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

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Regarding fuel economy, it's not enough simply to think to yourself about what your driving habits have been and do some quick calculations. If you want to draw conclusions from fuel economy -- or dyno runs, for that matter -- you have to do several trials under absolutely identical conditions that you have gone to great lengths to control. Then, when you get the numbers, you have to do some sort of statistical testing to make sure that the difference you see isn't due to chance. This is what big companies do....That's the way it goes, and that's why we have science. Horsepower increases, MPG increases, engine wear reduction -- these are not things that can just be eyeballed. If they could, it wouldn't take millions of dollars and years of work by large teams of highly educated people just to develop engines and engine oil.


Very well put. And probably the least understood fact on this board.

Tom NJ

 

[buster]

Agree, well said. None of use here have the true ability to scientifically prove much of anything. LOL

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: buster
None of use here have the true ability to scientifically prove much of anything. LOL

Now you've done it. $20 says someone's going to say "yeah, well I know I can't prove it SCIENTIFICALLY, but I know what I saw!" Just you wait and see!

 

[The_Eric]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: buster
None of use here have the true ability to scientifically prove much of anything. LOL

Now you've done it. $20 says someone's going to say "yeah, well I know I can't prove it SCIENTIFICALLY, but I know what I saw!" Just you wait and see!

Out of curiosity, do you think that's unreasonable?

 

[robertcope]

Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Out of curiosity, do you think that's unreasonable?


When dealing with something as complicated as engine oils, yes.

robert

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: buster
None of use here have the true ability to scientifically prove much of anything. LOL

Now you've done it. $20 says someone's going to say "yeah, well I know I can't prove it SCIENTIFICALLY, but I know what I saw!" Just you wait and see!

Out of curiosity, do you think that's unreasonable?

Let me just say this: All that stuff about controlled trials, repetition, statistics, and so on... I'm not saying the fact that it's science somehow makes it right. It's the other way around: science uses those methods because they are the only way to get reliable, repeatable results. I actually think calling them "scientific" is distracting and unnecessary. It doesn't matter that they are used in science; what matters is that they work, and subjective experience doesn't.

As to your question: I think it's perfectly reasonable for most people to feel that their subjective experience is as good as or better than "science" -- only because most people don't know what science really is, why it is the way it is, and why it is valuable. But I suspect that's not what you meant by your question. If your question was whether I think subjective opinion is even remotely as reliable as scientific methods, the answer is a very firm "no."

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
...50/50 M1 15w50/M1 0w40. It would start out with an HTHS of ~4.1, and once it got done shearing would be similar to RL 5w30.

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
...that M1 15w50 gives better wear protection due to higher zddp content, and the mix will probably be more shear stable than 5w50.

I'm interested to know how you came to these conclusions, and hoping it's based on more than the commonly accepted facts about VIIs and ZDDP.


I'm basing my statement on shear stability on a calculation that I do that ratios the HTHS viscosity to the predicted dynamic viscosity at 150C. I plug the KV40 and KV100 numbers into a viscosity calculator and get the predicted kinematic viscosity at 150C. Then I take the density at 15C and multiply by 0.9 to get a predicted density at 150C. Then I multiply the KV150 number by the rho150 number to get the predicted DV150. Then I divide HTHS by DV150. This number is the fraction of dynamic viscosity remaining when the oil goes from a low shear to a high shear environment. The higher the fraction, the more shear stable the oil.

In the case of M1 5w50, the calculation yields .807.
In the case of M1 0w40/15w50 mixed, the calculation yields .837.
Since there is only a 4% difference between the two, use of either oil would not mean a critical difference in film thickness, but the direction is correct for using the 0w40/15w50 mix. A factor that would tip in the direction of 5w50 would be its starting HTHS of 4.4, versus the calculated 4.12 of the mix. After they get done shearing in the engine, the final HTHS of both oils would probably be about the same. I was advocating the 0w40/15w50 mix because Jeff wants lower cost oils that he can get at local sources.

By way of comparison, Redline 10w40 has starting HTHS of 4.7 and an HTHS/DV150 ratio of .967. Which of these oils do you think would be the most shear stable and give higher film thickness in a running engine?

As far as the zddp content is concerned, the 5w50 has 1000ppm Phos., and the 0w40/15w50 mix would have 1100. Once again the mix is directionally better, with 10% higher Phos., but what about other anti-wear additives?

M1 5w50 VOA shows 99ppm of Moly., which is nice.
M1 ow40 VOA shows 73ppm of Moly., which is almost as nice.
M1 15w50 VOA shows 90ppm of Moly, which is nice.

Seems to me like the total wear protection is equivalent between the 5w50 and the 0w40/15w50 mix. What the mix gives up in Moly content, it makes up for in Phos.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
I'm basing my statement on shear stability on a calculation that I do that ratios the HTHS viscosity to the predicted dynamic viscosity at 150C. I plug the KV40 and KV100 numbers into a viscosity calculator and get the predicted kinematic viscosity at 150C. Then I take the density at 15C and multiply by 0.9 to get a predicted density at 150C. Then I multiply the KV150 number by the rho150 number to get the predicted DV150. Then I divide HTHS by DV150. This number is the fraction of dynamic viscosity remaining when the oil goes from a low shear to a high shear environment. The higher the fraction, the more shear stable the oil.

Interesting. Is this an accepted method?


Originally Posted By: A_Harman
In the case of M1 0w40/15w50 mixed, the calculation yields .837.

Okay, but how did you arrive at this and the HTHS number you calculated? Did you just average the HTHS numbers of the two products?


Originally Posted By: A_Harman
As far as the zddp content is concerned, the 5w50 has 1000ppm Phos., and the 0w40/15w50 mix would have 1100. Once again the mix is directionally better, with 10% higher Phos., but what about other anti-wear additives?

M1 5w50 VOA shows 99ppm of Moly., which is nice.
M1 ow40 VOA shows 73ppm of Moly., which is almost as nice.
M1 15w50 VOA shows 90ppm of Moly, which is nice.

Seems to me like the total wear protection is equivalent between the 5w50 and the 0w40/15w50 mix. What the mix gives up in Moly content, it makes up for in Phos.

I'm with you on the additive numbers, but I don't see how you can leap from anti-wear additive levels to a statement about "total wear protection." That would have to be tested, and it would be different for different engines.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
I still like my idea from one of the threads a couple of weeks ago: 50/50 M1 15w50/M1 0w40. It would start out with an HTHS of ~4.1, and once it got done shearing would be similar to RL 5w30.

Even talking about running a very heavy without reference to oil temp's and oil pressure really makes no sence to me.
In that previous thread it was established that Jeff's bulk oil temp's never gets above 90C on the street and barely reaching even 70C during a typical commute. Furthermore this is strictly a street use vehicle and Jeff has no plans to autocross the car anymore; something he has done in the past, atleast not without installing an OP gauge.

In comparing RL 5W-30 and M1 0W-40, I have experience in running both these oils. At normal operating oil temp's both will have similar operational viscosities ( the same oil pressure) which shouldn't come as a surprise since they both have the Same HTHS viscosities. While I don't have experience with M1 shearing, it is known to in some applications, so that HTHS 3.8cP viscosity could drop somewhat (lower OP) with extended service while RL is know to be pretty much shear stable.
Also M1 will be somewhat lighter (lower OP) at all cold start-up temp's, even at temp's as high as 30C. And the difference will be more pronounced at colder start up temp's. The reason for this is M1's much higher 185 VI vs 162 for RL. And while the kinematic viscosities of these two widely different oil chemistries can be largely ignored the rate of viscosity change (VI) is still very useful.

In Jeff's application M1 0W-40 will be a lighter oil to the RL 5W-30 he is running now but IMO still too heavy in light of his low oil temp's. I think he should return to the spec' oil grade in the fall and I'd suggest a quality light 30wt like PP or PU 5W-30; nothing heavier is warranted.

 

[A_Harman]

This is a method I came up with on my own, but it is based on a fundamental principle of fluid mechanics that I learned in my junior year at engineering school:

"nu equals mu over rho"

Kinematic viscosity equals dynamic viscosity divided by density. The two different viscosities can be converted into each other if you know the density. I have a lot of confidence in the fidelity of the KV150 number that comes out of a viscosity calculator because it includes the effect of the Viscosity Index. The 0.9 correction factor for density at 150C is based on a spreadsheet of about 10 different oil types that I got from one of our MAJOR OEM customers that shows density as a function of temperature. The 0.9 factor I determined by doing linear curve fits of this data in Excel. The curve fit works very well, giving an R-squared of .99+.

So then multiplying the KV150 and rho150 numbers gives what the expected dynamic viscosity should be at 150C. Ratioing with the HTHS number then shows how much of that viscosity is retained when shear levels are increased.

If there are any lube oil chemists out there who think I'm full of poo on this, please speak up. (MolaKule, TomNJ?) I'm just a layman trying to understand the complex world of lube oil chemistry.

For the 0w40/15w50 mix:
The .837 number was a simple average of the HTHS/DV150 value for the two oils. The final HTHS of 4.12 was calculated by multiplying the .837 by the DV150 value calculated for the mixture. It did end up being very close to the arithmetic average of the HTHS numbers on the oils' spec sheets.

Yeah, I wish I knew more about the tradeoff in wear protection between zddp and the newer antiwear additives based on Moly or Titanium. I got calibrated to think in terms of ppm of Phosphorous when I worked at Cummins 17 years ago.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman

For the 0w40/15w50 mix:
The .837 number was a simple average of the HTHS/DV150 value for the two oils. The final HTHS of 4.12 was calculated by multiplying the .837 by the DV150 value calculated for the mixture. It did end up being very close to the arithmetic average of the HTHS numbers on the oils' spec sheets.

There's a simplier method. Using a viscosity blending calculator simply substitute the HTHS values in place of the KV100 spec's using the 100C temp' and you'll get the same result:

http://www.widman.biz/English/Calculators/Mixtures.html

 

[A_Harman]

Ahhh, that makes sense...

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
If there are any lube oil chemists out there who think I'm full of poo on this, please speak up.


Creative approach. I'm not aware of such a ratio being used in the industry, but the calculation certainly looks sound (although I doubt the third decimal place is a significant figure).

Assuming the oil HTHS viscosity is appropriate for your engine/driving style to begin with, the degree of VII shearing is only important if the shearing by-products are detrimental to oil performance, and have not been accounted for by the formulator. This is unlikely.

Tom NJ

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: A_Harman

Assuming the oil HTHS viscosity is appropriate for your engine/driving style to begin with, the degree of VII shearing is only important if the shearing by-products are detrimental to oil performance, and have not been accounted for by the formulator. This is unlikely.
Tom NJ

This is an excellent point that I believe many here at BITOG over look.
There is too much obsessing about an oil's VII level and the degree to which an oil may shear in service. If it is a FF oil like M1 0W-40 is, the only thing that matters is what it's resulting viscosity is in service and with experience that will be known.
To my way of thinking, what's more important with high VI oil's like M1 0W-40 is how much of an oil's virgin VI is retained once the oil has stabilized in service and with M1 0W-40 it's very high indeed.

 

[Jeffs2006EvoIX]

I understand what Caterham is saying about HTHS, and keeping within what my oil temps are and what not. What makes things so difficult for me to understand is so many conflicting information. It makes it very dificult to make a solid choice, or a choice that I am comfortable with.

OEM fill on the car is M1 10/30 so I can just go with that I suppose and I am sure all will be fine, but then my friend that builds these motors, even just plain ol' OEM builds, he recommends 50w oil, and the HTHS on that is in the mid 4's. So I felt the Redline, was a good comprimise between the M1 that I was using and the 50w that he recommends. I have discussed before about my friend and his logic for using the 50w oil on this engine.

I understand what you guys are saying about the MPG's and I didn't mean for it to come into a scientific debate, but after having over 1000 data logs, and fuel logs that go back over 4 years and plotted on a graph that I have made myself on my laptop, I have seen to me evidence that the RL has indeed imcreased MPG's. My Father is also puzzled by this, but he knows how anal I get over statistics on things on my car. The quicker starts? Don't know what to tell you. All I can say is the car starts easier. Explain it? I just can't. I am not an engineer, just a car enthusiast.

Its a tough call for me on this. Granted Terry's Info was from 2002, and yes it may be old, but I think M1's formulations have changed more than RL's has. RL I am sure have changed some aspects, but M1 seems to change their formulations on a weekly basis. Slapping on new labels, new bottle shapes every month it seems.

Anyway, its tough. The car manual says to run 10/30 M1, its in the manual and on the oil cap itself. But, I have to consider too that my car makes about 100whp more than stock, running more boost than stock, high lift cams, super stiff valve springs, and a tuner friend that plays it safe by recommending a 50w oil.

I have not seen my oil temps over 80C yet. Even last week when it was 102F driving home the temps didn't see over 80C. From my understanding too, the Oil Cooler Thermostat doesnt even kick on till 85C so it seems the oil is bypassing the oil cooler right now.

I just felt from hindsight point of veiw, that in a performance car such as my Evo, that going overboard on oil, such as the RL I am using would just be common sense. Higher ZDDP can't hurt, High Moly should't hurt, POE based oil keeping everything squeaky clean should be good, and a durable HTHS rating. Is it bad to use this oil? Am I wasting my money? Is that what people are saying here? Just go back to Wallyworld and put in the Group 3 M1 10/30? Or keep in what I have and have that margain of error?

Thoughts on that??

Jeff

 

[jaj]

Originally Posted By: Jeffs2006EvoIX
...What makes things so difficult for me to understand is so many conflicting information. It makes it very dificult to make a solid choice, or a choice that I am comfortable with.

OEM fill on the car is M1 10/30 so I can just go with that I suppose and I am sure all will be fine, but then my friend that builds these motors, even just plain ol' OEM builds, he recommends 50w oil, and the HTHS on that is in the mid 4's. So I felt the Redline, was a good comprimise between the M1 that I was using and the 50w that he recommends. I have discussed before about my friend and his logic for using the 50w oil on this engine...The car manual says to run 10/30 M1, its in the manual and on the oil cap itself. But, I have to consider too that my car makes about 100whp more than stock, running more boost than stock, high lift cams, super stiff valve springs, and a tuner friend that plays it safe by recommending a 50w oil.I just felt from hindsight point of veiw, that in a performance car such as my Evo, that going overboard on oil, such as the RL I am using would just be common sense. Higher ZDDP can't hurt, High Moly should't hurt, POE based oil keeping everything squeaky clean should be good, and a durable HTHS rating. Is it bad to use this oil? Am I wasting my money? Is that what people are saying here? Just go back to Wallyworld and put in the Group 3 M1 10/30? Or keep in what I have and have that margain of error?

Thoughts on that??

Jeff


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.

 

[The_Eric]

Jeff, you keep coming back to your car making more than stock hp... But if your oil temps are only getting to 70*c during normal driving and no more than 90*c, it's still not even up to the temps it is spec'ed at (100*c).

You should likely pay little to no mind to your builder friend. Most mechs and builders don't know squat about oil. Instead, listen to people Molecule, Catheram, doodfood and TomNJ, people who have taken the time to study lubricants and/or work in the industry. Like doodfood says, look at and use the facts, not your gut. Facts are a much better basis for a decision.

 

[cchase]

Originally Posted By: Jeffs2006EvoIX
II understand what you guys are saying about the MPG's and I didn't mean for it to come into a scientific debate, but after having over 1000 data logs, and fuel logs that go back over 4 years and plotted on a graph that I have made myself on my laptop, I have seen to me evidence that the RL has indeed imcreased MPG's. My Father is also puzzled by this, but he knows how anal I get over statistics on things on my car. Jeff


Just something to consider: I've plotted mileage over time for several engines and then come up with a relationship of mileage over time that is very consistent between engines and even applications. Engines get better gas mileage over their lifetime and this is independent of the oil used. If I had to speculate, it's the engine wearing over time and creating a lower friction environment.

Just providing some balance that perhaps it's not the RL that helped your gas mileage. Your test does not account for all variables.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Jeffs2006EvoIX
I understand what you guys are saying about the MPG's and I didn't mean for it to come into a scientific debate, but after having over 1000 data logs, and fuel logs that go back over 4 years and plotted on a graph that I have made myself on my laptop, I have seen to me evidence that the RL has indeed imcreased MPG's. My Father is also puzzled by this, but he knows how anal I get over statistics on things on my car.

Let me try to help you out here, if I may.

You have the logs. Great. This means the results are recorded in cold, hard numbers. Now we need the same level of detail on the conditions under which the numbers were obtained. Your driving style and patterns, as well as the engine's operating parameters, all need to be in writing as well. Ideally, they needed to have been EXACTLY the same before and after you switched to Red Line; if not, we need to know exactly how and when they changed, and exactly how the changes would have affected fuel economy. Without that information, we can't rule out the possibility that your MPG increase was due to something else. It's as simple as that. It's not enough to say "I don't think my driving has changed, and the car was pretty much the same." Something may have changed that you didn't think of or didn't think mattered. EVERYTHING has to be documented.

If we did have all of that information, the next step would be feeding it all into some statistics software and calculating the odds that the result was simply due to chance. That's a whole 'nother can of worms that we don't need to open right now; suffice it to say it's entirely possible that even if we had ALL the numbers and everything turned out exactly as we hoped, there would still be a possibility that no conclusion could be drawn.

One thing you could do is switch back to your old oil for 2-3 OCIs, and then back to Red Line, and repeat that process a few times. You would still need statistics software to see if the results were real, and it wouldn't be an open-and-shut case without data on the car's condition, but at least whatever conclusion you could draw would be a bit more plausible.


Originally Posted By: Jeffs2006EvoIX
Its a tough call for me on this. Granted Terry's Info was from 2002, and yes it may be old, but I think M1's formulations have changed more than RL's has. RL I am sure have changed some aspects, but M1 seems to change their formulations on a weekly basis. Slapping on new labels, new bottle shapes every month it seems.

The point is that his 2002 comparison of Mobil 1 to Red Line is now invalid since both formulations have changed.


Originally Posted By: Jeffs2006EvoIX
Higher ZDDP can't hurt, High Moly should't hurt

Yes, they can. Too much can interfere with other additives and, in the worst case, cause deposits.


Originally Posted By: Jeffs2006EvoIX
POE based oil keeping everything squeaky clean should be good

POE isn't the only way to keep an engine clean, nor is it any guarantee that an oil will clean better than another oil without POE.

Cleanliness is one of the things Mobil 1 is known for, by the way.


Originally Posted By: Jeffs2006EvoIX
Is it bad to use this oil? Am I wasting my money? Is that what people are saying here?

It sounds like you want everyone here unanimously to give you yes-or-no answers to these questions. Don't hold your breath.

 

[CATERHAM]

Jeff, there should be no confusion here, as I mentioned in your previous thread, your tuner friend uses the heaviest oils he can get (RL 50wts) to deal with the oil starvation that results from retaining the stock wet sump oiling system. Running wider, stickier tires than stock that generate higher cornering G forces overwelming the stock wet sump set-up.
Doubling the oil's film strength will in conjunction with a boat load of ZDDP and moly dramatically increase protection during boundary lubrication at the expense of efficient hydrodynamic lubrication. That's what your tuner is doing. It is a back-yard remedy of sorts; not a properly engineered lubrication sol'n.
Dry sumping is the solution then you can go back to hydrodynamic lubrication basics and run a light 30wt or 20wt oil determined by oil temperature.

Since you don't race your car, if you keep the cornering forces in check you will not have oil starvation problems. And I've mentioned this many times before but if you install an oil pressure gauge (IMO this is a must do prerequisite to any engine performance mod's) then you know if and when oil starvation will occur.

Finally, the reason the spec' oil is a 10W-30 and not a 5W-30 is because synthetic oil is not specified and a 10W-30 dino is generally thicker and more shear resistant than a 5W-30 dino. If you up-grade to a syn' oil the 10W-30 grade is obsolete and a typical 5W-30 syn' will provide all the operational viscosity that you need and then some.