Liqui-moly new generation oil

[blingo]

See what it's about? The last renditions unfortunately had to be revved to 9000rpm as they 'd lost supercharging ( a version revving to ~7500rpm had weaker gears and a tendency for more wear and tear), anyway, per this excerpt from older literature it should be seen that one can be interested in gears in an engine. And no-no, I don't sell them to you as EP additive needing hypoids. Really. No need to start all over, promised! Never did and never will.

 

[OVERKILL]

Don't follow, no. That's not where I'm coming from, I couldn't care less how Amsoils advertising worked or how you're prepared to fight wrong youtube consumption, listen? As long as you pretend to be writing it down for me ;-) you'd really have to address at least a bit of what I explained from #44 on.
Shall I repeat over and over that I'd allow "versions"? If I'd allow versions I might also allow just this test as is – to be used to show some performance to me, right?

To put it just another way: Could the test be used for, let's say, testing ATF? An early Dexron once had been proposed to be burned in rotary engines. And actually performed favourably in regard to carbonaceous deposits and else at some time, but GM pulled from the rotaries and dropped the rotary adjustments for the Dexron. So today I'm not about to have Dexron make the rotary run, I know nothing about automatic transmission fluids as an engine oil, would you?
But I may be about to get to know some 4 Ball test performance of base oils or even fully formulated engine oils. Are you actually trying to nudge me into Amsoil when telling me that they used to show whatever in their engine oil product? I may have done you wrong, you're more constructive than I first thought. Don't expect me to follow into Amsoil, but still thank you now.

I'm saying the test has ZERO applicability to engine oils, hence my quote of Mobil on the issue. It's not a valid test for use in determining performance of engine oils, so bringing it up is a red herring.

 

[blingo]

Alright, Overkill. This idea of just abjuring has already begun growing on me again anyway. Why not call it or anything else invalid...

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Alright, Overkill. This idea of just abjuring has already begun growing on me again anyway. Why not call it or anything else invalid...

Little lost here, what exactly is the point you are proposing or the statement you are making or the question being raised?

Thank you

 

[blingo]

It's okay. GalaxyS8 turned out to be not too much focused on anything. And I'm fine anyway, no worries! You're welcome.

 

[edyvw]

Do low viscosity oils like 0w20 /0w16 result in noticable reduction in fuel consumption? Compared to say 5w30?

In "laboratory" environment, yes. That means that manufacturer could post better EPA numbers on sticker.
In reality, not to notice. I run 5W30 over 0W20 and i cannot tell any mpg difference. My UOA though has excellent results.

 

[blingo]

Google chat turns out to be fun on this one: "4-ball-wear atf" automatically leads to blends of ATF and engine oils first, then to different oils (including "arctic" 0W-20) in short oldish "PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF MILITARY ENGINE AND GEAR OILS IN FRICTION AND WEAR DEVICES" including vane pump test and others. To whom invalids may concern: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a202145.pdf