M1 0-40 vs. RL 5-30 Q's

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
10,146
Location
Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: jaj
[quote=Jeffs2006EvoIX][quote] I'm having the same debate myself with regard to a different engine. But its the same issue. My conclusion is that the "bulk viscosities" are what determine flow through most of the engine, and increasing that viscosity puts flow-dependent things at some risk. If your car has oil jets to cool the pistons, you might want to wonder how less flow at a higher viscosity might affect piston cooling, for instance. However, more HTHS is generally better than less. It's not a magic bullet, but it's a step in the right direction. So, if you use Redline, you get the same bulk viscosity as the factory recommended M1, with a substantially higher HTHS. Sounds like a win-win to me.
My Canadian friend you clearly don't yet understand the relationship between HTHS viscosity and kinematic viscosity. A higher HTHS vis' is not "better" it just means the oil is thicker regardless of what the KV100 spec' might be. That's why RL 5W-30 IS A 40WT oil in reality because a HTHS vis of 3.8cP is that of a 40wt oil. It's pressurized flow at all temp's is that of a 40wt oil. In comparison to M1 0W-40 it is a heavier oil particulatly at temp's below 100C despite M1's higher kinematic viscosity spec's. I pointed out the HTHS vs KV100 relationship to you in a recent thread on RL 5W-20 but I do it again. The following post explains why in more detail: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2001169&page=1
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
656
Location
Oklahoma City
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
...Most mechs and builders don't know squat about oil.
Great observation. Great honesty about your profession. People mistakenly think an education in mechanical matters extends to motor oil. Most mechanics have only read about oil on bottle labels and advertisements.
 

Jeffs2006EvoIX

Thread starter
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
1,646
Location
Imperial Valley, California
Thanks Guys for your input. Caterham just for your info the car came with M1 10/30 as foctory fill not a dino oil. I guess I "assumed" that increased HP by means of increasing boost pressure would validate the necessity for going up one grade in oil viscosity. On these boards you hear M1 and "shear" quite consistantly and that kinda veered me away from M1. My goal in the next year is to put my Evo back to Bone stock and not run any mods at all. I am debating on that for the noise and smog laws in California are getting so strict that my car will not pass the DB test, or new smog tests as is. Instead of toying around with the aftermarket to get things to pass, I would rather just go bone stock and drive the Bisch you know? haha. Here is what the manual states exactly: [url=]OEM Oil 1[/url] [url=]OEM Oil 2[/url] So Basically, you folks are saying, since my oil temps DO NOT exceed 100C on any given day (other than Track or Dyno) the need for a higher HTHS or Viscosity is NOT necessary and the OEM Recommendations are adequate even as the car sits currently. I do keep mentioning that the car is modified because I would feel that may influence some folks decisions. I do not abuse the car or drive it like I stole it, I just enjoy it, and take it to Solo II events when I can. Dyno days are for tuning purposes only. If I do go back to stock completely is a matter I am still dwelling on. Not sure why this is so hard to sink in. I guess I am thick headed. Or just old school train of thought on oil. That when power levels go up, so should the viscosity, but seems on this forum, that is not necessarily the case. Jeff
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
11,878
Location
PA
Originally Posted By: Jeffs2006EvoIX
On these boards you hear M1 and "shear" quite consistantly and that kinda veered me away from M1.
Read closely. Only the 0w-40 and 5w-50 are said to shear. Also, did you investigate for yourself, or just take the statements at face value?
Originally Posted By: Jeffs2006EvoIX
So Basically, you folks are saying, since my oil temps DO NOT exceed 90C on any given day (other than Track or Dyno) the need for a higher HTHS or Viscosity is NOT necessary and the OEM Recommendations are adequate even as the car sits currently.
Not quite. More like, higher viscosity is not necessarily necessary. wink
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
11,878
Location
PA
I know. wink Again, you don't necessarily need higher HTHS viscosity. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. Until you decide to put in the time, money, and effort to gather more information, you will never get anything but guesses, and you will continue to be confused. You can start by installing an oil pressure gauge and doing some good UOAs (e.g. from Dyson Analysis), as you have been repeatedly advised to do. thumbsup
 
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
10,146
Location
Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: Jeffs2006EvoIX
In my particular case I am not going up in viscosity with the 5/30 RL just up in HTHS of which people are saying that I don't need? Jeff
That statement makes no sense. The sooner you stop referring to HTHS as some sort of separate entity the sooner you will understand it. There are two methods of measuring an oil's hot viscosity and HTHS viscosity is the true measure of an oil's operational viscosity. For those that take the time to read the back of the Red Line 5W-30 bottle it says as much; "provides more bearing viscosity than most petroleum 10W-40s." You're currently running a 40wt oil, make no mistake about it; a full grade heavier than spec'. If your oil temp's don't exceed 90C then effectively your running a 50wt oil. At 80C, RL is like a 60wt at 100C. And since you often barely see 70C oil temp's as far as your engine knows it's no different than a 70wt oil at 100C and ofcourse you won't be able to use anything near maximum rev's without your oil pump going into by-pass mode. With 70C oil temp's you could run a typical 0W-20 (HTHS vis 2.6cP)like M1 and it will still be like you're running a 50wt oil.
 
Joined
Aug 4, 2003
Messages
2,562
Location
NJ
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Jeffs2006EvoIX
On these boards you hear M1 and "shear" quite consistantly and that kinda veered me away from M1.
Read closely. Only the 0w-40 and 5w-50 are said to shear. Also, did you investigate for yourself, or just take the statements at face value?
Judging from uoa's on the regular M1 5W-30 and 10W-30 from Subaru turbos, I would say there's a good chance those would shear as well. Although, I'm not sure whether or not you were including Energy Conserving oils in this discussion as it's "news" when they stay in grade in turbos, IMO. Jeff, You can switch to M1 0W-40 next, and I could see you making the same post at that time and saying, "Maybe I should have stayed with Red Line". grin2 I would do a uoa without changing the oil. Having ran both of the oils in this topic, I would actually stay with RL even if you go back to stock. From running thin KV 30 grades to thin KV 40 grades, RL was the only one that I really noticed a difference with. I haven't driven with the Motul yet and I'm on vacation without my car (no moly in it though). Lots of moly and esters FTW! -Dennis
 

jaj

Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
1,059
Location
Vancouver, Canada
Aw, c'mon, humour me (note the extra "u"). I'm not reading-challenged, I just disagree with you, that's all. Here's why: 1. Wear (for real, measured by mechanical engineers doing their day jobs, not UOA's) is negatively correlated with HTHS. 2. HTHS is a blending target, just like KV100. Higher than necessary, it reduces fuel economy. Lower than necessary, it allows excessive wear. The SAE and ACEA specs try to find a balance, and the balance points are the minimun HTHS specs that have become the targets that blenders shoot for every time. For Newtonian fluids, HTHS is just KV150 and it's surprisingly high compared to what we're used to. For instance, a Group I base stock with a VI of 100 and a KV100 of 8.9 (xw-20 territory) will deliver an HTHS somewhere between 3.5 and 4 (suddenly it's an xw-40). The only reason our favorite 5w-20 doesn't deliver this kind of HTHS is that it's made with various VII's and PPD's and other gunk blended into a low viscosity base that aims it squarely at 2.6. Any higher would forfeit the coveted API Energy Conserving label. So that's my view of the world, and it's not just based on book learning, but also on running oil pressure vs oil temperature vs RPM plots with different oils in the same engine. My results from comparo runs of TWS 10w-60, Motul 300V 5w-40 and 10w-40 and GC 0w-30 were that they all produced plots that were more or less the same at any RPM above idle. At idle, the only variable that mattered was oil temperature, actually. So that's why, in my West Coast world, RL 5w-30 is just a "more Newtonian" 5w-30 than OTC 5w-30's; it's still a "real" 5w-30 in every respect. It pumps like one and it flows like one. However, because the blender isn't making an OTC Energy Conserving product, its more Newtonian and delivers wear protection levels rivaling most xw-40's.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
My Canadian friend you clearly don't yet understand the relationship between HTHS viscosity and kinematic viscosity. A higher HTHS vis' is not "better" it just means the oil is thicker regardless of what the KV100 spec' might be. That's why RL 5W-30 IS A 40WT oil in reality because a HTHS vis of 3.8cP is that of a 40wt oil. It's pressurized flow at all temp's is that of a 40wt oil. In comparison to M1 0W-40 it is a heavier oil particulatly at temp's below 100C despite M1's higher kinematic viscosity spec's. I pointed out the HTHS vs KV100 relationship to you in a recent thread on RL 5W-20 but I do it again. The following post explains why in more detail: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2001169&page=1
 

Jeffs2006EvoIX

Thread starter
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
1,646
Location
Imperial Valley, California
I Posted what the Manual Says, notice how they ONLY mention 10/30 or 5/30 synthetic used ONLY in SEVERE COLD weather. OEM should know what is best right? Additionally, here is what is on my Oil Cap. Hope you can read it ok, not the greatest picture: [url=]Evo Oil Cap[/url] I know I can use whatever oil I want, but seems Mitsubishi really likes M1 in the Evo. The New Evo X doesn't have the M1 push in the manual as the 8/9 does. Then again, Mitsubishi sponsored Rally Evo's stopped with the 8/9. I hear people say that M1 paid Mitsubishi to put their oil in their cars. I don't buy it. There is no money to be made in such a limited production car. I feel that the engineers at Mitsubishi chose this oil because its the best readily available oil available. Additionally, the engines were developed with this oil in mind. I read that in an Evo brochure. What to do. Watcha Guys think? Jeff
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
11,878
Location
PA
Originally Posted By: Jeffs2006EvoIX
What to do. Watcha Guys think?
I think I have no idea why you would keep asking this question, given the sheer breadth and depth of replies you have received.
 

jaj

Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
1,059
Location
Vancouver, Canada
Originally Posted By: Jeffs2006EvoIX
I Posted what the Manual Says, notice how they ONLY mention 10/30 or 5/30 synthetic used ONLY in SEVERE COLD weather. OEM should know what is best right? I know I can use whatever oil I want, but seems Mitsubishi really likes M1 in the Evo. The New Evo X doesn't have the M1 push in the manual as the 8/9 does. Then again, Mitsubishi sponsored Rally Evo's stopped with the 8/9. I hear people say that M1 paid Mitsubishi to put their oil in their cars. I don't buy it. There is no money to be made in such a limited production car. I feel that the engineers at Mitsubishi chose this oil because its the best readily available oil available. Additionally, the engines were developed with this oil in mind. I read that in an Evo brochure. What to do. Watcha Guys think? Jeff
This same debate rages on BMW forums. The short answer is that the manufacturer knows that the engine will work properly with this product. They didn't qualify anything else, so while it might work fine, they're not endorsing it. In practice, it boils down to warranty. If you use their choice, then they'll honor the warranty. If you don't, you provide them with the option to deny coverage. It's that simple.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,966
Location
Iowa
Originally Posted By: Bruce T
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
...Most mechs and builders don't know squat about oil.
Great observation. Great honesty about your profession. People mistakenly think an education in mechanical matters extends to motor oil. Most mechanics have only read about oil on bottle labels and advertisements.
I've got tons to learn on this topic - as I only know a fraction of what many on this board know. The amount of knowledge I had on oil before I found this board, you could fit on the tip of a pin... I am slowly learning though and even though I do alright as a mech, there too, I have plenty to learn. I've seen many people come and go from the shop who know nothing about lubricants, but pretend they do... I even work for one... But that's another story.
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
651
Location
Phladelphia
Originally Posted By: Jeffs2006EvoIX
I Posted what the Manual Says, notice how they ONLY mention 10/30 or 5/30 synthetic used ONLY in SEVERE COLD weather. OEM should know what is best right? Additionally, here is what is on my Oil Cap. Hope you can read it ok, not the greatest picture: I know I can use whatever oil I want, but seems Mitsubishi really likes M1 in the Evo. The New Evo X doesn't have the M1 push in the manual as the 8/9 does. Then again, Mitsubishi sponsored Rally Evo's stopped with the 8/9. I hear people say that M1 paid Mitsubishi to put their oil in their cars. I don't buy it. There is no money to be made in such a limited production car. I feel that the engineers at Mitsubishi chose this oil because its the best readily available oil available. Additionally, the engines were developed with this oil in mind. I read that in an Evo brochure. What to do. Watcha Guys think? Jeff
And on page 6 you are bringing this up?! This will go another 6 pages! Seriously, pick one - I prefer RL out of personal preference - and do a Terry Dyson UOA. He will give you all the info you seek about your specific oil in your specific car. Additionally he will answer all your questions about how it is performing. This is really what you are looking for, you just haven't realized it.
 

Jeffs2006EvoIX

Thread starter
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
1,646
Location
Imperial Valley, California
I guess what the question is to me? is this. Is using the RL 5/30 a better choice than the M1 10/30 that the OEM recommends? I hear different aspects, from different views, and not just limited to this forum. I try to gather info from the engine builders, take their aspects, take the oil guru's aspects, try to piece together my own answer from all the pieces of info I gather. Everyone brings their opinion to the table. The goal is to gain knowledge about the subject matter. I do know that Dave at RL recommended the 5/30 for my car as he does for many others. I asked him about the HTHS and Oil Temps and all that, he still feels the 5/30 is his best recommendation. The car seems to like the stuff, but is it marginally better than the oil I can buy at wallyworld? I don't know. I have not tested it long enough. I try to bring up that the RL seems to be more robust, to get a response on that, but seems people say "oh you don't need it, or it may or may not help you" so in reality, it seems no one really knows. Its all trial and error. I am sure the M1 is all my car needs. I guess if my tuner uses a 50w as a back up, why can't I use a 30w with the film strength of a 40w? The only arguement I see is that I don't need a 40w type of oil with my oil temps, but arent the other factors included like higher zddp, high moly and POE base stocks too worth considering as you look at everything as a whole? Thats why I like all the opinions, reveiws and input. How do I know if the M1 shears? I do know that when I did a VOA of M1 10/30 EP that the Vis at 100C new was 10.6 when I did my first UOA on the same oil 1500 miles later, the Vis at 100C was now 9.6 so in 1500 miles is it fair to say that the M1 sheared? Or is that just normal? The lab stated "this oil sample was on par with oils with 6000 miles of use" but my oil only had 1500 miles on it? That is the original reason why I tried the RL. Its rep for not shearing. Am I wrong in making this assumption between the 2? Jeff
 

Jeffs2006EvoIX

Thread starter
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
1,646
Location
Imperial Valley, California
Guys check out these UOA's on Evo's and maybe it will shed some light on why I keep asking stuff. hide http://forums.evolutionm.net/evo-engine-...ng-testing.html And D00df00d I see you use Motul RBF 600 I used that in my Evo for 3 yrs, just switched to ATE Super Blue, I have seen no difference in pedal feel on or off the track. Pedal feel is actually slightly better with the ATE, but thats just me. Jeff
 
Last edited:

Jeffs2006EvoIX

Thread starter
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
1,646
Location
Imperial Valley, California
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I know. wink Again, you don't necessarily need higher HTHS viscosity. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. Until you decide to put in the time, money, and effort to gather more information, you will never get anything but guesses, and you will continue to be confused. You can start by installing an oil pressure gauge and doing some good UOAs (e.g. from Dyson Analysis), as you have been repeatedly advised to do. thumbsup
If I put the car back to stock I wont bother with an Oil Pressure guage. If I keep it modified I most likely will put one in. But who really looks at guages on the track? I am too busy looking at the line, I mean the only time I really look at guages is at idle, haha. I see your point though. Jeff
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
2,227
Location
Southern Ontario
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Jeffs2006EvoIX
What to do. Watcha Guys think?
I think I have no idea why you would keep asking this question, given the sheer breadth and depth of replies you have received.
+1 Jeff I am glad you started the thread as the replies that have been generated have been high quality interesting posts from which I have learned good stuff but there is no doubt we have been going around in circles for awhile now. Can we move on?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top