, I'm ALL EARS. Until then, my position is, and will always be, that you are taking a gamble with respect to the final performance of the product. You can pretend that's not the case all you want, but until you can PROVE otherwise, it is all just contrived nonsense veiled in a cloak of high-VI goodness.
No I'd say more like a litre or 15% of the old oil remains in every nook and cranny including every trace of oil film on every part of the engine.
Another WAG, wonderful! So we can WAG performance, WAG how much oil remains in my engine, anything else you want to add sir?
Quote:
But regardless, you are just rationalizing that a certain small percentage of a different oil is okay but a higher percentage is not. Sorry, but it's either one or the other.
Of course that's what I'm rationalizing! If it wasn't OK, we'd be forced to stick to a particular brand/blend. And even if there was additive package clash, there sure as [censored] is going to be a lot less of it with a .5L/7L mix than there is with the percentages you've trumped up here.
Quote:
This really sounds like sour grapes to me. Blending two quality high VI oils together from the same company with their blessing to make a high VI 0W-30 that isn't commercially available at any price has you and others green with envy. Hence the OTT ridicule.
Are you high? How the [censored] can this be sour grapes? I don't mix oils, never have mixed oils, have ZERO aspiration to mix oils because I don't play home chemist! I'm not naive nor foolish enough to think that I can toss together a few OTS products with the end result being something better than those products on their own, or ASSUME that my concoction will magically pass all the relevant testing protocols in place that make those products what they are!
If you can provide data beyond "it didn't blow up", "it works because I say so" or "it has a high VI, it has to be better", something along the lines of actual data PROVING performance, like what these oils go through during their development, I'm ALL EARS. Until then, my position is, and will always be, that you are taking a gamble with respect to the final performance of the product. You can pretend that's not the case all you want, but until you can PROVE otherwise, it is all just contrived nonsense veiled in a cloak of high-VI goodness.
Originally Posted By: Capa
Oh boy, here we go again. What I don't understand is that this is a mixture of two Mobil oils and so those of you mentioning the mixture of Redline with for example Shell or Mobil are quite honestly off topic. Though UOA's aren't the end all and be all of good oil formulations and performance, it should be acknowledged that these many Caterham mixes have performed admirably. The VOA also looks quite good.
VOA's dont show everything,never have never will,nor will they determine how well an oil will perform in an engine.
Oh boy, here we go again. What I don't understand is that this is a mixture of two Mobil oils and so those of you mentioning the mixture of Redline with for example Shell or Mobil are quite honestly off topic. Though UOA's aren't the end all and be all of good oil formulations and performance, it should be acknowledged that these many Caterham mixes have performed admirably. The VOA also looks quite good.
VOA's dont show everything,never have never will,nor will they determine how well an oil will perform in an engine.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
And just to be CRYSTAL clear:
I'm not opposed to the idea of mixing products to achieve something different. As long as somebody is willing to acknowledge the potential risks of the process and approach it with the attitude that it is an experiment and is treated as such, then by all means, experiment away! JAG touched upon this also.
HOWEVER
It is the cavalier, self righteous attitude that nobody else on here has any bloody idea what they are talking about and that there are absolutely no risks associated with this sort of experimentation that sets me off. On top of that, the apparent worship at the alter of VI with no regard for the other characteristics of a properly blended (and the fact that it is called a blended or formulated lubricant is a BIG CLUE HERE) lubricant has rubbed a LOT of people the wrong way.
I don't believe any rational person on here is inherently against what you are doing CATERHAM, with your experimentation. It is the attitude you carry and the dismissive tone you take with everybody who even dares question you that has fostered this friction. When you are willing to completely disregard the words of a formulator (MolaKule) because it doesn't suit your agenda, well, that does not help how others see you and your crusade. Keep that in mind.
As to the comment that you feel that those who oppose you are simply green with envy, I would like to point out that I'm not selling an idea or philosophy here. I'm not trying to get people to see things my way. My approach is simply respect of the OEM's and governing bodies who test and approve lubricants, and subsequently guarantee a level of performance. I'm wary of things that cannot give me that guarantee. The fact that you fault me for that philosophy is and of itself an issue. Being cautious has served me well in my life and my career. It is a part of who I am. So when I question something because I want some validity that there is data behind it, this should not be construed as some sort of attack on that person's moral fibre. Your dismissive approach to me does not help further your point. I don't believe something just because somebody says so, and that's the case with a lot of people. So if you want us to see the merit to what you are doing, I suggest bringing some actual performance data to the table. If you are unwilling or unable to do that, then how can you expect us to simply swallow what you preach?
I'm not opposed to the idea of mixing products to achieve something different. As long as somebody is willing to acknowledge the potential risks of the process and approach it with the attitude that it is an experiment and is treated as such, then by all means, experiment away! JAG touched upon this also.
HOWEVER
It is the cavalier, self righteous attitude that nobody else on here has any bloody idea what they are talking about and that there are absolutely no risks associated with this sort of experimentation that sets me off. On top of that, the apparent worship at the alter of VI with no regard for the other characteristics of a properly blended (and the fact that it is called a blended or formulated lubricant is a BIG CLUE HERE) lubricant has rubbed a LOT of people the wrong way.
I don't believe any rational person on here is inherently against what you are doing CATERHAM, with your experimentation. It is the attitude you carry and the dismissive tone you take with everybody who even dares question you that has fostered this friction. When you are willing to completely disregard the words of a formulator (MolaKule) because it doesn't suit your agenda, well, that does not help how others see you and your crusade. Keep that in mind.
As to the comment that you feel that those who oppose you are simply green with envy, I would like to point out that I'm not selling an idea or philosophy here. I'm not trying to get people to see things my way. My approach is simply respect of the OEM's and governing bodies who test and approve lubricants, and subsequently guarantee a level of performance. I'm wary of things that cannot give me that guarantee. The fact that you fault me for that philosophy is and of itself an issue. Being cautious has served me well in my life and my career. It is a part of who I am. So when I question something because I want some validity that there is data behind it, this should not be construed as some sort of attack on that person's moral fibre. Your dismissive approach to me does not help further your point. I don't believe something just because somebody says so, and that's the case with a lot of people. So if you want us to see the merit to what you are doing, I suggest bringing some actual performance data to the table. If you are unwilling or unable to do that, then how can you expect us to simply swallow what you preach?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked