Educate me on 0w40 please

[PeterPolyol]

Imagination and "made up stuff" you fail to identify, let alone challenge.
'Lack of facts' which you fail to identify as being non-factual.
Don't even know where to start with that fantastic logical fallacy suggesting that length "rectifies" anything.

Please try again, but this time include something more than (the brutal irony of your) baseless assertion and condescension, if you can.

I already congratulated you on having a clean German engine. Nice single anecdote. Maybe one more will seal the deal.....


I can see how you would be emotionally aroused into the implacability of stomping your feet for PROOF, NAO. That's generally the last card emotional responders have left. They want those documents, they want them peer reviewed and they WANT THEM NOW or else you're unequivocally factless and wrong and it's not even up for discussion. lol. Classic.

 

[PeterPolyol]

Originally Posted by 53' Stude
Originally Posted by kschachn
That post is full of imagination and made up stuff for which you have no proof whatsoever.

Nice and long though. What you lack in facts you rectify with length.

Oh and my old BMW is spotless on 0W-40 and doesn't burn oil. I posted a picture a while back. This is just one example of the nonsense you've managed to assemble.



+10,000 kschachn

You too while you're at it. This isn't high school, where we choose cliques and align to whoever we think will win.

 

[1JZ_E46]

Sludge and Euro engines is, in my opinion, due to the long oil change intervals specified (and they've been long for well over a decade... far longer than domestics and Asian OEMs have been spec'ing extended OCIs) coupled with crappy U.S. gas (at the time) and consumers who usually go past the spec'd interval. With a 10-20k interval, you don't have much leeway going past the mark... much more leeway with a 3-5k interval.

 

[PeterPolyol]

Yes, that's one of the stalwart arguments the extended Euro OCIs. They're not the only ones with extended OCIs these days, and with the large sumps and high-spec 'synthese; oils they required, a 20K OCI seems apt, just as the engineers intended. Now the question is why the 'apparent propensity' to varnishing? That too is not a meme of my own genesis, but just so happens to complement my experience. And all of this is to say that nary a Honda or Chevrolet has suffered poor or lack of maints. It's arguably not the BMWs and Audis that suffer the teen or single parent OCI.

The differences in the outcomes of oil formulation to engine combinations could easily be explained by design parameters; some engines run hotter than others and/or have different thermal and oiling management resulting in extremified surface temps and oil dwell times. If that's not true, and all engines are in fact the exact same, then surely I'm blowing it out of my chute

 

[1JZ_E46]

The Germans are not the only ones with extended OCIs currently, but 15 years ago is a different story. And it's 15 year old BMWs (M5x series engines) that you see with the sludge issues.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
Specs are fine for being assured minimum requirements in a handful of parameters,


Handful? Porsche A40 testing is literally various operating tests to simulate regular driving followed by 5 extended (hour-long) runs of a race track (the Nurburgring) followed by a completely tear-down with measurements. That's not a handful of parameters, it's an entire mechanical tear-down and inspection to validate performance under insanely torturous conditions.

Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
it's too bad real-life parameters are infinite and uncontrolled. Plenty of products (in general) pass QA and durability testing only to fail IRL.


Yes, like Pour Point as an indication of cold temperature performance, which is why it was revised to use CCS and MRV.

Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
The Euros, Germans in particular have always demanded certain specs and high viscosity (even if it's fake VII viscosity ), but let's be honest, their engines leave a lot to be desired in terms of oiling systems. Arguably, they get the most synthetic 0Ws around (because specs demand it), yet many of the engines are quite prone to sludge and varnish.


Prone? VW's sludge fiasco had nothing to do with the correct lubricant. It had to do with dealers using sub-par lubricants in engines that spec'd extended drains. BMW's varnished on OEM 5w30 due to insanely long drain intervals, which were eventually shortened. Those kinds of intervals would varnish any engine. I've seen "regularly maintained" engines run on API 5w30 that look far, FAR worse than most BMW mills run on OLM drains.

Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
Some even need 10W60 to stay together... [censored]?

Some high-strung M-cars call for 10w-60. So do Ferrari's. Ford spec's 5w-50 for their high power offerings, GM 15w-50, or do you ignore those examples because they don't fit the narrative?

Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
Compared to a Japanese engine running GrIII and II 20 blends, why don't they suffer such consistent varnishing


Are we forgetting the Toyota Sludgers and the Honda VCM engines? There have been plenty of sludged and varnished Japanese vehicles posted on this very board.

Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
and wiped cams (VW) or bearings (BMW) etc? (can't help but think how much differently, straighter the oils are formulated.....) It's a paradox!!


Hyundai's are currently lunching rod bearings at nowhere remotely close to the power density of a BMW S-series engine. GM had engines eating cams for years and couldn't keep a timing chain in the HF V6. This is impotent Euro-slagging masquerading as technical critique.

Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
Or is it?
Compare the base viscosities used. Compare the reliance on VIIs.


Have you? How much VII do you think it takes to blend an oil with a VI of well over 200 with a Group III base? How much VII do you think is in an inexpensive 5w30 with a Noack of 14%? The Mobil blending guide shows 11.6% VII for a PAO-based 0w-40, and 9% for a Group III/PAO mix. The Yubase blending guide shows 9.1% VII for a Group III 5w30. A Group III 0w-20 with a VI of 173 is 7% VII.

The Mobil blending guide also shows a 5w30 with 11.74% VII leveraging a 6cSt base oil.

Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
If you take the driest base fluids like PAO, which absolutely rejects contaminant solubility/dispersency, choose the lowest viscosity of such and then load it up with plastic (acrylates) and rubber (OCP) VIIs that are less stable than the base oil to meet viscosity, and what will you expect? The oxidation stability of the PAO is mitigated by using a) the lowest viscosity of such (4cSt)


4cSt is not the lowest viscosity. Mobil makes three different 2cSt PAO's. And yes, PAO is dry, which is why you blend it with something else. This is pretty basic stuff.

Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
AND b) the load of VIIs. Not even to mention relatively poor NOACK vs the other grades.


They are all loaded with VII's. Poor Noack versus what other grades? All the 0w-40's are under 10%, there are PLENTY of other oils that are much, MUCH higher than that including most 5w30's tested by the PQIA and pretty much every Japanese spec 20-grade you just praised.

Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
The dispersant gets NO help from the base oil to keep junk in solution, so where is the next likely place for the junk to go than onto the internal surfaces of the engine? But wait, it gets better! Once a layer of polar junk varnish is established on the metal surfaces, those surfaces actively PULL more junk out of the oil which naturally wants to reject it and the varnish layer builds up even faster! No wonder so much varnish winds up on the metal surfaces instead. Then there's the temporary and permanent shearing. VII laden, wide-spread grades also feature oil films that break down more rapidly at high temperatures NOT tested for.


Deposit control is actually a tested for parameter. Perhaps less baseless spin and more research?

Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
If used oil analysis are any indication, the HTHS and fake viscosity doesn't even yeild better ring wear vs a less VII laden oil.


Well, luckily it's already well-established that they aren't, so we can flush that floater.

Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
Why should that surprise anyone? What are the VIIs doing in the ring pack?


They same thing they are doing in your 5w-20 and 5w30's, or your 10w30. This is again why there are test sequences to gauge ring deposits and piston cleanliness.

Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
Breaking down to the base oil viscosity that's what! (what does a 4-5cSt base@a lowly 100C look like at 250+C? What does 3.5cP of VII HTHSV look like at 250+C? No one seems to care about viscosity behaviors past CCS, 40C, 100C and 150C...


Working just fine based on the numerous OEM tests being performed on the oils actually. And most of the guides show a 4cSt and 6cSt blend of bases for a 0w-40. The one XOM guide shows them at 34% and 40% respectively. The same guide shows a 17% and 53% blend of the same bases for a 5w30. These are of course evil PAO. A Group III Yubase 5w30 shows 60% 4cSt and 20% 6cSt + 8.75% VII.


Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
b-b-but that's a stereotype, not every German engine is varnished
And congratulations to all who have clean German engines, but what does it mean? That less VII-reliant oil won't do any better in any other part of the engine?
By time you're seeing varnish under your valve cover, better believe the filth is well established on your rings. Even if engines can run rather acceptably with varnished rings (like MOST engines do), that's not something I want to allow because things can go south fast, like oil burning and compromized ring sealing. I'm not an apologist for oil burning like many on here are.... I find it absolutely unacceptable and will do nothing to further enable it, and everything to mitigate it.


Sorry, I didn't realize you had your own piston cleanliness sequence recognized by the SAE? Can you enlighten us on how this differs from the current protocols employed by everybody else blending the oils being slagged here? Perhaps you should write Porsche, I'm sure their engineers would love to be educated

How many engines have you operated under controlled conditions on these various lubricants and then physically disassembled to validate your theory here?

Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
There is no HTHSV test higher than 150C that I'm aware of, but there are local areas in an engine that handily exceed 150C. No one likes ring deposits, and virtually every engine has them. Why would I want to put enormous plastic (or rubber) tumbleweed molecules in that environment, regardless of base oil? And especially when I'll never take advantage of the 0W rating it was built for..... the WHY begs for justification.... a reason that is more comprehensive than "but printed materials tell me so".
That's fine if that's what you're about but it's about optimization for me, not idiot-proofing. It's not about getting more miles out of the engine, it's about getting more QUALITY miles out of it ie. best compression, cleanest ring packs for as deep into the service life as possible... nuances of machinery maintenance

'Good enough', 'fine' and 'acceptable' aren't goals of mine. If I don't need the cold cranking, I don't need the base 4, the rubber or the plastic in my oil. Simple as that. This is the path my oil journey has taken me to

So you are running an oil you blended yourself then? Because otherwise I can't see how you can know what base oils or their viscosities the lubricant you are using is blended with. Porsche A40 has a ring and piston cleanliness parameter as part of it, I'd wager that so do all the Mercedes sequences and the VW ones. I'm sure they are far more rigorous than whatever you've dreamed up to validate your personal choices here.

 

[OVERKILL]

Also worth noting here I think is the fact that GM has now moved the Corvette to 0w-40 and of course Chrysler spec's 0w-40 for all of the SRT engines. These are both OEM's that use 5w-20 in a myriad of applications yet have chosen a 0w-40 to protect their highest performance products which include the 840HP Demon engine. For Chrysler, this is a company that continued to spec 10w30 for one engine after back-spec'ing everything else to 5w-20, yet went to 0w-40 for a 707HP monster shoved under the hood of a Grand Cherokee, not 10w30. GM went from spec'ing 5w30 and 15w-50 for track use in the Corvette to 0w-40.

So either these OEM's have done the testing, analyzed the performance and subsequently arrived at 0w-40 being the best fit for these applications and thus went with it, or, they are completely incompetent for not realizing that despite all of that, they are going to get awful ring land deposits because they aren't using some Group II 10w30 that might, possibly, have slightly less polymer in it. But maybe not.

 

[RooflessVW]

 

[TheLawnRanger]

These threads make me feel bad about liking an oil because I got a good deal and it makes my truck quiet down. Even the poster with the wrong opinion sounds good.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
k you win

He does win because it exposes your nonsense.

Overkill is a lot nicer and a lot more patient then me, he took the time to go through your goofy post and actually detail reasons why it was silly. When it comes to voluminous posts that are so full of hype and incorrect statements I just don't have the patience he has. Thanks Overkill.

 

[PeterPolyol]

Quote

Handful? Porsche A40 testing is literally various operating tests to simulate regular driving followed by 5 extended (hour-long) runs of a race track (the Nurburgring) followed by a completely tear-down with measurements. That's not a handful of parameters, it's an entire mechanical tear-down and inspection to validate performance under insanely torturous conditions.

Who cares? Strawman much? Straighter based oils will pass those deposit tests better. Prove that wrong? Prove that VIIs increase oil stability and cleanliness. Go ahead and try and prove something so stupid.


Quote

Yes, like Pour Point as an indication of cold temperature performance, which is why it was revised to use CCS and MRV.

Yes, like cold temp performance is more of a fuction of base oil viscosity. Yes, like that's why a 40 grade oil bearing 0W is going to blend with lower viscosity bases than even a 5W20. Prove that this is the exception and not the rule. Go ahead, tough guy.

Quote
Prone? VW's sludge fiasco had nothing to do with the correct lubricant. It had to do with dealers using sub-par lubricants in engines that spec'd extended drains. BMW's varnished on OEM 5w30 due to insanely long drain intervals, which were eventually shortened. Those kinds of intervals would varnish any engine. I've seen "regularly maintained" engines run on API 5w30 that look far, FAR worse than most BMW mills run on OLM drains.

Oh, the oil failures had nothing to do with oil. Oh it's the dealers using subpar oil!! Get your head out of your butt, EVEN IF THAT WAS TRUE , that all failures are becasue of dealers and the wrong oil, you're only corroborating the neediness of German engines. Is that the point you intended to make? "It's not the oil" lol It's the sludge fairies. They prefer german vehicles. Seriously, get outta here with that weak sh- opinion piece. I thought you were here to lay down the hard proof for your fanbase, but all I'm getting is less comprehensive imagination and opinion. Good job.



Quote

Some high-strung M-cars call for 10w-60. So do Ferrari's. Ford spec's 5w-50 for their high power offerings, GM 15w-50, or do you ignore those examples because they don't fit the narrative?

What narrative, though? I've been trying to figure out what narrative you're getting from my post because I can't address the straw man unless I can see it. VII's make an oil more or less stable? Stop trying to argue viscosity, your misapprehension (or rather lack of argument) has you arguing 5W and 15W performance oils. What are you doing? You're supposed to be telling me why VII's make an oil better outside of the realm of cold starts, and everyone has failed at it; You, kschanch (who can't even try), 53stooge and whoever else is riding your sack. Put up (an argument) or shut up.



Quote
Also worth noting here I think is the fact that GM has now moved the Corvette to 0w-40 and of course Chrysler spec's 0w-40 for all of the SRT engines. These are both OEM's that use 5w-20 in a myriad of applications yet have chosen a 0w-40 to protect their highest performance products which include the 840HP Demon engine. For Chrysler, this is a company that continued to spec 10w30 for one engine after back-spec'ing everything else to 5w-20, yet went to 0w-40 for a 707HP monster shoved under the hood of a Grand Cherokee, not 10w30. GM went from spec'ing 5w30 and 15w-50 for track use in the Corvette to 0w-40.

Why is that worth noting? Who cares? What does this do to prove that VII-reliant viscosity is more stable, cleaner or at least on par with base oil reliant viscosity? Most of your reply isn't worth noting at all, because it's so irrelevant..

Quote

So either these OEM's have done the testing, analyzed the performance and subsequently arrived at 0w-40 being the best fit for these applications and thus went with it, or, they are completely incompetent for not realizing that despite all of that, they are going to get awful ring land deposits because they aren't using some Group II 10w30 that might, possibly, have slightly less polymer in it. But maybe not.

Describe the 'best fit' and tell me what your proxy-engineering has to do with proving that:
-more VII reliant finished oil = a better, cleaner, more stable lubricant
-oils with high VII content and viscosity reliance demonstrate no different effect on film strength, lubricity, deposit control, oxidative stability than straighter blends
or even Level 10:
-that less VIIs = a dirtier, less stable, weaker film, all else equal

Go right ahead, big shot. Still waiting for you to win.
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
k you win

He does win because it exposes your nonsense.

Overkill is a lot nicer and a lot more patient then me, he took the time to go through your goofy post and actually detail reasons why it was silly. When it comes to voluminous posts that are so full of hype and incorrect statements I just don't have the patience he has. Thanks Overkill.



Originally Posted by kschachn

He does win because it exposes your nonsense.

What nonsense, though? You keep saying there's nonsense and imagination and some kind of ill intent on my part, but you won't go any further than being a jerk about it. What tf are you doing, Phil?

Quote
through your goofy post and actually detail reasons why it was silly.

Why don't you go 'through my goofy post and detail reasons' why it's silly, yourself?

 

[Triple_Se7en]

Peter
Thanks for the clever nick-name of citing someone here as "Non-essential".

There is a Mall nearby that sells custom sweaters and shirts. I will have one-of-each made up that say in the front:
I Am a Non Essential

On the back....
BITOG

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

Originally Posted by PeterPolyol



Quote

Handful? Porsche A40 testing is literally various operating tests to simulate regular driving followed by 5 extended (hour-long) runs of a race track (the Nurburgring) followed by a completely tear-down with measurements. That's not a handful of parameters, it's an entire mechanical tear-down and inspection to validate performance under insanely torturous conditions.

Who cares? Strawman much? Straighter based oils will pass those deposit tests better. Prove that wrong? Prove that VIIs increase oil stability and cleanliness. Go ahead and try and prove something so stupid.



Yes, like Pour Point as an indication of cold temperature performance, which is why it was revised to use CCS and MRV.

Yes, like cold temp performance is more of a fuction of base oil viscosity. Yes, like that's why a 40 grade oil bearing 0W is going to blend with lower viscosity bases than even a 5W20. Prove that this is the exception and not the rule. Go ahead, tough guy.

Quote
Prone? VW's sludge fiasco had nothing to do with the correct lubricant. It had to do with dealers using sub-par lubricants in engines that spec'd extended drains. BMW's varnished on OEM 5w30 due to insanely long drain intervals, which were eventually shortened. Those kinds of intervals would varnish any engine. I've seen "regularly maintained" engines run on API 5w30 that look far, FAR worse than most BMW mills run on OLM drains.

Oh, the oil failures had nothing to do with oil. Oh it's the dealers using subpar oil!! Get your head out of your butt, EVEN IF THAT WAS TRUE , that all failures are becasue of dealers and the wrong oil, you're only corroborating the neediness of German engines. Is that the point you intended to make? "It's not the oil" lol It's the sludge fairies. They prefer german vehicles. Seriously, get outta here with that weak sh- opinion piece. I thought you were here to lay down the hard proof for your fanbase, but all I'm getting is less comprehensive imagination and opinion. Good job.



Quote

Some high-strung M-cars call for 10w-60. So do Ferrari's. Ford spec's 5w-50 for their high power offerings, GM 15w-50, or do you ignore those examples because they don't fit the narrative?

What narrative, though? I've been trying to figure out what narrative you're getting from my post because I can't address the straw man unless I can see it. VII's make an oil more or less stable? Stop trying to argue viscosity, your misapprehension (or rather lack of argument) has you arguing 5W and 15W performance oils. What are you doing? You're supposed to be telling me why VII's make an oil better outside of the realm of cold starts, and everyone has failed at it; You, kschanch (who can't even try), 53stooge and whoever else is riding your sack. Put up (an argument) or shut up.



Quote
Also worth noting here I think is the fact that GM has now moved the Corvette to 0w-40 and of course Chrysler spec's 0w-40 for all of the SRT engines. These are both OEM's that use 5w-20 in a myriad of applications yet have chosen a 0w-40 to protect their highest performance products which include the 840HP Demon engine. For Chrysler, this is a company that continued to spec 10w30 for one engine after back-spec'ing everything else to 5w-20, yet went to 0w-40 for a 707HP monster shoved under the hood of a Grand Cherokee, not 10w30. GM went from spec'ing 5w30 and 15w-50 for track use in the Corvette to 0w-40.

Why is that worth noting? Who cares? What does this do to prove that VII-reliant viscosity is more stable, cleaner or at least on par with base oil reliant viscosity? Most of your reply isn't worth noting at all, because it's so irrelevant..

Quote

So either these OEM's have done the testing, analyzed the performance and subsequently arrived at 0w-40 being the best fit for these applications and thus went with it, or, they are completely incompetent for not realizing that despite all of that, they are going to get awful ring land deposits because they aren't using some Group II 10w30 that might, possibly, have slightly less polymer in it. But maybe not.

Describe the 'best fit' and tell me what your proxy-engineering has to do with proving that:
-more VII reliant finished oil = a better, cleaner, more stable lubricant
-oils with high VII content and viscosity reliance demonstrate no different effect on film strength, lubricity, deposit control, oxidative stability than straighter blends
or even Level 10:
-that less VIIs = a dirtier, less stable, weaker film, all else equal

Go right ahead, big shot. Still waiting for you to win.
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
k you win

He does win because it exposes your nonsense.

Overkill is a lot nicer and a lot more patient then me, he took the time to go through your goofy post and actually detail reasons why it was silly. When it comes to voluminous posts that are so full of hype and incorrect statements I just don't have the patience he has. Thanks Overkill.

 

[Triple_Se7en]

It's in defense of still being a technical greenhorn on the board, despite being here for almost 15 years and about to hit 10K in posts.

Example: After 15 years, I just found-out yesterday that Magnesium is a detergent, not anti-wear.

Take care...... Joe

 

[Bryanccfshr]

There was no need for the end zone dance by players who couldn't score the touchdown. (Football reference for Super Bowl Sunday)
There is also no need to take these antics personally.
I thought this thread was at a good endpoint after Overkill's response.

Is it not better that we all learn something, rather than if someone's point of view wins?
Science is the opposite of consensus and I enjoy watching the exchange of ideas and trying to participate, clumsily at times, more precisely when I can function at that level.
To deny our humanity and the fact that we all have predispositions or ideas we have vested ourselves in would also be wrong.
We vet the [censored] out of things here and no idea goes unchallenged. Let's not take the debate and presentation of facts into a personal [censored] match. It ruins the collegiality that I return here for.

 

[StevieC]

I want to try Mobil 1 0w40 as part of my testing of thicker oils in the PentaStar but I'm waiting for temperatures to be above 0 to do so only for the fact that the engine calls for a 5w20 normally and if it triggers a VVT viscosity code I want to be sure it isn't the weather causing it directly.

 

[PeterPolyol]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Enjoy the vacation.

Yes, I'll get banned. I know.

And when I'm dead and gone still no one will have the answer as to what makes a VII loaded oil better than a less VII loaded oil, beyond cold starts. Just as long as that's clear.

 

[JAG]

Peter's posts have quite a bit of merit, in my opinion. He certainly knows more about oil formulation that most people here. Some who don't even know enough to know what's right/wrong in what he said, jumped on him like pre-teen boys. We, on these forums, should behave better than that. Overkill's responses were made in a logical, non-personal, way. He is a great asset to these forums. I did not read every word of every post so I may have missed some things that are noteworthy.

 

[1JZ_E46]

Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
Originally Posted by PimTac
Enjoy the vacation.

Yes, I'll get banned. I know.

And when I'm dead and gone still no one will have the answer as to what makes a VII loaded oil better than a less VII loaded oil, beyond cold starts. Just as long as that's clear.


You give the impression that you think cold starts are a trivial thing. We know that's where a lot of wear takes place, so why not formulate an oil to target that? Plus, what's so wrong with a good amount of VII if it still holds up in shear tests and passes all the requisite wear tests? Beyond that, you're just speculating.

 

[53' Stude]

Originally Posted by JAG
Peter's posts have quite a bit of merit, in my opinion. He certainly knows more about oil formulation that most people here. Some who don't even know enough to know what's right/wrong in what he said, jumped on him like pre-teen boys. We, on these forums, should behave better than that. Overkill's responses were made in a logical, non-personal, way. He is a great asset to these forums. I did not read every word of every post so I may have missed some things that are noteworthy.



Jag: so, if money was no object which 0w40 would you choose?
Thank You