quote:I agree! Why mess around with a tested formula , when we are working with such limited and possibly unreliable data? If our theory is more 'moly is good' and we add a Schaefer #132 moly additive to an inexpensive oil...we might come out ahead. But when we mix in a high moly oil like Redline to say Mobil 1, how can we tell if the different basestocks and additives will produce better, or worse, results? Even if we have a god UOA, that is a single bit of data, and no substitute for the more exacting tests , and the huge number of engines which have already run the manufacturer's formulation. Mobil realeased the early Mobil 1 Dibasic Acid Ester formula and it took a while for them to figure out that it wouldn't last 25,000 miles and that it could cause seal problems. Mobil later learned that PAO synthetics didn't handle certain deposits well, and didn't work well as an aviation oil in certain piston engines that run leaded fuel. If it took a while for pros to learn these things, why should we feel that a backyard brew of 'a little of this and a little of that' should produce a better recipe ? I'm not saying that oils can't be improved upon. There may be a more nearly optimal viscosity , HTHS, or additve package for a specific need. I just don't see that we have the basis to be confident that our little experiments are rigorous enough to get us there. If the forum was to take this on as an engineering project and we had a scientific approach and a large test population....perhaps we could find some good custom mixes...but I question whether we can afford to do such tests with our new engines. I suppose that if I had an engine with an oil nearing the end of its service life, and an oil change couldn't be scheduled in... I might use an oil additive like #132 Moly or Valvoline's Synpower and Maxlife additives. If I had a Mobil 1 or Redline fill, and needed to top up and couldn't find the exact viscosity I might use a Redline of a different viscosity to top up a Redline fill....and Mobil 1 for Mobil 1. But I wouldn't mix Redline with Mobil 1 unless I had to drive an engine that was down a quart...and mixing oils was the lesser of two evils. I would change the oil ASAP though. To put it in perspective, all the oils that meet manufacturer specs, approvals, API/ILSAC/ACEA ratings are **** good. The difference between the poorest performing oil and the best performaing oil isn't very much... not compared to how much better modern day oils are relative to oils only 10 years ago. ( At least for most late model engines ) So how much do we stand to gain? The chances that we can make a significant improvment seem slim... the odds that we might make matters worse could be much greater.
Originally posted by mojo: I think that mixing oil brands be they synthetic or mineral based is something that should only be done if you have no other recourse. If you consider all the testing, both in the laboratory and in the field, that additive and oil companies do before marketing a finished oil, you might realize that there is something called base stock reponse that can affect how well individual additives will perform. If you mix because you are trying to improve the overall quality, its somewhat akin to playing Russian Roulette as the wrong combination can do you in. It may not be a sudden failure, but can be like a chronic problem that gets worse with time. The problem is that you can mix two oils and visually see no sediment or precipitation forming which can give the illusion that all is well. However, it you were to subject the blend to some type of functional compatibility test or engine test, you might be surprised at what happens. Different blends of oils use different additive components that have been selected to collectively make that formulation meet the required API or ILSAC ratings. When you mix, you change the baseline and anything might happen.
quote:just another perspective: Although Red Line is compatible with other oils, the chemistry is altered when mixed with other oils/additives. There is no way to tell that mixing is better for your engine or worse.
Originally posted by Al: It makes no sense-thats why I do it. Seriously though, I think there are benefits. I believe RedLine is the perfect oil to mix. One quart will add serious moly and Esters. I keep hoping we will se some analysis on this brew.
quote:True, but I think it would be pretty hard to come up with a mix (using decent oils) that really was bad for your engine in the sense of having a signifiant detrimental effect, even running that mix the life of the engine. And I think the esters in a quart of Redline would likely do more good for the engine than the potential bad side effects of the mix.
Originally posted by mf150: Although Red Line is compatible with other oils, the chemistry is altered when mixed with other oils/additives. There is no way to tell that mixing is better for your engine or worse.
quote:Probably not. I ran Maxlife 10w40 last winter.
Originally posted by haley10: I doubt All Climate is going to fail you in a climate like Detroit.
quote:Dunno, unless it is some other aspect of the blends that helps cold properties.
I think this boosting cold start is hoodoo.
quote:No need, but I will try the free Valvoline full synthetic in wife's Aerostar next winter.
If you have the temp that requires it, run a full syn.
quote:If priced cheaper I might. Got some NAPA full synthetic for 2.69 a quart. Probably similar to Valvoline Synpower.
Why if you are into Valvoline, not just run Synpowwer to begin with??
quote:Synthetic Blends are formulated in their own right. They are not formulated this way. You are mostly just wasting money, by adding the syn. Sorry, but that's my story.
Originally posted by edvanp: I think it's better to mix or make one's own sem-synthetic. I'll add a quart of M1 Syn. to 4 quarts of Dino. Not sure what I get when/if I bought Semi-Syn. this way, I know for sure.