M1 T&SUV vs M1 5w30 --Someone suggested.

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
The last time I checked, the timing chain and sprockets WERE considered part of the valve train. How do you think the valves are actuated, if not by a timing chain or belt?

---

This engine has a rollerized valavetrain and the camshaft no longer drives the distributor and oil pump. This is not a diesel engine or the old SBC/BBC setup. The timing chains are not wearing out prematurely on these engines according to the GM engineer I talked to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
Seriously though, in this application you have a 6000+ lb truck - and the engine is coupled to an automatic transmission. Under normal driving, the four speed GM unit is upshifting at < 3000 rpms and the engine lopes along on the HW at under 2000 rpms. Therefore, this is a "high load, low rpm" situation in a very hot climate, that calls for a thicker lubricant.

This same 6.0L engine - or a close varient - is also used in the Corvette and Pontaic GTO; coupled to a close ratio, six speed manual. In that case the engine is driven much more aggressively - including some track time perhaps? - and spends much more time at > 3000 rpms. So that's a "high rpm/low load" application that calls for a thinner oil to reduce the pumping losses at high rpms.

---

This truck has a substantially higher gear ratio and with different programming in the computer that controls the automatic transmission. Driven normally, the bearings will more than likely see less load than some one bombing around in a 6-speed Corvette with high grip tires. This truck also has an oil cooler so that the oil temperature, and thus the viscosity of the oil, remains plenty sufficient to insure adequate protection of this engine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
My primary recommendation in that case is an xw-30 synthetic that meets the ACEA, A3/B4 specifications...

---

I was waiting for the segue into the Amsoil pitch...but you probably already private messaged him with that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
In other words, it's NOT just the engine design that matters, but how it's used as well. Mobil calls their 5w-40, a "Truck and SUV" oil for a reason, since those are the best domestic applications for this grade. Of course GM lube engineers HAVE to recommend a GF-4, Energy Conserving oil for this motor. So that leaves them with the choices of 0w-20, 5w-20, 0w30 or 5w30. In other words, the thickest lube they can recommend is 5w30. That doesn't mean a savvy truck owner can't look past the "one sizes fits all", SAE 5w30 recommendation and use a viscosity that is better suited to the operating conditions.

---

Oh please...now you're going to use Mobil's marketing tripe to prove your point?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
FWIW, my father in law in Duluth, GA just bought a trailblazer with the new 4.2L, in-line six cylinder engine. I'm sending him a case of Amsoil to run in it - I'm sending him the Amsoil Series 3000, 5w30 (HT/HS of 3.6 Cp). He'll be using this vehicle to tow heavy loads, including his bass boat and he'll be using it in 4WD mode quite often. So the thicker S3000 will work better than the thinner Amsoil 5w30 XL formulation (HT/HS of 3.0 Cp) or even the new ASL: formulation (HT/HS of 3.2 Cp).

---

Good for you and your Father. Maybe we won't have to hear it peddled here as often for every application under the sun.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
The OEM recommendations are just a starting point, they're not chiseled on stone tablets and coming down from the mountain....

---

Sure hope that arguement works if he has a problem and he has to show GM a receipt for a case of non-API certified Amsoil .

 

[TooSlick]

I never once mentioned Amsoil in this thread - or PMed him about it. I'm just pointing out that Mobil has a lube available for this application that provides better wear/deposit protection at the same price. How anyone can take offense to that is honestly beyond me.

The thicker Mobil 1, 0w-40 would probably also work marginally better here, since you won't see much shearing in this low rpm, pushrod truck motor. The GC/0w-30 would also significantly reduce these high iron levels, as would the Royal Purple 5w30 or 10w30....

TS

 

[Gary Allan]

Offense? I think it was just a rib poking. You know how it is. You hang it out there ..it's an open invitation to take a whack at it.

We don't have chicks in their mating years to jump hoops through over anymore

...but you gotta keep in shape ..so to speak.

Always check your elevation and range into a good stiff headwind.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
I never once mentioned Amsoil in this thread

---

Huh? You just mentioned Amsoil above? And you think your subtle bias isn't noticed in the other threads?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
I'm just pointing out that Mobil has a lube available for this application that provides better wear/deposit protection at the same price.

---

And I have yet to see any evidence of that being true.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
The thicker Mobil 1, 0w-40 would probably also work marginally better here, since you won't see much shearing in this low rpm, pushrod truck motor. The GC/0w-30 would also significantly reduce these high iron levels, as would the Royal Purple 5w30 or 10w30....

---

His first UOA with M1 5w30 was 11ppm, you consider that high for this engine with 8K miles on it?

I think what he needs to do here is wait until he get some more miles on this engine to let it fully break in and extend the OCI some to better gauge what is actually happening in this engine before he looks for a solution to a problem that may not exist. M1 0w40 or GC 0w30 may indeed be a better choice for this engine and it's application but I would expect an expert to advocate that the engine at least be broken in and good baseline be established before one second guesses what the engineers who designed it recommend.

 

[Blue99]

Well, a very good technical debate with some very solid points made on both sides of the issue.

TooSlick & 427Z06 are both veteran members and their technical expertise and continuing contributions are always appreciated here at Bitog.

quote:

---

We don't have chicks in their mating years to jump hoops through over anymore ...but you gotta keep in shape ..so to speak.

---

Gary, when I can stop laughing, maybe you can elaborate on this comment, as usual, it's some off-the-wall humor!

 

[TooSlick]

Actually, I PM'ed HD 2500 about an hour ago and suggested the same thing. I recommended he wait until he has 20,000 total miles on this engine and then re-test. If he's still seeing > 3 ppm of iron every 1000 miles, then he's better off using the 5w-40.

So it would seem we are in violent agreement! Who would have thought that would ever happen?

It's no secret that I'm a long time - since 1980 - Amsoil dealer and I certainly don't hide the fact - hence my signature. However, if there is anyone on this site who sells oil and is more open minded about recommending competitive products, I'd like to know who it might be? In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that any credibility I might have is largely based on my willingness to recommend the best competitive product on a regular basis.

Tooslick
Dixie Synthetics

 

[Geoff]

Rollerized valve train - hmmm - maybe the lifters running along the cam. But what about the pushrod/rocker arm and the rocker arm/valve touch points? This is not the Vette engine.

Timing chain stretch (no tensioner here) creates problems well before the engine fails in terms of performance/mpg/clean burning. Oiling for the timing chain is usually not pressurized - just drips on.

There is no distributor, but there is a stub shaft that drives the oil pump off the camshaft. Some Chevy guys might confirm this - the truck engines still use this design AFAIK. The gears could be bronze.

Low rpm engines load bearings up.

I think there is still a case to be made for 5w-40 for truck use in warm climates.

 

[JohnBrowning]

I think a few UOA are in order! It is entirely too darn simple to run M1 5W30 then run M1 TSUV under the same conditions and see what we see! UOA does not lie!

I would love to see what 427Z06 and his GM engineers say when the numbers for TSUV or S3K in this truck come back so much better then M1 5W30!! I am sure they would dismiss it some how!!

P.S. Seeing how you already have 80 quarts I would not sweat it too much! Just becasue some of use think S3K and TSUV would be a beter match for this application does not mean that M1 5W30 will not work well. Their is a huge difference between what will work just fine and what one thinks is the ideal for application!

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geoff:
There is no distributor, but there is a stub shaft that drives the oil pump off the camshaft.

---

No. The oil pump is driven by the crankshaft. The lifter (which has the most mass to accelerate) and the rocker is rollerized.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnBrowning:
I think a few UOA are in order! It is entirely too darn simple to run M1 5W30 then run M1 TSUV under the same conditions and see what we see! UOA does not lie!

---

Great advice. However, if the wear metals ppm are near the noise floor they're not going to tell you much. Between differences in chemistries, the +/-20% accuracy of Fe in $20 UOAs, unless there's a magnitude difference over several OCIs, I not sure what you can tell. Heck, if a $20 UOA could tell you so much, why do the Sequence III, IV, V tests require a tear down of the test engine to measure parts? Why don't they just use a $20 UOA.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnBrowning:
I would love to see what 427Z06 and his GM engineers say when the numbers for TSUV or S3K in this truck come back so much better then M1 5W30!! I am sure they would dismiss it some how!!

---

No, not necessarily. But there better be like a magnitude difference across the board over several UOAs before I'd believe the data indicates improvement of one over the other.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnBrowning:
P.S. Seeing how you already have 80 quarts I would not sweat it too much! Just because some of use think S3K and TSUV would be a beter match for this application does not mean that M1 5W30 will not work well. Their is a huge difference between what will work just fine and what one thinks is the ideal for application!

---

We're in agreement here and the reason I thought it prudent to not scare this guy into thinking he needed to return all 80 bottles or his engine would be prematurely worn out.

P.S. I'd like to thank TooSlick and JohnBrowning for the mental workout. I enjoy a good debate with honorable men. And I think I did my part so now I'm going to see if I can find any mating year chicks to jump through hoops in under three drinks.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnBrowning:
If you have enough teardown analysis and supporting UOA to go along with each tear down it would be easy to use UOA as a precision tool!

---

It may be true that in a very expensive laboratory environment, under the strictest of protocols, you may be able to come up with some statistically significant correlations. But that's far cry from a $20 UOA with internet analysis.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnBrowning:
I do not think the noise floor is as genious as you have made it +-20% seems a bit steep!!

---

John, the +/- 20% Fe measurement variance is the information provided from one of the UOA labs. My own independent testing, sending identical samples to well known labs shows similar variances among several of the wear metals.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnBrowning:
If you look at how high his wear numbers are though for such short OCI I think that we will see a huge reduction in iron and lead!!! Maybe one oil change is in order with either S3K 5W30 or TSUV 5W40 as a test run!

---

The short intervals are the problem here. The first 2K miles almost always show the largest spike of most wear metals. See the 3MP study for an example of this with both M1 and Amsoil. It's also been a noted phenomenon in scientific studies. Most experts agree that what we're seeing is chemistry, not mechanical wear per se.

And drawing conclusions from a single short test run is too silly to comment on. I know you're a smart man and know better.

I think most would agree that a couple, better yet three, 5K OCIs with S3K 5W30 or TSUV 5W40 is not going to shorten the life of this engine, so if he wants to experiment, all the power to him. But let's at least advise him on how to do it so he can acquire some meaningful data. For one, it looks like it's taking these engines about 20K miles to break in to the point where UOAs start to reflect any real differences in wear metals between formulations. I think that would be a good place to start.

 

[427Z06]

Just to add a data point to this debate here's a UOA of "thin" oil run in a 5.3 in a Suburban. The 5.3 is almost identical to this engine except for size.

http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=002742;p=1#000000

Note that the resident and most highly respected Tribologist isn't screaming for him to use thicker oil.

And I don't know why this didn't occur to me sooner, Mighty HD, but may I suggest you consider Terry's services to truly get some professional advice on how to optimize your situation. The cost is reasonable and worth every penny.

 

[JohnBrowning]

427Z06, I should have clarified when I said short I did not mean as short as he has been doing!!! What I meant by short was that it would not be extended beyound OEM recomendations. I agree that these short oil change intervals are not the ideal but at least they are consistent.

Your sampleing of different labs while noble in ideal just is not fruitful either. You sample size is simply to small just like most of use on bitog. Most of use do not have any where near enough UOA to have a well established trend. Their are only a few people that have many years of UOA on their vechile and even then you would be hard pressed to translate that to someone elses like vechile in all but themost general of trends. It is still better then nothing though and that is what we have with out the $20 UOA! I think less wear is always better then more if all other factors are about equal!

 

[JohnBrowning]

427Z06, Weighing the parts prior to assembly then tearing the engine down after the test and re-weighting them is obviously the most accurate method for measureing wear! It also gives you a chnce to visual inspect the parts to determine where the various wear metals are comeing from! It is not practical for the average joe though! If you have enough teardown analysis and supporting UOA to go along with each tear down it would be easy to use UOA as a precision tool!

I do not think the noise floor is as genious as you have made it +-20% seems a bit steep!! If you look at how high his wear numbers are though for such short OCI I think that we will see a huge reduction in iron and lead!!! Maybe one oil change is in order with either S3K 5W30 or TSUV 5W40 as a test run!

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnBrowning:
Your sampleing of different labs while noble in ideal just is not fruitful either.

---

May I suggest that you look up the definitions for the words "repeatability", "reproducibility", "accuracy" and precision".

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnBrowning:
You sample size is simply to small just like most of use on bitog..

---

Granted a sample size of a half a dozen would limit definitive quantitative analysis but it does allow one to come to some valid qualitative conclusions. Namely the difference between 8ppm and 11ppm of Fe in these 2K mile samples is noise and to scare the bejesus out of someone is shameful.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnBrowning:
Most of use do not have any where near enough UOA to have a well established trend. Their are only a few people that have many years of UOA on their vechile and even then you would be hard pressed to translate that to someone elses like vechile in all but themost general of trends. It is still better then nothing though and that is what we have with out the $20 UOA! I think less wear is always better then more if all other factors are about equal!

---

I never said $20 UOAs aren't useful tools, even for a neophyte. But I guess I'm wasting my time here seeing that your best efforts at rebuttal are trite at best.