4wd
$50 site donor 2026
Ran it last summer in GM 5.3L … engine was quiet and no effect on the VVT …
Do you think that's "thick" oil? Think again!
- Thread starter Gokhan
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Engine tests are expensive and time consuming, which is why they are done far later in the development process once one has come close to a final product.
And probably quite a few bench test were ran to develop, screen and then choose which oils actually go into those expensive live fired engine tests.
Engine tests are expensive and time consuming, which is why they are done far later in the development process once one has come close to a final product.
And probably quite a few bench test were ran to develop, screen and then choose which oils actually go into those expensive live fired engine tests.
Originally Posted By: Hammehead
So how long take to settle in decantation most above 3 micron metals in a 0w40 oil. One week? Two weeks? Silica and carbon soot, one month, two months? I still do 6 months at half 10k oci. No filter is better than gravity, given enough time. M 2 rules, for those who get me...
Yeh, I've thought for about as long as I can remember that seasonal oil changes with offline cleanup and re-use would be better than just extending the OCI, but I've been too lazy to set it up.
Also I don't really have anywhere to set up offline oil cleaning, and had to throw away some junk water filtration stuff I was thinking of using for it.
Need a shed.
So how long take to settle in decantation most above 3 micron metals in a 0w40 oil. One week? Two weeks? Silica and carbon soot, one month, two months? I still do 6 months at half 10k oci. No filter is better than gravity, given enough time. M 2 rules, for those who get me...
Yeh, I've thought for about as long as I can remember that seasonal oil changes with offline cleanup and re-use would be better than just extending the OCI, but I've been too lazy to set it up.
Also I don't really have anywhere to set up offline oil cleaning, and had to throw away some junk water filtration stuff I was thinking of using for it.
Need a shed.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Engine tests are expensive and time consuming, which is why they are done far later in the development process once one has come close to a final product.
And probably quite a few bench test were ran to develop, screen and then choose which oils actually go into those expensive live fired engine tests.
One of the RAT threads, someone put up a youtube video of a Shell (or Pennzoil ??) oil development lab and pointed to the timken style machine contained therein as proof of Rat's methodology...was used by the majors.
In the video they even explained that it was purely a screening test, to determine which oils went to the engine tests.
So screening test -> actual test -> screening test makes no sense.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Engine tests are expensive and time consuming, which is why they are done far later in the development process once one has come close to a final product.
And probably quite a few bench test were ran to develop, screen and then choose which oils actually go into those expensive live fired engine tests.
One of the RAT threads, someone put up a youtube video of a Shell (or Pennzoil ??) oil development lab and pointed to the timken style machine contained therein as proof of Rat's methodology...was used by the majors.
In the video they even explained that it was purely a screening test, to determine which oils went to the engine tests.
So screening test -> actual test -> screening test makes no sense.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
It's not a four-ball test. It's a test used to measure and plot the Stribeck curve for a given lubricant, the fundamental curve of lubrication.
While engine tests are good, they could even be more irrelevant to real-life situations since every engine is different and even a used engine is different than a new one. An oil that may work for a 2018 Camry could destroy a 1969 Mustang in a few hundred miles and so on. On the other hand, these machines tests are universal and reproducible and are great supplements to engine tests and fleet tests.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Here is a link that works:
"Global perspective on base-oil quality and how it affects lubricant specifications (or Global perspective on lubricant specifications and how it affects base-oil quality)" by John Rosenbaum, Chevron global base oils (PDF link).
Thanks
It's not a four-ball test. It's a test used to measure and plot the Stribeck curve for a given lubricant, the fundamental curve of lubrication.
While engine tests are good, they could even be more irrelevant to real-life situations since every engine is different and even a used engine is different than a new one. An oil that may work for a 2018 Camry could destroy a 1969 Mustang in a few hundred miles and so on. On the other hand, these machines tests are universal and reproducible and are great supplements to engine tests and fleet tests.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Here is a link that works:
"Global perspective on base-oil quality and how it affects lubricant specifications (or Global perspective on lubricant specifications and how it affects base-oil quality)" by John Rosenbaum, Chevron global base oils (PDF link).
Thanks
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Aren't most of the studies cited and research posted in this thread pre-current additive technology. Not saying that base oil technology and viscosity spread isn't still important but more and more it seems like additives are coming to the forefront of protection. For instance, dexos1 Gen2 now having timing chain specific parameters in everything from, i believe 0W16 to 5W30. *devils advocate *
Yes, have received disparaging comments in the past about papers not being "fresh", or "wikifresh".
Anyone got any "fresh" papers discounting viscosity ? :devils devils advocate:
I know I've just posted a requirement for a logical fallacy, but asking for stuff that is most likely proprietary information, and using it for proof of the negative argument is logical fallacy in and of itself.
Everything over tens of decades is that
a) component separation, for any other selection of parameters is provided by viscosity (hydrodynamic OR squeeze film)
b) When MOFT gets down to the level that asperities make contact
b) i) wear and friction occurs
b) ii) wear and can be ameliorated (not eliminated) by additives.
:Ockham's Razor:
Anyone got any "fresh" papers discounting viscosity ? :devils devils advocate:
I know I've just posted a requirement for a logical fallacy, but asking for stuff that is most likely proprietary information, and using it for proof of the negative argument is logical fallacy in and of itself.
Everything over tens of decades is that
a) component separation, for any other selection of parameters is provided by viscosity (hydrodynamic OR squeeze film)
b) When MOFT gets down to the level that asperities make contact
b) i) wear and friction occurs
b) ii) wear and can be ameliorated (not eliminated) by additives.
:Ockham's Razor:
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: turnbowm
So, 10W30 over 5W30 for lower timing chain wear but 5W30 over 10W30 for lower start-up wear?
The latter only at -20C or below.
Majority of engine wear (in particular startup/warmup wear) are corrosion wear, which are temperature-dependent and additive pack-dependent.
I consider the line of thought that lower viscosity grade engine oil causes 'lesser' startup wear than higher viscosity grade engine oil as a myth, which is popular here in Bitog though.
Originally Posted By: turnbowm
So, 10W30 over 5W30 for lower timing chain wear but 5W30 over 10W30 for lower start-up wear?
The latter only at -20C or below.
Majority of engine wear (in particular startup/warmup wear) are corrosion wear, which are temperature-dependent and additive pack-dependent.
I consider the line of thought that lower viscosity grade engine oil causes 'lesser' startup wear than higher viscosity grade engine oil as a myth, which is popular here in Bitog though.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Engine tests are expensive and time consuming, which is why they are done far later in the development process once one has come close to a final product.
And probably quite a few bench test were ran to develop, screen and then choose which oils actually go into those expensive live fired engine tests.
Exactly
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Engine tests are expensive and time consuming, which is why they are done far later in the development process once one has come close to a final product.
And probably quite a few bench test were ran to develop, screen and then choose which oils actually go into those expensive live fired engine tests.
Exactly
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
So, 0W-20 is likely to have a thicker base oil than 0W-40! In fact in my used oil analysis comparison of 0W-20 and 0W-40, I did find out that 0W-20 produced less valvetrain wear (less iron [Fe]) than 0W-40!
First off, you didn't actually measure wear. Secondly, you are using TGMO as your 0w-20 example, which we know is not PAO-based, and subsequently doesn't in any way compare to what's shown in that Mobil chart.
Majority of engine wear is corrosion wear (which does not corelates with engine oil viscosity grades), whilst minority are other forms of wear like adhesion wear, abrasion wear etc, which are viscosity grade related.
Hence,the assumption that a lower viscosity grade engine oil causes lesser (implying solely adhesion and abrasion) wear than that of a higher viscosity grade is flawed in my opinion.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
So, 0W-20 is likely to have a thicker base oil than 0W-40! In fact in my used oil analysis comparison of 0W-20 and 0W-40, I did find out that 0W-20 produced less valvetrain wear (less iron [Fe]) than 0W-40!
First off, you didn't actually measure wear. Secondly, you are using TGMO as your 0w-20 example, which we know is not PAO-based, and subsequently doesn't in any way compare to what's shown in that Mobil chart.
Majority of engine wear is corrosion wear (which does not corelates with engine oil viscosity grades), whilst minority are other forms of wear like adhesion wear, abrasion wear etc, which are viscosity grade related.
Hence,the assumption that a lower viscosity grade engine oil causes lesser (implying solely adhesion and abrasion) wear than that of a higher viscosity grade is flawed in my opinion.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Yes, have received disparaging comments in the past about papers not being "fresh", or "wikifresh".
Anyone got any "fresh" papers discounting viscosity ? :devils devils advocate:
I know I've just posted a requirement for a logical fallacy, but asking for stuff that is most likely proprietary information, and using it for proof of the negative argument is logical fallacy in and of itself.
Everything over tens of decades is that
a) component separation, for any other selection of parameters is provided by viscosity (hydrodynamic OR squeeze film)
b) When MOFT gets down to the level that asperities make contact
b) i) wear and friction occurs
b) ii) wear and can be ameliorated (not eliminated) by additives.
:Ockham's Razor:
Haha "wikifresh" I will borrow that one Shannow.
My comment isn't meant as an indictment of said studies, heck! I love reading them. I'm just trying to put things into context since contemporary research may be addressing the results/issues brought to light by previous studies and that's where these new certifications and approvals come from. Now, will they properly address the issues after real-world testing has some years under it's belt? We have to wait and see.
I hope this makes sense.
Yes, have received disparaging comments in the past about papers not being "fresh", or "wikifresh".
Anyone got any "fresh" papers discounting viscosity ? :devils devils advocate:
I know I've just posted a requirement for a logical fallacy, but asking for stuff that is most likely proprietary information, and using it for proof of the negative argument is logical fallacy in and of itself.
Everything over tens of decades is that
a) component separation, for any other selection of parameters is provided by viscosity (hydrodynamic OR squeeze film)
b) When MOFT gets down to the level that asperities make contact
b) i) wear and friction occurs
b) ii) wear and can be ameliorated (not eliminated) by additives.
:Ockham's Razor:
Haha "wikifresh" I will borrow that one Shannow.
My comment isn't meant as an indictment of said studies, heck! I love reading them. I'm just trying to put things into context since contemporary research may be addressing the results/issues brought to light by previous studies and that's where these new certifications and approvals come from. Now, will they properly address the issues after real-world testing has some years under it's belt? We have to wait and see.
I hope this makes sense.
I was entertaining the thought of putting Castrol 5W-40 in my '18 Mustang 2.3 when I do the first oil change. I guess I'm actually better off having bought Pennzoil Platinum 5w30? Just trying to protect that turbo as best I can in the Texas heat.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
CK-4 also lists in the applications "high-performance gasoline engines requiring API SN." The ultimate oil for BMW, Corvette, and alike?
Delvac 1 has hung onto the wording for a while.
CK-4 also lists in the applications "high-performance gasoline engines requiring API SN." The ultimate oil for BMW, Corvette, and alike?
Delvac 1 has hung onto the wording for a while.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
CK-4 also lists in the applications "high-performance gasoline engines requiring API SN." The ultimate oil for BMW, Corvette, and alike?
Delvac 1 has hung onto the wording for a while.
So, now, the conventional Mobil Delvac 1300 Super 15w40 CK-4/SN is also listing high-performance gasoline engines.
It's too bad that both the moly and phosphorus have dropped since CJ-4. They are still strong in SN without CJ-4 {phosphorus being strong in thicker grades).
PQIA HDEO list
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
CK-4 also lists in the applications "high-performance gasoline engines requiring API SN." The ultimate oil for BMW, Corvette, and alike?
Delvac 1 has hung onto the wording for a while.
So, now, the conventional Mobil Delvac 1300 Super 15w40 CK-4/SN is also listing high-performance gasoline engines.
It's too bad that both the moly and phosphorus have dropped since CJ-4. They are still strong in SN without CJ-4 {phosphorus being strong in thicker grades).
PQIA HDEO list
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
So, now, the conventional Mobil Delvac 1300 Super 15w40 CK-4/SN is also listing high-performance gasoline engines.
Oh, I didn't notice that. I haven't looked at the 15w40 sheet since the CJ-4 rollout, let alone the CK-4 one.
So, now, the conventional Mobil Delvac 1300 Super 15w40 CK-4/SN is also listing high-performance gasoline engines.
Oh, I didn't notice that. I haven't looked at the 15w40 sheet since the CJ-4 rollout, let alone the CK-4 one.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
I will probably start following my manual and use 10w30 in the next OCI. Perhaps, I'll put in the new Pennzoil Platinum SN Plus 10w30, which will become available next month.
An ILSAC 10W30...go for it...do the Harman Index thing to confirm.
Have a play with this concept...
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4717883/Re:_Which_two_oils_would_you_m#Post4717883
I've calculated the A_Harman index for Pennzoil Platinum 10w30:
Assuming HTHSV = 3.00 cP, A_Harman index = 0.929
Assuming HTHSV = 3.10 cP, A_Harman index = 0.960
Assuming HTHSV = 3.15 cP, A_Harman index = 0.975
So, chances are that the A_Harman index for Pennzoil Platinum 10w30 is at least 0.960 or above. It's practically a SAE 30 monograde with a naturally high viscosity index, low CCS, and low MRV. It would be great for protecting the timing chain, valvetrain, piston rings, etc. if you believe the claims in the Nissan paper in the original post. NOACK is also assumed to be exceptional (reported by Shell to be 4.7% in the past).
How to calculate the A_Harman index
An inexpensive non-ILSAC alternative is Pennzoil High Mileage 10w30...Your engine will be turbine smooth with that big shot of Moly.
http://www.shell-livedocs.com/data/published/en-US/feb71e8a-e004-4c0f-a31d-a327f9a1115e.pdf
Mobil 1 High Mileage 10w30 ACEA A3/B3 is a great alternative as well.
https://www.mobil.com/English-US/Passenger-Vehicle-Lube/pds/NAXXMobil-1-High-Mileage-Oils
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
I will probably start following my manual and use 10w30 in the next OCI. Perhaps, I'll put in the new Pennzoil Platinum SN Plus 10w30, which will become available next month.
An ILSAC 10W30...go for it...do the Harman Index thing to confirm.
Have a play with this concept...
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4717883/Re:_Which_two_oils_would_you_m#Post4717883
I've calculated the A_Harman index for Pennzoil Platinum 10w30:
Assuming HTHSV = 3.00 cP, A_Harman index = 0.929
Assuming HTHSV = 3.10 cP, A_Harman index = 0.960
Assuming HTHSV = 3.15 cP, A_Harman index = 0.975
So, chances are that the A_Harman index for Pennzoil Platinum 10w30 is at least 0.960 or above. It's practically a SAE 30 monograde with a naturally high viscosity index, low CCS, and low MRV. It would be great for protecting the timing chain, valvetrain, piston rings, etc. if you believe the claims in the Nissan paper in the original post. NOACK is also assumed to be exceptional (reported by Shell to be 4.7% in the past).
How to calculate the A_Harman index
An inexpensive non-ILSAC alternative is Pennzoil High Mileage 10w30...Your engine will be turbine smooth with that big shot of Moly.
http://www.shell-livedocs.com/data/published/en-US/feb71e8a-e004-4c0f-a31d-a327f9a1115e.pdf
Mobil 1 High Mileage 10w30 ACEA A3/B3 is a great alternative as well.
https://www.mobil.com/English-US/Passenger-Vehicle-Lube/pds/NAXXMobil-1-High-Mileage-Oils
Eye opening thread... Woke af
This entire time we were praising 0W40, the old school mechanics using 10W30 and 15W40 had it right all along!
This entire time we were praising 0W40, the old school mechanics using 10W30 and 15W40 had it right all along!
Originally Posted By: Lex94
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
I will probably start following my manual and use 10w30 in the next OCI. Perhaps, I'll put in the new Pennzoil Platinum SN Plus 10w30, which will become available next month.
An ILSAC 10W30...go for it...do the Harman Index thing to confirm.
Have a play with this concept...
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4717883/Re:_Which_two_oils_would_you_m#Post4717883
I've calculated the A_Harman index for Pennzoil Platinum 10w30:
Assuming HTHSV = 3.00 cP, A_Harman index = 0.929
Assuming HTHSV = 3.10 cP, A_Harman index = 0.960
Assuming HTHSV = 3.15 cP, A_Harman index = 0.975
So, chances are that the A_Harman index for Pennzoil Platinum 10w30 is at least 0.960 or above. It's practically a SAE 30 monograde with a naturally high viscosity index, low CCS, and low MRV. It would be great for protecting the timing chain, valvetrain, piston rings, etc. if you believe the claims in the Nissan paper in the original post. NOACK is also assumed to be exceptional (reported by Shell to be 4.7% in the past).
How to calculate the A_Harman index
An inexpensive non-ILSAC alternative is Pennzoil High Mileage 10w30...Your engine will be turbine smooth with that big shot of Moly.
http://www.shell-livedocs.com/data/published/en-US/feb71e8a-e004-4c0f-a31d-a327f9a1115e.pdf
Mobil 1 High Mileage 10w30 ACEA A3/B3 is a great alternative as well.
https://www.mobil.com/English-US/Passenger-Vehicle-Lube/pds/NAXXMobil-1-High-Mileage-Oils
Thanks. All good oils. Mobil 1 High Mileage 5w30 A_Harman index = 0.926. I'm also considering Mobil Delvac 1300 Super 15w40 CK-4/SN.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
I will probably start following my manual and use 10w30 in the next OCI. Perhaps, I'll put in the new Pennzoil Platinum SN Plus 10w30, which will become available next month.
An ILSAC 10W30...go for it...do the Harman Index thing to confirm.
Have a play with this concept...
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4717883/Re:_Which_two_oils_would_you_m#Post4717883
I've calculated the A_Harman index for Pennzoil Platinum 10w30:
Assuming HTHSV = 3.00 cP, A_Harman index = 0.929
Assuming HTHSV = 3.10 cP, A_Harman index = 0.960
Assuming HTHSV = 3.15 cP, A_Harman index = 0.975
So, chances are that the A_Harman index for Pennzoil Platinum 10w30 is at least 0.960 or above. It's practically a SAE 30 monograde with a naturally high viscosity index, low CCS, and low MRV. It would be great for protecting the timing chain, valvetrain, piston rings, etc. if you believe the claims in the Nissan paper in the original post. NOACK is also assumed to be exceptional (reported by Shell to be 4.7% in the past).
How to calculate the A_Harman index
An inexpensive non-ILSAC alternative is Pennzoil High Mileage 10w30...Your engine will be turbine smooth with that big shot of Moly.
http://www.shell-livedocs.com/data/published/en-US/feb71e8a-e004-4c0f-a31d-a327f9a1115e.pdf
Mobil 1 High Mileage 10w30 ACEA A3/B3 is a great alternative as well.
https://www.mobil.com/English-US/Passenger-Vehicle-Lube/pds/NAXXMobil-1-High-Mileage-Oils
Thanks. All good oils. Mobil 1 High Mileage 5w30 A_Harman index = 0.926. I'm also considering Mobil Delvac 1300 Super 15w40 CK-4/SN.
4wd
$50 site donor 2026
Thought I saw the Delvac dino had a decent NOACK … like 10.8 IIRC?
This is my current fill Delvac 1 SDS scoop
This is my current fill Delvac 1 SDS scoop
- Status
Similar threads
