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

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM


Of course that's what I'm rationalizing! If it wasn't OK, we'd be forced to stick to a particular brand/blend.
[/quote]
And that is the whole point, it is totally OK to change brands, top up with with another brand or blend to your hearts content.

I've quoted what Castrol says on the practice before but I'll quote it again because I don't know of a formulator that doesn't share the same viewpoint:

"Syntec is a fully formulated, super premium motor oil and is fully compatible with all conventional and synthetic motor oils.
Mixing Syntec with a premium oil will improve the performance of the oil and not harm your engine in any way. However, by diluting Syntec, you also dilute its effectiveness. We recommend that you use 100% Syntec every time you change your oil to get the maximum benefit."

The fact that you don't appreciate the practice except on your terms and don't fully understand the concept of operational viscosity is fine but one has to wonder why you and a few others so vehemently ridicule those that do .
I suspect it's a simple case of jealousy. One thing's for sure, you certainly don't believe in a live and let live policy with those that don't share your viewpoint.

I've never ridiculed anyone for sticking with the same brand, following OEM recommendations to the letter or even recommended a blend to someone that wasn't already interested.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

And that is the whole point, it is totally OK to change brands, top up with with another brand or blend to your hearts content.


Yet:

Quote:
I've quoted what Castrol says on the practice before but I'll quote it again because I don't know of a formulator that doesn't share the same viewpoint:

"Syntec is a fully formulated, super premium motor oil and is fully compatible with all conventional and synthetic motor oils.
Mixing Syntec with a premium oil will improve the performance of the oil and not harm your engine in any way. However, by diluting Syntec, you also dilute its effectiveness. We recommend that you use 100% Syntec every time you change your oil to get the maximum benefit."


You don't seem to appreciate what this statement implies

And there are other similar statements about oils being "less effective" when mixed from other majors. Being "OK" doesn't mean that it is OPTIMAL or that it will provide the same performance as a fully-formulated and tested product. Which is the point I've made what seems like a million times

Quote:
The fact that you don't appreciate the practice except on your terms and don't fully understand the concept of operational viscosity is fine but one has to wonder why you and a few others so vehemently ridicule those that do .
I suspect it's a simple case of jealousy. One thing's for sure, you certainly don't believe in a live and let live policy with those that don't share your viewpoint.


You really don't see the tone of your posts do you? The fact that they drip with condescension and holier than thou, are you truly that oblivious?

You can't tell me I'm a jealous moron and then tell me I "don't believe in live and let live". That's like punching me in the nuts and telling me I'm being unfair for getting upset with you.

Quote:
I've never ridiculed anyone for sticking with the same brand, following OEM recommendations to the letter or even recommended a blend to someone that wasn't already interested.


No, instead you imply that they are imbeciles that don't understand the concept of viscosity and don't appreciate the importance of VI. And you do it CONSTANTLY. And when they DO mention the importance of other characteristics, you dismiss them, then parrot the same tripe all over again! I'm NOT the only one who notices this!

I don't know if you intend to come across the way you do, but I truly believe that if you want more people to appreciate what you are trying to accomplish that you should ease up on implying that they are all stupid. I know I'm not stupid. And the fact that you assume I don't understand something because I disagree with your position is not a great way to win me over.

 

[Capa]

Originally Posted By: DragRace
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.


Sure, and I wouldn't dispute that about an VOA or an UOA nor would I dispute that several tear downs would be the only way to really know the truth. You have to realize, though, that this is a sword that cuts both ways since no one on this site ever produces tear downs.

 

[JAG]

Caterham, there is no point in you and me discussing this matter further until after you dive deep into literature searches on additives and chemistry of oil formulating. Until then, of course you are going to have the same opinions as you had yesterday. The Interesting Articles sub-forum is worth checking out as well as good old-fashioned Internet searches.

 

[pbm]

I just purchased some TGMO with the intention of doing some 'Caterham Blending' with Mobil 1 0w40.
I like the idea that I can mix 3.5 qts. of TGMO with a qt. of Mobil 1 0w40 and have a great cold weather oil that is thicker than the typical 5w20 and yet has better cold flow properties.
The fact that ExxonMobil doesn't discourage the practice tells me something.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: pbm
I just purchased some TGMO with the intention of doing some 'Caterham Blending' with Mobil 1 0w40.
I like the idea that I can mix 3.5 qts. of TGMO with a qt. of Mobil 1 0w40 and have a great cold weather oil that is thicker than the typical 5w20 and yet has better cold flow properties.
The fact that ExxonMobil doesn't discourage the practice tells me something.


I've got a few quarts of M1 0w-40 as well as Belgian castrol I was going to blend into 20 grades of the same brand for my fox however I managed to dig up some devlac elite 222 0w-30 and I've got a few jugs of PU 5w-30,so I wasn't gonna bother.
And I used the 5 random quarts of M1 5w-20 into the 5.0 just to see how it would work out as far as oil pressure.
I can say the old girl feels a bit more zippy.

 

[vinu_neuro]

Courtesy of my university I have unlimited access to the SAE library. Having read more papers than I can count over the last few years by OEM's and additive suppliers, this practice of mixing different oils is a joke if you know how difficult it is to balance the formulations. Here's an excerpt one from last night below. Another one by Chevron Oronite discussed ash limits, just reducing the detergent level had implications on wear with same phosphorous in place, or the zero-phosphorous formulation that produced some of the best ring/liner and cam wear they'd seen, but was compromised in another way. There are numerous such examples of how difficult additive balancing is.

Caterham is borderline trolling, not just because of advocating mixing oils.

We're getting to a point in this forum that people who don't know any better would be better off having not joined.

Engine Oil Effects on Fuel Economy in GM
Vehicles -- Separation of Viscosity and
Friction Modifier Effects

A group at Ford [6-8] used bench tests to investigate the
interactions between friction modifiers and other
additives, especially ZDDP, in engine oils. They focused
on how these interactions influence the FE properties of
the lubricant as it ages during use. A used engine oil lost
its friction reduction capabilities before the depletion of
the MoDTC (Molybdenum DiThioCarbamate) friction
modifier; this indicated the importance of additive interactions
[6]. Mo-containing friction modifiers will react
with the ZDDP, and the reaction products greatly influence
the friction-reducing properties of the engine oil [7].
The degree of interaction was highly dependent on the
type of the basestock, the temperature, and the other
additives in the oil [7, 8]. The importance of these interactions
in maintaining the friction-reducing properties of
the oil during usage was emphasized.

 

[JAG]

Thank you vinu_neuro. There has been a lot of research on interactions because of how important, complicated, and unpredictable it is.

 

[cp3]

CATERHAM is trolling?

Which side of this debate made the first post that was not a comment on the UOA?

pbm & Clevy don't let CATERHAM assimilate you!! RUN! You will be doomed to walk the depths of the lubrication underworld for all eternity!

Does CATERHAM have horns?...

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: vinu_neuro
Courtesy of my university I have unlimited access to the SAE library. Having read more papers than I can count over the last few years by OEM's and additive suppliers, this practice of mixing different oils is a joke if you know how difficult it is to balance the formulations. Here's an excerpt one from last night below. Another one by Chevron Oronite discussed ash limits, just reducing the detergent level had implications on wear with same phosphorous in place, or the zero-phosphorous formulation that produced some of the best ring/liner and cam wear they'd seen, but was compromised in another way. There are numerous such examples of how difficult additive balancing is.

Caterham is borderline trolling, not just because of advocating mixing oils.

We're getting to a point in this forum that people who don't know any better would be better off having not joined.

Engine Oil Effects on Fuel Economy in GM
Vehicles -- Separation of Viscosity and
Friction Modifier Effects

A group at Ford [6-8] used bench tests to investigate the
interactions between friction modifiers and other
additives, especially ZDDP, in engine oils. They focused
on how these interactions influence the FE properties of
the lubricant as it ages during use. A used engine oil lost
its friction reduction capabilities before the depletion of
the MoDTC (Molybdenum DiThioCarbamate) friction
modifier; this indicated the importance of additive interactions
[6]. Mo-containing friction modifiers will react
with the ZDDP, and the reaction products greatly influence
the friction-reducing properties of the engine oil [7].
The degree of interaction was highly dependent on the
type of the basestock, the temperature, and the other
additives in the oil [7, 8]. The importance of these interactions
in maintaining the friction-reducing properties of
the oil during usage was emphasized.


Thanks!

 

[buster]

Quote:
We're getting to a point in this forum that people who don't know any better would be better off having not joined.



Agree.

 

[pbm]

Originally Posted By: buster
Quote:
We're getting to a point in this forum that people who don't know any better would be better off having not joined.



Agree.




This could also be said for voting in elections.....and that has far greater consequences than mixing oils....

 

[pbm]

Before finding BITOG I would regularly add a qt. or 2 of synthetic to dino to 'fortify' the blend. I wasn't trying to outsmart the oil blenders but rather use up odd quarts of oil. (For instance, I would buy a case of 12 quarts and have 3 left over after doing 2 oil changes...I would then mix these 3 with a quart and a half of synthetic....preferably from the same brand...to have enough for an oil change).
This is one reason I like the idea of adding Mobil 1 0w40 to TGMO...a 12 quart case of TGMO leaves me approx. 3 qts. shy of 3 complete oil changes (as I stated earlier, I also like the idea of slightly thickening the 0w20 without losing much in cold weather properties.

If I purchased a new Mazda, Toyota, Honda etc...that called for these super thin 0w20's, I would use the 0w20 alone but in my 08' Corolla that originally called for 5w30 (and was back-spec'd to 0w20,5w20 or 5w30) or my 08' Elantra that called for 5w20, I don't see the harm in using 4 qts. TGMO and .5 qt. of M1 (or some such mix) inorder to
use the 12 qt. case.

Since joining this site, I do understand that mixing oils with different additive packages (such as high moly PYB with no moly VWB) can result in a mixture that doesn't have enough of either additive package to be fully effective BUT when the mixture is made of similar oils from the same manufacturer, I see less of an issue.

PS: As far a Caterham being a 'troll', I totally disagree.
Many auto makers (Japanese in particular) are now spec'ing these ultra high VI, super thin oils and Caterham agrees with their thinking. I find the whole thought process intriguing and time will tell if the rest of the industry follows.

 

[PostalBound]

CATERHAM WINS ! Why ? He owns a Lotus, Porsche, and BMW. 'Nuff said.

 

[cp3]

Yet, if you check the FAQ section on a lot of oil companies websites they say that it is ok to mix?

As far as the comments regarding being better off not joining, are you guys serious? This is a small group here, do you really think that this practice is worse than what is possibly done to engines outside of BITOG members? Really? I've seen and heard recommendations like run ATF or diesel in the engine, run the engine while it's draining and shut it a minute after the oil stops running out. I know people that don't change their oil or very infrequently with the cheapest oil and filter they can find. Is any of this more healthy for the engine than CATERHAM's suggestions? Why not crusade to spread good practices farther than the forty some thousand members here?

Clearly, oil compatibility is an API requirement. Is this blend the be all and end all of lubrication? Obviously not. Is it an optimal formulation? Likely not. Do I need full capability of M1 0w40 in my cars? Very unlikely. Could I run TGMO without issue? Possibly long enough that I would not know the difference, possibly not. Could this blend provide adequate lubrication and the benefit of a higher VI? Possibly? Probably?

I'm sorry but I don't see that CATERHAM is ignoring "science". Does that then mean that people who don't agree with mixing are ignoring the manufacturers and API? I don't believe that am, or CATERHAM and any of the others who mix oils, are smarter than XOM, SOPUS, Ashland, BP or even lowly Petro-Canada. I do believe that formulating oil is a complicated process that is far beyond my understanding. I am not formulating oil, I mixed two together, as many oil companies and API have said is ok to do.

 

[Nate1979]

This thread seemed to almost exclusively focus on the fact that mixing may or may not be a good idea. In this case the engine seemed to handle it ok. However I missed seeing any comments that mixing had no positive effects. The wear levels were near identical. The blend showed to not shear but that didnt affect the wear numbers. So what was the point?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: cp3
Yet, if you check the FAQ section on a lot of oil companies websites they say that it is ok to mix?


OK? Certainly. But even the quote that CATERHAM used to attempt to bolster his point indicated that it wasn't optimal.

Quote:
I know people that don't change their oil or very infrequently with the cheapest oil and filter they can find. Is any of this more healthy for the engine than CATERHAM's suggestions? Why not crusade to spread good practices farther than the forty some thousand members here?


Well, this discussion/these discussions are taking place on a site full of OCD people who are all obsessed with motor oil. This is why we have conflicts over the minutia. It is a "par for the course" BITOG discussion. And hopefully, at the end, all participants will have learned something.

Quote:
Clearly, oil compatibility is an API requirement. Is this blend the be all and end all of lubrication? Obviously not. Is it an optimal formulation? Likely not. Do I need full capability of M1 0w40 in my cars? Very unlikely. Could I run TGMO without issue? Possibly long enough that I would not know the difference, possibly not. Could this blend provide adequate lubrication and the benefit of a higher VI? Possibly? Probably?

I'm sorry but I don't see that CATERHAM is ignoring "science". Does that then mean that people who don't agree with mixing are ignoring the manufacturers and API? I don't believe that am, or CATERHAM and any of the others who mix oils, are smarter than XOM, SOPUS, Ashland, BP or even lowly Petro-Canada. I do believe that formulating oil is a complicated process that is far beyond my understanding. I am not formulating oil, I mixed two together, as many oil companies and API have said is ok to do.


Certainly. And your approach and acknowledgement of the potential caveats seems very level-headed. I have no issue with what you've stated here.

What those of us who have posted in this thread have issue with is the "VI Quest" with all other contributing factors to a lubricant's performance seemingly dismissed as irrelevant. That's why I brought up the OEM, API and ACEA testing protocols. That's why JAG has brought up that the blending of different formulations may result in a less than ideal mix with the product not performing as well as either of the products on their own. These are legitimate concerns and should be discussed. However, what continues to happen is that we get blown off for not worshiping at the altar of VI, singing its praises as the sole important trait, and then subsequently get told that we are idiots who simply don't understand viscosity. I'm sorry, I understand viscosity just fine. I understand VI, what it is, what it means. My hang up is on the WEIGHT (pardon the pun!) that it is assigned in these discussions, seemingly with complete and utter disregard for the other contributors that ultimately lead to the final performance of the lubricant.

Is a lubricant with a high VI desirable? Certainly! That's why lubricants have in general been trending upwards in Viscosity Index, that's why certain OEM's, in many applications, are using high-VI oils. Some of the OEM's are even having these products produced for them and sold under that OEM's moniker, such as the Toyota lubricant we are discussing here. There is no denying the advantage of a lubricant thickening less as it cools and thinning less at elevated temperatures. But there is more to a lubricant's performance than this. And a lower-VI lubricant is not inherently inferior in performance (assuming your metric is more than simply how thin it is on startup) than a high-VI one. Because oils are a blend of components that result in a specific performance envelope, one that can be easily identified by the sum of its approvals. This is factual data. One of the concerns here, and probably the primary concern expressed in this thread is that by upsetting that balance of components that ultimately the advantage one might have reaped in increasing the relative Viscosity Index may be counteracted by the reduction of performance in other areas. Subsequently, the only way to know for sure would be to have the blend evaluated in the same manner as the oils used to make it are. But since that hasn't happened, we NEED to acknowledge that there is certainly the potential for the product to have poorer performance than the contributing products on their own and that this is the risk. I have yet to see that acknowledgement. Instead, we get poo poo'd as jealous fools incapable of grasping the magnitude of the divinity of the Holy VI and its omnipotence.

 

[virginoil]

Originally Posted By: vinu_neuro
........... Having read more papers than I can count over the last few years by OEM's and additive suppliers, this practice of mixing different oils is a joke if you know how difficult it is to balance the formulations. ....................
............[/i]


Agreed.
Approved.
+1

Compared with some members I am not as learned as some on this matter of mixing oils which was always what BITOG was about finding the magic elixir. Never on BITOG can I recall mixing being promoted as the way of finding the magic oil. It does sound like a joke the way its promoted in 'mix away' by some.

Old school had more respect for the formulators employed to this as payed professionals.

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
what continues to happen is that we get blown off for not worshiping at the altar of VI, singing its praises as the sole important trait, and then subsequently get told that we are idiots who simply don't understand viscosity. ..... Instead, we get poo poo'd as jealous fools incapable of grasping the magnitude of the divinity of the Holy VI and its omnipotence.


Too funny!

Maybe 'Holy VI' looks something like the hideous Cthulu, with many giant PMA VII molecule arms that extend when he is angered.

 

[Capa]

I think that it is sad that this thread, along with several others in this vast forum, has been derailed by this witch hunt. Believe it or not, people were mixing oils in this forum way before Caterham joined, in fact people have been doing this for decades with no ill effects. The fact that I can run an oil with sodium and then two OCI's later some sodium shows up even though the previous two oils didn't contain any shows that everyone mixes oils, whether they are for it and against it.

The fact that even oil manufacturers state that it is ok to mix should be an eye opener to some. It wouldn't make any sense for an oil company to make an oil that it's not compatible with other oils. People keep on saying how oils are carefully balanced and yet we have all seen the variance within batches. What about those variances my fellow wannabe chemists?

If you have a major problem with mixing oils and then the onus is on you to provide evidence to the contrary. Those of us that have mixed oils have provided UOA's, VOA's, and the butt dyno as evidence and you have provided nothing but the theoretical possibility that it may not be feasible even though for decades people have been mixing. Moreover, calling people trolls adds nothing to the discussion.