Mix Oil Brands for Oil Change?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: wemay
So Valvoline's claim is passed over as a marketing ploy but M1 and Titan's assertion that mixing their 'superior' product with something else will 'dilute' their uber performance, is not?

I'll agree that mixing may not be optimal, but that my friends is also marketing.

I'm talking strictly about marketing here.


wemay, explain "passed over"

Then explain why you have just given Valvoline a free kick for "inventing engine oil in 1866"...on steam engines.


No, not at all. I've always thought the following link detailed the motor oil time line and it doesn't coincide with Valvoline's claim, i just wasn't focused on that in this discussion. But you are absolutely correct, that is also marketing. Never meant to extend them a freebie. (free kick = passed over)
wink.gif


http://www.oil150.com/about-oil/timeline/
 
OK, then Ashland are claiming absolute "compatibility" in an API SN environment.

API SN is only miscibility...they claim absolutely no more.

So how re their claims being "passed over" ?
 
Originally Posted By: wemay
So Valvoline's claim is passed over as a marketing ploy but M1 and Titan's assertion that mixing their 'superior' product with something else will 'dilute' their uber performance, is not?

I'll agree that mixing may not be optimal, but that my friends is also marketing.

I'm talking strictly about marketing here.


Mobil and Fuch's assertions are common sense. You dilute a fully formulated and extensively tested product (one that yes, they are marketing as superior) with anything else and that makes it no longer a fully formulated product. It is now an unknown with unverified performance.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: wemay
So Valvoline's claim is passed over as a marketing ploy but M1 and Titan's assertion that mixing their 'superior' product with something else will 'dilute' their uber performance, is not?

I'll agree that mixing may not be optimal, but that my friends is also marketing.

I'm talking strictly about marketing here.


Mobil and Fuch's assertions are common sense. You dilute a fully formulated and extensively tested product (one that yes, they are marketing as superior) with anything else makes it no longer a fully formulated product. It is now an unknown with unverified performance.


It makes common sense if you consider product A to be superior to product B. The word 'superior' being subjective.
 
Originally Posted By: wemay
It makes common sense if you consider product A to be superior to product B. The word 'superior' being subjective.


But you promote a premise where product (A+B)/2 is superior to either A or B, and the absence of testing of the mixture against either A OR B refutes any arguments against the mixture being superior.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Mobil and Fuch's assertions are common sense. You dilute a fully formulated and extensively tested product (one that yes, they are marketing as superior) with anything else makes it no longer a fully formulated product. It is now an unknown with unverified performance.


If you mix two oils that meet a certain API or manufacturer spec, that resulting mix should still meet the spec.

Unless like some people claim here, certain additives are not compatible.

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Like I said earlier in the thread, you have to assume
a) that the additives work linearly with dose rate; and
b) they work cumulatively together; and
c) with the new basestock viscosity.

Chances of all of those "ands" coming together to even break even are astronomical.


You guy make it seem like mixing oil is black magic.

I imagine additives are very stable molecules since they have to survive inside of an engine.

We don't know how motor oils are formulated so we are just speculating here.

However, I personally doubt there are additives that are not compatible with each other.

Someone who formulates oils would have to answer if for example I added A and B into the oil. Now I can't add C because it's not compatible with B.
 
Originally Posted By: wemay
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: wemay
So Valvoline's claim is passed over as a marketing ploy but M1 and Titan's assertion that mixing their 'superior' product with something else will 'dilute' their uber performance, is not?

I'll agree that mixing may not be optimal, but that my friends is also marketing.

I'm talking strictly about marketing here.


Mobil and Fuch's assertions are common sense. You dilute a fully formulated and extensively tested product (one that yes, they are marketing as superior) with anything else makes it no longer a fully formulated product. It is now an unknown with unverified performance.


It makes common sense if you consider product A to be superior to product B. The word 'superior' being subjective.


It doesn't matter which product is "better" on paper before they are mixed. Ultimately the end product has not been validated against any of the testing mechanisms each of the product was in order to gain approval making it inferior to both of them.
 
For example if I mix 5 qts Ultra with 1 qt M1,two very good oils,some of you are saying don't do this cause this will somehow turn into bad oil and hurt my engine??
This old boy says Hogwash!
 
Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Mobil and Fuch's assertions are common sense. You dilute a fully formulated and extensively tested product (one that yes, they are marketing as superior) with anything else makes it no longer a fully formulated product. It is now an unknown with unverified performance.


If you mix two oils that meet a certain API or manufacturer spec, that resulting mix should still meet the spec.

Unless like some people claim here, certain additives are not compatible.

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Like I said earlier in the thread, you have to assume
a) that the additives work linearly with dose rate; and
b) they work cumulatively together; and
c) with the new basestock viscosity.

Chances of all of those "ands" coming together to even break even are astronomical.


You guy make it seem like mixing oil is black magic.

I imagine additives are very stable molecules since they have to survive inside of an engine. I doubt they cross-react.

We don't know how motor oils are formulated so we are just speculating here.

However, I personally doubt there are additives that are not compatible with each other.

Someone who formulates oils would have to answer if for example I added A and B into the oil. Now I can't add C because it's not compatible with B.


posterity.
 
Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
If you mix two oils that meet a certain API or manufacturer spec, that resulting mix should still meet the spec.

I imagine additives are very stable molecules since they have to survive inside of an engine.

However, I personally doubt there are additives that are not compatible with each other.
 
You're the only one saying that. Reading, it's fundamental.


Originally Posted By: Dallas69
For example if I mix 5 qts Ultra with 1 qt M1,two very good oils,some of you are saying don't do this cause this will somehow turn into bad oil and hurt my engine??
This old boy says Hogwash!
 
Originally Posted By: camrydriver111

If you mix two oils that meet a certain API or manufacturer spec, that resulting mix should still meet the spec.


Why? Explain this please. How does a product that blender A has spent X amount of hours formulating, testing and getting approved, mixed with a product from blender B, which, while having a similar amount of design and testing put into it may have completely different base oils, an additive package from a completely different chemical company, different brand PPD's, different VII's....etc somehow mix together and, with no testing, somehow meet all of those same specs and approvals?

Easy. It doesn't.

What the guarantee is from the API is that they are "compatible"; that they two products won't have a massive negative reaction with the 6 test oils and fail the miscibility test. That's it. That's the only "approval" this new product that you've just concocted has.

Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
Unless like some people claim here, certain additives are not compatible.

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Like I said earlier in the thread, you have to assume
a) that the additives work linearly with dose rate; and
b) they work cumulatively together; and
c) with the new basestock viscosity.

Chances of all of those "ands" coming together to even break even are astronomical.


You guy make it seem like mixing oil is black magic.

I imagine additives are very stable molecules since they have to survive inside of an engine.

We don't know how motor oils are formulated so we are just speculating here.

However, I personally doubt there are additives that are not compatible with each other.

Someone who formulates oils would have to answer if for example I added A and B into the oil. Now I can't add C because it's not compatible with B.


It isn't black magic, it is chemistry that involves extensive testing so that a product performs in a way that it can meet all of the targets required to obtain the approvals it needs to. This is why it is a fully formulated product. Once that formula is modified, its behaviours in service can no longer be known; they are not tested.

That doesn't mean that the end product is going to eat your engine or that you are going to have a dramatic failure or anything of that sort. What it means, and what Shannow is driving at is that somehow thinking that mixing oils together is going to give you a BETTER product, a product somehow superior to the two (or more) individually developed and tested products that are being mixed is a fool's errand based on it being next to statistically impossible.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: wemay
It makes common sense if you consider product A to be superior to product B. The word 'superior' being subjective.


But you promote a premise where product (A+B)/2 is superior to either A or B, and the absence of testing of the mixture against either A OR B refutes any arguments against the mixture being superior.


No, I've never promoted a premise of either/or being superior. I'm not one to frankenbrew on any consistent basis because i believe 'my mixture superior to the formulators.' But if you have the odd quart hanging around, and they both meet SN GF-5 for example, i see no harm in using it. Again, not optimal? Most likely so.

For instance...
If i owned a late model VW, i would not mix anything other than oils meeting the VW approval.
If my vehicle only required SN/GF-5 though, i would mix according to those certifications.

With the information you've supplied, i would now take it a step further and include that the mixed products have a similar add pack and that the ambient temps do not reach freezing.
 
We might be safe mixing Mobil and Pennzoil synthetics since Infineum supplies their additives. Again, its true we just don't "know".
 
Couple of examples..

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3693399/Re:_Is_TBN_a_linear_thing??#Post3693399

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
I once did a 50/50 blend of M1 0w40 and M1 5w30 HM:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...;am#Post2635068

The result was 9.71 TBN, and the contributing oils had TBN's of 11.8 (PDS value) and 8.8 (BITOG VOA value). Taking a weighted average, that would mean the blend should have had a TBN of 10.3, but the actual measurement was about 6% below that. Given that both oils are going to vary around their published values, I would say it is pretty close but you can't depend on a simple calculation. If you want to know for sure, you need to do VOA's of the contributing oils and the blend.


https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2948797

Member KCJEEP mixed a couple of Castrol products to an expected KV100, and got either a much lower KV, or the brew sheared down in a few thousand miles and gave not so good wear tests.

(no, not an exploded engine in either case).
 
I am not trying to outthink the oil companies and create a better oil.
I'm just using an odd qt to complete an oil change.
One qt out of six.
I dont care that Maybe they both will be diluted some.
I dont think whatever these two mixed oils turn into-they are still a blended oil that won't hurt my engine.
If mixing oil has hurt any engines,why haven't we heard this?
Just maybe today's oils are so good that they can handle being mixed.
I really thought mixing was accepted by folks here but now I see that it isn't.
I do enjoy what the naysayers have to offer.
To any newbies here-Mix Away and be happy.
 
Yup, the more i read, the more it makes sense not to mix. Unlike K&N air filter garage studies, Machinery Lubrication is well respected and a trusted publication.

A little more info from...

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/283/testing-lubricants-companibility


Very often, the mixing of different fluids results in a loss of solubility and/or the responsiveness of the additive ingredients used in either of the two formulations. This can result in a diminished effectiveness of the additives to perform as intended.

It was recently reported that although it is generally safe to mix lubricants of different types designed for the same application, the drawbacks of mixing are far greater for complex formulations.1 For example; an automotive engine oil may contain 20 percent additives or more whereas a hydraulic fluid may contain only a small percentage of rust and oxidation inhibitors. Given the more complex nature of the engine oils, there is a greater likelihood that problems can occur with mixing this type of lubricant.

The Military Experience
The U.S. Department of Defense maintains numerous types of vehicles, equipment and other systems that all require the use of fluids and lubricants. Not only is the wide range of mechanical systems difficult from an operational and maintenance standpoint, but the manner in which the Department of Defense procures its lubricants and fluids that are needed precludes the purchasing of specific products from the same source or sources, a strategy which would likely minimize the potential for any incompatibility problems.

To counter some of the problems mentioned above (other than the inadvertent mixing of improper fluids/oil for which there is no control other than proper training and procedures), individual military specifications (now referred to as performance or detailed specifications or commercial item descriptions) include requirements for assuring compatibility of like or similar fluids/oils. Some of these requirements involve mixing different fluids and subjecting them to heating up to 275°F (135°C) for two or more hours, followed by cooling down to -65°F (-54°C) for an additional two or more hours. Visual separation to any degree is considered evidence of an incompatibility and ground for rejection of the fluid. These requirements can be found in military specifications for most fluids, including hydraulic fluids, general preservative oils, automotive engine and gear oils, and aviation engine and gear oils.

Available Procedures For Assessing Compatibility
Many of the procedures for determining fluid or lubricating oil compatibility are available and published in the Federal Standard 791C titled “Lubricants, Liquid Fuels, and Related Products; Methods of Testing.”2 Three such procedures in this Federal Standard are worthy of mention.

1. The first is Method 3470.1 titled “Homogeneity and Miscibility of Oils.” This test involves individually mixing a candidate oil or fluid with six other reference oils. These mixtures are then subjected to a series of heating and cooling cycles with most of the emphasis given to the cooling cycles because incompatibility becomes more pronounced at lower temperatures, as was evidenced in a recent SAE paper titled “Assessment of the Low-Temperature Incompatibility Risk of Commercial Engine Oils.”3 After repetitive heating and cooling cycles, any evidence of adverse reaction or separation such as a color change, the appearance of particles, individual layer formation, etc., constitutes an incompatibility.

2. The second is Method 3430.2 titled “Compatibility Characteristics of Universal Gear Lubricants.” This method also involves mixing candidate oils with reference oils. The test consists of heating the mixture to 250°F (121°C) for 20 minutes, storing for 30 days at room temperature, and then centrifuging to determine the percentage of separated material.

3. The third is Method 3440.1 titled “Storage Stability Characteristics of Universal Gear Lubricants” which, unlike the other two methods, does not involve mixing the candidate oil with any reference oils. The test assesses the compatibility of the lubricant with extreme temperature storage conditions. The candidate oil is heated to 248°F (120°C) for 20 minutes, then after cooling, the oil is stored in a dark area at room temperature for 30 days. After this period, the oil is centrifuged to see whether any separation occurred.

Adoption of Test Methods for General Industry Use
These test procedures have become widely used within industry and have since been incorporated into several industry standards. For instance, Method 3470.1, commonly referred to as the “H & M Test,” is required for automotive engine oils meeting the SAE J183 JUN99 Engine Oil Performance and Engine Service Classification (other than energy conserving) standard.4 Methods 3430.2 and 3440.1 are required for automotive gear oils meeting the SAE J308 JAN96 Axle and Manual Transmission Lubricants Information Report.4 More than likely, these procedures are used by many other industry and user organizations. Although they were primarily designed for automotive lubricating oils, they certainly could be adapted or modified for use with oils and fluids intended for other types of equipment and machinery systems.
 
Originally Posted By: Dallas69
I am not trying to outthink the oil companies and create a better oil.
I'm just using an odd qt to complete an oil change.
One qt out of six.
I dont care that Maybe they both will be diluted some.
I dont think whatever these two mixed oils turn into-they are still a blended oil that won't hurt my engine.
If mixing oil has hurt any engines,why haven't we heard this?
Just maybe today's oils are so good that they can handle being mixed.
I really thought mixing was accepted by folks here but now I see that it isn't.
I do enjoy what the naysayers have to offer.
To any newbies here-Mix Away and be happy.


What we usually see is an engine continue to operate OK with mixing. That doesn't tell us if maybe there is higher wear rates occuring or more deposits ---- you just can't see it.
All we can really conclude is that you MIGHT have problems if you mix, and the new mixed franken-brew may not even pass SN, dexos1, etc. whatever.
There are some additives that work on top of just about any existing oil mix when dosed in small amounts, possibly improving oil. Fram does it with their High Mileage Oil Filter cartridges inside, and LiquiMoly sells a bunch of "maybe improving" supplements.
 
Originally Posted By: fredfactory

There are some additives that work on top of just about any existing oil mix when dosed in small amounts, possibly improving oil.


How do we define 'small amounts'. Some sumps hold 3qts, others 7, etc. I don't think we can have it both ways. If additive clash may cause an issue in mixed oils, the risk of adding stand alone additives may be just as questionable. It may also be that too much of an additive could cause problems. If you are against mixing oils, i cannot see how adding anything to it is different.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom