CATERHAM BLEND | 60%/40% | 15161KM(9420m)|G5 2.4L

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: pbm
Many auto makers (Japanese in particular) are now spec'ing these ultra high VI, super thin oils and Caterham agrees with their thinking

Well thats fine but there is only one problem and this is something that i been harping on for a long time.
THERE IS NO SPEC published in any owners manual or service manual for VI.

If anyone can produce any document saying you must use an oil with a VI of XXX in this or that engine. I will eat it on Christmas eve in front to Macy's dept store window.
Or has a spec like Toyota xyz111 that can only be met by having a VI of XXX. There is none, it would be very easy to do, look at Euro manufacturers.
This alone tells me that ultra high Vi is just not that important and the manufacturer is willing to warranty the engine with an oil that has less VI.

Yes you have been harping on this for a long time.

The OEM 0W-20s, TGMO in particular is made specifically to maximize fuel economy while minimizing engine wear. And again in the case with Toyota, they have worked closely with their lubrication partners, Nippon Oil and ExxonMobil to make an ultra high shear stable oil.
This is the lubricant they use to produce their published fuel economy ratings. As a result the TGMO lubricant must be made available to their customers at a reasonable price but Toyota need not do more than recommend it's oil be used, consequently Toyota and all OEMs just require that the 0W-20 grade be used.

There is no question in my mind that TGMO 0W-20 is a more expensive oil to formulate than the average OTC 0W-20 but an aftermarket formulator need just make a 0W-20 that meets the requirements of the grade and API and it is okay to be used in vehicles for which the grade is specified.
Since most aftermarket 0W-20s are not high VI oils they will be heavier than necessary, primarily on start-up but at the very least will be mostly synthetic and lighter than almost all 5W-20s.

This position is the best for all involved parties.
The OEMs get to maximize their fuel economy ratings and the aftermarket oil formulators have a less stringent requirement to formulate a 0W-20 grade.
The consumer has the choice to use whatever API 0W-20 they want.

That said, I think it's best for most applications for consumers to use the OEM high VI 0W-20s since that is what is spec'd for their car but I fully support consumer choice even if the reason is for nothing more than brand loyalty.

 

[buster]

I have no issues with TGMO. It's a fantastic oil using the latest in VM technology.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

Once again you are deliberately miss-quoting what Castrol said.
They didn't say adding Syntec to Dollarama oil but rather adding Syntec to "premium" conventional oil will improve the performance of that oil.


I'm not deliberately mis-quoting, I just don't necessarily think that statement means what you think it does. How many oils on the PQIA watch list are marketed as "Premium" conventional oils? If the Dollarama special is API certified, does that make it "premium"? LOL!!!

Once again you are interpreting what Castrol has said through your confirmation bias filter; consciously or otherwise.
Castrol said premium oil which means at least API.
There are no bad API oils. All the [censored] oils on the PQIA watch list don't carry the API certification which is smart on their part to avoid the certain API wrath if they do.

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

Quote:
And BTW I think both yourself and JAG (not so much buster; just joking) are pretty bright guys but as they say in the scientific community, you have a confirmation bias. Meaning you only accept evidence that supports your position which you can't do in science. You must accept all evidence and the overwhelming evidence is that mixing premium oils will to no harm.


OK, but this door swings both ways. We are essentially accusing you of doing the exact same thing

And our argument isn't that you'll necessarily cause harm, but simply that the end product of mixing may not perform as well in all areas as the products by themselves, regardless of the viscosity index of the final product. That's basically all we've been trying to get you to acknowledge.

The viscosity characteristic of the TGMO/0W-40 blend, no other 0W/5W-30 commercially formulated oil can match. That plus the fact that it's also more shear stable than the average 30wt oil makes for an impressive oil; that point JAG agrees with.

The AW chemistry of these two oils is much the same, with M1 0W-40 having higher levels such as ZDDP for example. Blending the two oils just raises the AW level somewhat of TGMO alone which I consider to be a good thing, not to mention bolstering it's long drain capability.
The end result is a heavier version of TGMO.
As I've mentioned, Mobil has no problems with this blend.
If there's anything remaining in this blend that's going to have a negative synergy in anyway, I can't see it.

You've already made the point that I happen to agree with (btw buster doesn't) that simply switching from one oil company brand to another is not an issue. And with most vehicles you're going to have at least 10% and as high as 25% (Porsche 911 comes to mind) of the old oil still in the system so a blend to a certain extent is inevitable.

So if one is going to actively select the oils that are going to be blended to maximize the advantages and minimize any discernable negatives not to mention choosing oils from the same oil company and getting their okay should reduce any lingering doubts into the realm of insignificance.

Despite making those careful well considered choices, I know there are some that will still profess "you don't know what you're getting" and quite frankly I think that attitude is largely motor oil ignorance based plus the natural conservatism of some people.

 

[buster]

Quote:
You've already made the point that I happen to agree with (btw buster doesn't) that simply switching from one oil company brand to another is not an issue.


I never said that. Going from one oil to another is obviously not an issue as it happens all the time. You're removing at least 90% of the previous oil, so the remaining 10% isn't going to be a problem.

Quote:
If there's anything remaining in this blend that's going to have a negative synergy in anyway, I can't see it.


That's the issue though, you can't see it. That's why oils have to go through engine sequence testing to prove they are capable of meeting a certain performance level.

If you're going to mix your own brew, I would suggest staying within the same oil family. For example, most of the Mobil 1 line has always used similar chemistry. Mobil 1, Mobil 1 EP and even their HM oils share the same chemistry, just different treat rates for different performance parameters.

Mobil 1 0w40 is using a higher SA formulation.

M1 line is using a bi-metallic detergent system (Mg/Ca) where as the 0w40 is using over-based calcium and higher levels of ZDP/Moly and boron.

How those two would interact is simply unknown.

UOA's won't show varnish and deposit protection. Being detergents and AW additives compete for the same surface, they have to be carefully balanced. When you start tinkering with that balance, you're getting an unknown. I would hope you understand that simple concept.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

Once again you are interpreting what Castrol has said through your confirmation bias filter; consciously or otherwise.


And you are doing the same. You aren't going to win this argument. I don't give up, I'm sure you've probably noticed that......

Quote:
Castrol said premium oil which means at least API.
There are no bad API oils. All the [censored] oils on the PQIA watch list don't carry the API certification which is smart on their part to avoid the certain API wrath if they do.


I was being facetious, and my remark was meant to be taken tongue-in-cheek. My point was that an oil with the basic API cert, which is likely what Castrol is referencing here with their "Premium" comment can be a far cry in terms of performance in a myriad of elements than a lubricant with a long list of demanding certs and approvals. You and I really both have no idea what oil they are talking about when they say "Premium" conventional, and it may very well be the bottom-of-the-performance-barrel API-approved oil, that while not bad, doesn't mean it is that great either. The Lubrizol tool is your friend here if you want to contrast the basic API-SN rating against some of the OEM stuff.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

The viscosity characteristic of the TGMO/0W-40 blend, no other 0W/5W-30 commercially formulated oil can match. That plus the fact that it's also more shear stable than the average 30wt oil makes for an impressive oil; that point JAG agrees with.


I think the correct term here would be "calculated" viscosity characteristics, as per your own discussion with XOM, they say the MRV would be "somewhere between the two" with no way for you to know for sure what it is. So we don't really have exact figures as to what those viscosity characteristics are, but the general consensus is that they are excellent. I can agree with that.

Quote:
The AW chemistry of these two oils is much the same (I would say very similar here but it doesn't really matter), with M1 0W-40 having higher levels such as ZDDP for example. Blending the two oils just raises the AW level somewhat of TGMO alone which I consider to be a good thing, not to mention bolstering it's long drain capability.
The end result is a heavier version of TGMO.
As I've mentioned, Mobil has no problems with this blend.
If there's anything remaining in this blend that's going to have a negative synergy in anyway, I can't see it.


OK, I think we are starting to end up on the same page here. I can't see any real issues with this particular blend either, my point was simply that there MAY be a negative effect on some trait that we don't know about without running the oil through the standard testing regimen. And there is always this possibility. When you delve into mixing different brands of oils together with different chemistry characteristics (which buster touched-on) you increase the risk of creating these negative synergies.

Quote:
You've already made the point that I happen to agree with (btw buster doesn't) that simply switching from one oil company brand to another is not an issue. And with most vehicles you're going to have at least 10% and as high as 25% (Porsche 911 comes to mind) of the old oil still in the system so a blend to a certain extent is inevitable.

So if one is going to actively select the oils that are going to be blended to maximize the advantages and minimize any discernable negatives not to mention choosing oils from the same oil company and getting their okay should reduce any lingering doubts into the realm of insignificance.


I guess it depends on the nature of the doubts. My concerns stem primarily from the creation of the unknowns, particularly those in respect to the OEM testing protocols, most notably the Euro ones (like those M1 0w-40 carries). In this case, with the TGM0/M1 0w-40 blend, you are potentially making the TGMO lubricant more robust. Which is probably a "good thing" if your application only requires an oil with the traits reflected in TGMO. However, if you have a more demanding application, something that requires the traits better mirrored in M1 0w-40, then you are diluting those traits with TGMO. So in essence, the knife cuts both ways here. So I guess my point is that it is a bit bound to application too as to what you can potentially get away with.

To be more general: If you used a blend in a sludge-prone application and your blend happens to have compromised the deposit control characteristics of the lubricants in question, there is the potential for that application to be negatively effected by the blend, despite the fact that the viscosity characteristics of the blend might be superior.

Quote:
Despite making those careful well considered choices, I know there are some that will still profess "you don't know what you're getting" and quite frankly I think that attitude is largely motor oil ignorance based plus the natural conservatism of some people.


I think your points would be better taken if you had left this line out IMHO. This (although milder than your earlier comments) is where the remarks regarding your posting style come from. Calling people ignorant isn't a great way to get them to listen to you. I know it wasn't directed at me, but I feel the need to comment on it anyway.

 

[JAG]

Caterham, you are the second of two people I'm putting on my "Ignore" list. Please put me on "Ignore" as well.

 

[jrustles]

Kumbayaaaaa

come on guys we can all get along here!!
let's not make this as bad as the other forums out there

 

[mase]

Quote:
His theory on blending and having beneficial practical positive benefits of a ultra high VII oil's in the crankcase I do not.


Clearly for Catt, an oil must have a high VI to be considered adequate. At this point I usually just disregard most of his posts just because I have seen him totally disregard oil that I know to be good because the VI is low (for him) so many time. To me a group 4 and 5 oil with a VI of 165 and no viscosity improvers is a good thing and is exactly what I am looking for my performance engines. But I think Catt would prefer a group 3 with a little 4 and tons of VII's added with a VI of 200. Even though the VII's will break down into varnish and your group 3 base stock that's left will be about a 10W, where the group 4 and 5 basetocks will be just fine and maintain viscosity all the way through the OCI.

I realize VI is a good thing and I do look at it, but it shouldn't be the first or only thing you look at because it doesn't really mean as much as some people think it does and in the example above it can even be a bad thing.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: mase
Quote:

But I think Catt would prefer a group 3 with a little 4 and tons of VII's added with a VI of 200. Even though the VII's will break down into varnish and your group 3 base stock that's left will be about a 10W, where the group 4 and 5 basetocks will be just fine and maintain viscosity all the way through the OCI.

You are right about one thing, I don't care if an oil is GP III as long as it performs. But like most I do not want an oil with "tons of VII's". You're understanding of VMs is incomplete. For starters you could add as much polymer oil thickener to an oil that you want and you will never get a 200 VI oil. The reason is simple, old school polymer products like STP only have a VI of about 190.

Ultra high VI oils like TGMO (VI 216) are only possible due to recent advancements in polymer technology. The following article high-lights the advantages of very high VI star and comb type PMA polymers:
http://www.infineum.com/InfineumInsight/Insight58/main.swf?page=10
The advantage of the technology is that less actual polymer is used which is why oils that use the technology are very shear stable.

And this blend is evidence of that since it sheared very little as was discussed initially in this thread.

 

[mase]

Wow, that was quick.


Quote:
You're understanding of VMs is incomplete.


I'm sure it is, but apparently it is more complete than yours.

I am pretty new here, and I have already seen you demean several oils because their VI is under say 175. To me that shows an incomplete understanding.

An oil with a 165 VI can be better than an oil with a VI of 185 and you don't seem to grasp that concept.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: mase

An oil with a 165 VI can be better than an oil with a VI of 185 and you don't seem to grasp that concept.

You obviously have a 165 VI oil in mind so instead of high-jacking this thread why don't you start your own thread about this "better" oil and we can discuss it.

 

[mase]

I also think we are looking for different uses for our oil. You appear to be looking for long OCI for mildly powered vehicles.

I am looking for a race oil that works well on the street that I won't be using longer than 5,000 miles or 6 months. I am looking at the Motuls, Dominator, RP XPR, Silkolene, Pennrite, Millers, etc.

Your Group 3 blend looks like it did preform pretty well in your test, but I am looking for oil with a different purpose than an extended OCI on a 150hp pontiac. I am not surprised the oil didn't shear since it wasn't really tested in that motor (unless it is modded heavily and I missed that). I personally try to steer clear of the group 3's especially when the manufacturer still claims 100% full synthetic, but that has already been beaten to death. I am looking for a performance oil that won't sheer under extreme pressure and heat. Motors that put out 800+ horsepower and run high boost.


I know the 0W-20 Toyota oil is supposed to be good oil and it probably is, but Toyota has had so many motors seize up from sludge( or gel as toyota likes to call it) that I personally wouldn't use or buy anything they sell. Dealerships aren't trying to buy and then re-brand and sell the best oil for their cars. They are buying oil from the cheapest bidder.

See, you think that the Toyota 0W-20 with your 216 VI is a better oil than say Motul 300V 0W-20 with a VI of 166 or Redline's version with VI of 172? Guess what, just because it has a higher VI doesn't make it better. From what I have read the Toyota oil shears quite a bit in stock low powered cars/suvs, so what would it do in a 800hp car running 40psi boost? I wouldn't want to find out. I'll take the oil with mostly base stocks and you can have the new polymers.

 

[DragRace]

Originally Posted By: mase
Wow, that was quick.


Quote:
You're understanding of VMs is incomplete.


I'm sure it is, but apparently it is more complete than yours.

I am pretty new here, and I have already seen you demean several oils because their VI is under say 175. To me that shows an incomplete understanding.

An oil with a 165 VI can be better than an oil with a VI of 185 and you don't seem to grasp that concept.


Caterham doesnt grasp that concept and other concepts as well,thats why people have added him to the ol ignore list.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: mase
Toyota has had so many motors seize up from sludge( or gel as toyota likes to call it) that I personally wouldn't use or buy anything they sell.


That's a statement that shows deep ignorance (and an agenda), and makes me question anything else you may have to say.

Originally Posted By: mase
From what I have read the Toyota oil shears quite a bit in stock low powered cars/suvs


Where did you see that?

 

[mase]

Quote:
Where did you see that?



Saw in a thread here at bitog earlier today where it sheared 13%, in a Prius.

Quote:
According to Wearchecks VOA of the TGMO 0W20 SN oil, the VI is 216 ( 214 for the SM )
The VI@100C, cSt is 8.54 ( 8.8 for the SM ), and the VI@40C, cSt is 37.38 ( 39.3 for the SM )with a 6.84 TBN. In our experience, the TGMO 0W20 SM oil in a 2011 Prius has sheared down to 6.79 ( 28.56%... factory fill ) and was changed at 1234 miles.
Another change with 5010 miles resulted in a shearing of 13.76% ( 7.64 ) with a 385 F flashpoint and trace of fuel. The TBN was 5.0 with a TAN 0f 5.1.


Quote:
That's a statement that shows deep ignorance (and an agenda), and makes me question anything else you may have to say.



The fact that the motors have a sludge issues or the fact that I won't buy a Toyota. I have no agenda other than trying to point out that VI isn't everything in an oil data chart.


http://articles.latimes.com/2007/feb/09/business/fi-toyota9


I would consider 3,500,000 vehicles an issue, but the problem with Toyota is that they tried to deny it and claims for so long.

Now me not buying Toyota may be ignorant, but I remember how they dealt with this sludge issue initially and for that reason I choose not to own one.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: mase
I personally try to steer clear of the group 3's especially when the manufacturer still claims 100% full synthetic, but that has already been beaten to death. I am looking for a performance oil that won't sheer under extreme pressure and heat. Motors that put out 800+ horsepower and run high boost.

See, you think that the Toyota 0W-20 with your 216 VI is a better oil than say Motul 300V 0W-20 with a VI of 166 or Redline's version with VI of 172? Guess what, just because it has a higher VI doesn't make it better. From what I have read the Toyota oil shears quite a bit in stock low powered cars/suvs, so what would it do in a 800hp car running 40psi boost? I wouldn't want to find out. I'll take the oil with mostly base stocks and you can have the new polymers.

Light 0W-20 oils (HTHSV 2.6cP) are not for high temperature applications but can certainly be used to good effect when maximum oil temp's are kept low. And with low oil temp's the advantages of GP IV and GP V oils have been largely mitigated.
The following is the UOA of the GP III based Idemitsu 0W-20 fron my track car:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/idemitsu-honda-0w-20-3614-kms-caterham.187596/

Originally Posted By: mase

See, you think that the Toyota 0W-20 with your 216 VI is a better oil than say Motul 300V 0W-20 with a VI of 166 or Redline's version with VI of 172? Guess what, just because it has a higher VI doesn't make it better. From what I have read the Toyota oil shears quite a bit in stock low powered cars/suvs, so what would it do in a 800hp car running 40psi boost? I wouldn't want to find out. I'll take the oil with mostly base stocks and you can have the new polymers.

Comparing TGMO to Motul 300V 0W-20 (HTHSV 2.7cP) or even worse RL 0W-20 (HTHSV 2.9cP) is like comparing apples and oranges as
TGMO is a much lighter oil. In fact this 0W-30 blend would have a comprable normal operational viscosity to RL 0W-20 with the advantage of being lighter on start-up plus a higher HTHSV.
But if you want to compare a high VI 0W-20 oil to Motul I'd choose Sustina with it's 229 VI. It will be lighter than Motul 300V 0W-15 (155 VI, HTHSV 2.0cP) on start-up at temp's 50F and below but with a 2.6cP HTHSV vastly greater protection at normal operating temp's.

But if you are seeing high oil temp's where a heavier viscosity is required, yes I think RL 0W-40 (190 VI) is a great product or RLI 0W-30 (193 VI) which one member is using in his street driven only Enzo Ferrari.

And as far as leading edge outright race oils are concerned you need look no further than Mobil 1 R 0W-30 and 0W-50 (189 VI) and yes Mobil chooses to use polymer VIIs to formulate them.

 

[mase]

Quote:
Caterham doesnt grasp that concept and other concepts as well,thats why people have added him to the ol ignore list.



Sounds like a pretty good idea.

Issue dropped and Catterham ignored.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: mase
Quote:
Caterham doesnt grasp that concept and other concepts as well,thats why people have added him to the ol ignore list.

Sounds like a pretty good idea.
Issue dropped and Catterham ignored.

Many new members to BITOG hold closely held motor oil myths near and dear to their hearts. Many of our smartest members today also once did but gradually with time and an opened mind began to more fully understand the topic of motor oil viscosity. Some never do.

 

[buster]

I think many do understand viscosity though. I just don't think they are willing to dismiss all the other important components and specifications of an oil to gain a 20% higher VI. Oil formulations are like a balloon as someone once told me. You push too hard in one area, you expand/change another area.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: buster
I think many do understand viscosity though. I just don't think they are willing to dismiss all the other important components and specifications of an oil to gain a 20% higher VI. Oil formulations are like a balloon as someone once told me. You push too hard in one area, you expand/change another area.

Blending oils is of course a separate issue.
I don't believe there are any issues to speak of with this blend, they are after all both Mobil made oils and Mobil has given their okay.
But for those that still have reservations there are other options such a Sustina 0W-20/0W-50 blend; the additive chemistry is identical. I'm actually running 11% 0W-50 in my Caterham to raise the normal operational viscosity to that of TGMO, in the process I get a higher HTHSV of about 2.7cP while still being a bit lighter on start-up; there's the VI advantage again.

Or if you're entirely against blending just buy Sustina 5W-30 (194 VI). Not quite as effective as this blend but getting there. Or try the SynGard 5W-30 (206 VI) and it's` dexos 1 approved.
I know nothing about this oil and it's not available in eastern Canada but it's probably worth trying if you can find it.

But for value and availability it's hard to beat the TGMO/M1 0W-40 blend.