Caterham Blend Revisited: Best Modern Synthetic Oil In GDI Engines ?

Messages
2,230
Location
Southern Ontario
Originally Posted by gfh77665
That, EXACTLY, is why I called the "Caterham blend" and all such things nonsense. It just makes those who fancy themselves to be Jr. Chemists feel smart somehow.
I really don't understand why CATERHAM would vacate this site.
 
Last edited:
Messages
9,614
Location
Pennsylbammyvania
Originally Posted by Shannow
e.g https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3530483/Re:_Mixing_PP+M1 ... note the "pile on", correcting incorrect statements and the similar behaviors that he displays to another current (and regularly incorrect) poster ???
IF and when he was proven empirically/scientifically incorrect, whether about VIIs, or otherwise, YES, he should have been called out for such. wink But when one goes against the stated, status quo 'group think' on this site (i.e.; Super Tech, or whatever is the absolute cheapest oil out there is THE BEST, regardless of application/use smirk2 ), the said pile-ons ensue. frown BTW, please do not label me a 'fanboi' of his, as you will notice I am NOT using any sky-high VI/VII additized oils currently, nor any self-formulated 'blends'. wink (Although I am thinking about adding a liter of the Ravenol REP 5W-30 to the 5W-30 DXG fill, for the summer OCI, OH NOES!! hide )
 
Messages
2,524
Location
South Carolina
Originally Posted by Virtus_Probi
I know somebody on here posted that its Noack loss was under 8% and that sounds quite reasonable for a synth in that grade, I just wish I knew where the info came from!
Came straight from XOM. Ask and you shall receive! 7.6 to be exact. If you look at all the specs, other HM oils don't come close to M1 HM 10w-30.
 
Messages
43,676
Location
'Stralia
Originally Posted by dailydriver
BTW, please do not label me a 'fanboi' of his, as you will notice I am NOT using any sky-high VI/VII additized oils currently, nor any self-formulated 'blends'. wink
You'll note that I didn't label you anything, nor did I assume that my calling him out technically, and responding to his subsequent aggressiveness and repeatedly calling unto question the even presence of my quals was part of the "pile-on" that you were referring to, as it was simply calling out B$...his responses were untoward, and typically ill-informed (well basically often just made up like another current poster on lubrication "science") and hysterically wrong in the lengthy aggressive responses.. You might recall that there was a little board of fanbois who used to revel every time CLAPTRAPHAM took a swipe at me and call me a bully for calling him out...if you weren't on it, participating, then clearly you weren't one of them.
 
Messages
28,123
Location
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted by Shannow
No, he stated many many times, that * of COURSE two 0Ws ALWAYS creates a 0W * ASTM D6922 mandated that the above was true * That Appendix E, the base oil interchange guidelines validated mixing two fully formulated oils
That is true, but he was beginning to mellow at least on the first point. When I started my CATERHAM MIA thread a couple years back or whatever it was, he PMed me, and mentioned the Pennzoil Euro 0w-30 coming here. I got the distinct impression that he was no longer fully confident in the idea that the mix would truly be a 0w-XX.
 
Messages
5,361
Location
Paramount, California
The CATERHAM blend is the blend of two very similar oils, except for the viscosity. Of course, when you have a 50/50 mix of M1 0w-20 and M1 0W-40, it will be a 0W-30. We are not talking about mixing completely different oils here. If that were the case, yes, the result could be unexpected. In fact, if you look at the Exxon Mobil blending guide below, all the numbers for the 0W-30 are practically the arithmetic averages for the 0w-20 and 0W-40. [Linked Image]
 
Messages
5,361
Location
Paramount, California
I also don't see why a blend of Exxon Mobil TGMO 0W-20 and M1 FS 0W-40 (or the older M1 0W-40 formulations) wouldn't be a 0W-30. They both have very thin base oils and are heavy in VII to begin with and given that the latter also has some PAO and ester, with the rest being GTL, there is a snowball's chance in inferno that the resultant mix wouldn't pass the MRV and/or CCS tests for SAE 0W.
 
Messages
5,361
Location
Paramount, California
To give CATERHAM the credit he deserves, his motivation for his blend was his pursuit to optimize the HTHSV so that his oil pressure would be at the maximum at an RPM he desires, instead of at a lower or higher RPM. He had made the important discovery that the HTHSV governed the oil pressure, not the KV100 as one would naively think, which was a remarkable achievement. The problem with the available oils is that they are either ILSAC, which have HTHSV less than 3.1 cP, or ACEA, which have HTHSV more than 3.5 cP. He wanted something right in the middle to optimize his oil pressure and he achieved that by mixing an ILSAC oil with an ACEA oil. It was an honest effort.
 

ChrisD46

Thread starter
Messages
3,173
Location
GA.
*OP Here : My average speed over a few thousand miles is only 25 MPH with a 45 minute commute to work and back each day - thus I run a severe service schedule ...Of the WM oils available I believe current M1 5W30 , PPPP 5W30 and Valvoline Modern Engine 5W30 are best and always show very good UOA's ... Never been much of a fan of Castrol oil plus it's always the most expensive ... I'll not be mixing any Franken Brew oils after all .
Originally Posted by Brigadier
Originally Posted by Brigadier
Originally Posted by ChrisD46
*I just threw out the Caterham Blend as a possibility as both M1 0W20 and 0W40 synthetic oils have a strong following ... As for "what am I smoking " ? Are you aware that Hyundai has set aside over $800 million on replacement engines for the 2.4L Theta II engines (2014 - through at least 2017) ? - This is more than an "occasional problem" and points to a bad design of the Theta II engine (connecting rod bearings go and grenade the engine) . Also of interest to note that in the new Hyundai engines work order it states 5W30 oil and not 5W20 to be used in replacement engine fills at the dealer ... As for me , I use a 5W30 synthetic D1 / Gen 2 SN+ rated oil in my 2017 Sonata , keep it filled to "F" on the dipstick with no more than a 5K mile OCI and then hope I don't encounter the "Hyundai Theta II Death Knock" ... As for selling the Sonata GDI - the resale value has absolutely plummeted worse than the stock market of 2008 (or more recently from Oct. to Dec.) ... Lastly , why not at least explore or discuss the possible merits of a newer , better oil - blended or not ? ... As long as their is BITOG then such discussions can and have taken place - we can all choose not to participate - just say'n ...
If you are that worried about the Theta II issue, are you running your OCI longer than the manual recommends for severe service? It appears you are not. Just sayin..... BTW, I run my OCI at the severe service interval of 3750 miles, and my engine doesn't have the issues the Theta II does. But it is a Hyundai engine, so I am being extra careful, and my average speed is 26-27 MPH, so it seems reasonable to believe I am operating under severe service conditions anyway.
Actually, I meant to say it looks like you ARE running a longer OCI than the book recommends for severe service..... So why worry about the longevity of the engine, going to the effort of mixing oils, when you aren't even following the manual?
 
Messages
1,188
Location
WA
Originally Posted by ChrisD46
*OP Here : My average speed over a few thousand miles is only 25 MPH with a 45 minute commute to work and back each day - thus I run a severe service schedule ...
5k OCI is not the severe service schedule.
 
Messages
5,755
Location
New England
Originally Posted by ka9mnx
Originally Posted by Virtus_Probi
I know somebody on here posted that its Noack loss was under 8% and that sounds quite reasonable for a synth in that grade, I just wish I knew where the info came from!
Came straight from XOM. Ask and you shall receive! 7.6 to be exact. If you look at all the specs, other HM oils don't come close to M1 HM 10w-30.
Thank you very much! I did find that Valvoline FS HM 10W30 w/Maxlife advertises a 7.8% Noack loss, but it is only HTHS=3.2 compared to 3.5 for the M1...and I can't find that grade at my closest WM, either.
 
Messages
398
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted by dailydriver
Originally Posted by harbor
Anyone know what happened to forum member Caterham? Haven't heard from him in awhile.
Probably got sick and tired of all of the 'pile-ons' he was subjected to on here by the status quo (and I do not blame him at all for that!) wink
Agree 100% I used the Caterham blend in both my Sonata 2.4l with excellent results, With OCIs of 20 000-26 000kms.
 
Messages
9,427
Location
Pensacola & Vero Beach FL
Originally Posted by Gokhan
To give CATERHAM the credit he deserves, his motivation for his blend was his pursuit to optimize the HTHSV so that his oil pressure would be at the maximum at an RPM he desires, instead of at a lower or higher RPM. He had made the important discovery that the HTHSV governed the oil pressure, not the KV100 as one would naively think, which was a remarkable achievement. The problem with the available oils is that they are either ILSAC, which have HTHSV less than 3.1 cP, or ACEA, which have HTHSV more than 3.5 cP. He wanted something right in the middle to optimize his oil pressure and he achieved that by mixing an ILSAC oil with an ACEA oil. It was an honest effort.
Thank you for that. I don't question CATERHAM's motives or his effort. What is a problem in my eyes, however, is his pattern of drawing conclusions and making claims that simply aren't supportable given the evidence and standards at hand. Shannow, notably, has plowed that ground deeply and thoroughly already. This situation is further aggravated by his doggedly emotional and occasionally downright hostile defense of the plainly indefensible. EDIT: I should have added that I'm not claiming that everything he posted is incorrect, he did offer some good solid information too. Like the vast majority of members of this forum, I'm not an engineer of any sort (let alone a chemical/petro engineer), and my goal (beyond the fun of it) is of course to learn something. For that to work at all, you've got to remain teachable (and a bit of humility doesn't hurt either). CATERHAM didn't seem to get that at all.
 
Last edited:
Messages
34,490
Location
NJ
I wouldn't want to mix M1 0w20/TGMO and 0w40 simply due to the difference in their additive systems, not the viscosity. To me they are very different oils even if some of the base oils overlap. No harm will likely come of it, but I don't believe it is good to mix oils with different chemistry consistently. Compatible yes, ideal, no.
 
Messages
35,970
Location
NY
Originally Posted by buster
I wouldn't want to mix M1 0w20/TGMO and 0w40 simply due to the difference in their additive systems, not the viscosity. To me they are very different oils even if some of the base oils overlap. No harm will likely come of it, but I don't believe it is good to mix oils with different chemistry consistently. Compatible yes, ideal, no.
I agree, and will add to it the problem with the viscosity achieved. Math tells us 1+1=2, however when mixing different viscosities "hoping" for some desired viscosity based on simple math or a viscosity calculator, 1+1 doesn't always = 2.
 
Messages
13,226
Location
1/2 hr N.E. of Detroit
On the week of November 1st, when I do my winter OCI, I will be mixing four quarts of Castrol Edge Black 0W40 with two quarts of Mobil-1 AFE 0W20 for a 6K run to April 2020. Been doing this blending stuff for almost 30 years. 1st and last owner of my vehicles and when I drive the badly rusted vehicle to the junkyard 18 years later, there is no engine ticking - no blue smoke at startup and the engine runs / sounds perfect..... about 250/275k later. So your theory that this viscosity blending stuff is somewhat bad....well..... you are dead wrong about that. I am living proof. I want to be near a 0w33 with this blend and I should be knocking on that door. This summer I will run straight 0W40 in that Colorado 3.5. But not in Michigan's cold winter. This five cylinder engine has been treated delicato by me.
 
Last edited:
Messages
9,427
Location
Pensacola & Vero Beach FL
Originally Posted by Triple_Se7en
On the week of November 1st, when I do my winter OCI, I will be mixing four quarts of Castrol Edge Black 0W40 with two quarts of Mobil-1 AFE 0W20 for a 6K run to April 2020. Been doing this blending stuff for almost 30 years. 1st and last owner of my vehicles and when I drive the badly rusted vehicle to the junkyard 18 years later, there is no engine ticking - no blue smoke at startup and the engine runs / sounds perfect..... about 250/275k later. So your theory that this viscosity blending stuff is somewhat bad....well..... you are dead wrong about that. I am living proof. I want to be near a 0w33 with this blend and I should be knocking on that door. This summer I will run straight 0W40 in that Colorado 3.5. But not in Michigan's cold winter. This five cylinder engine has been treated delicato by me.
Obviously, it has worked for you, but the experience really only proves these things: 1. You have not reached the ultimate limit of your blends, whatever or wherever that may lie. That's good for you, but nobody (including you) knows when, where or how your mixtures will fail (ALL oils WILL fail -- it's only a question of when). No way to tell with this "protocol." 2. A misunderstanding of the SAE grading system. There's no such thing as an "0w-33" oil. The SAE numbers, of course, represent ranges of viscosities. You can attempt to calculate the viscosity in centiStokes of specific mixture, or you could send a sample to a lab for an actual reading. Then you can say, "the resulting mix tests (or calculates) as x cSt, and therefore would fall within the 30 wt range. 3. You enjoy mixing oils, presumably hoping to derive some benefit from doing so. That's perfectly OK, it's your equipment and money and I really hope it continues to work out for you. Seriously. But I won't be doing it. wink Enjoy.
 
Last edited:
Messages
5,361
Location
Paramount, California
Originally Posted by ekpolk
Originally Posted by Gokhan
To give CATERHAM the credit he deserves, his motivation for his blend was his pursuit to optimize the HTHSV so that his oil pressure would be at the maximum at an RPM he desires, instead of at a lower or higher RPM. He had made the important discovery that the HTHSV governed the oil pressure, not the KV100 as one would naively think, which was a remarkable achievement. The problem with the available oils is that they are either ILSAC, which have HTHSV less than 3.1 cP, or ACEA, which have HTHSV more than 3.5 cP. He wanted something right in the middle to optimize his oil pressure and he achieved that by mixing an ILSAC oil with an ACEA oil. It was an honest effort.
Thank you for that. I don't question CATERHAM's motives or his effort. What is a problem in my eyes, however, is his pattern of drawing conclusions and making claims that simply aren't supportable given the evidence and standards at hand. Shannow, notably, has plowed that ground deeply and thoroughly already. This situation is further aggravated by his doggedly emotional and occasionally downright hostile defense of the plainly indefensible. EDIT: I should have added that I'm not claiming that everything he posted is incorrect, he did offer some good solid information too. Like the vast majority of members of this forum, I'm not an engineer of any sort (let alone a chemical/petro engineer), and my goal (beyond the fun of it) is of course to learn something. For that to work at all, you've got to remain teachable (and a bit of humility doesn't hurt either). CATERHAM didn't seem to get that at all.
CATERHAM is a scientist by education. He chose to do insurance for a living. If he hadn't studied science, he wouldn't be able carry out and analyze his ingenious experiments on oil pressure and oil blends. I don't mix oil because I am a purist. However, mixing oil is OK if you want to have fun with it. You can experiment and do UOAs. There is nothing wrong with that. Mixing a 0W-20 and 0W-40 will result in a 0W-xx virtually in all cases, as both have very thin synthetic base oils. 0W-40 usually has more VII, which increases the MRV and also the CCS to some degree but you're diluting it; so, in most cases, it will still be a 0W-xx, and even if it barely becomes a 5W-xx, it's no big deal. Regarding the additives, yes, there can be problems, but I don't expect anything drastic, as we are talking about motor oil vs. motor oil, not motor oil vs. transmission fluid. As an extreme example, if one oil relies entirely on ZDDP and another entirely on friction modifier with no ZDDP to protect against wear, the resultant mix will have only half the ZDDP and half the friction modifier, which may not pass the engine wear test, but again, there won't be anything drastic that would damage your engine and you may not even see more wear in your UOA. Besides, even the oil companies often fail regarding additive synergy and base-oil interchangeability -- high iron levels in some Mobil 1 oils in the past and high lead levels in Red Line probably have to do with the additive and base-oil synergy and the recent failure of Mobil Delvac to pass the Volvo oxidation test probably has to do with base-oil interchangeability. In each case, these oils would have failed a retest. Oil science is a very gray subject and it's probably more of an art than a science. There is nothing wrong if motor-oil enthusiasts on BITOG and elsewhere want to have fun with mixing different oils to create their own blend.
 
Top