I like that your using a thin oil and the engine isn't dissolving. I just started to appreciate them.
I'm thankful that your posting your results.
I'm thankful that your posting your results.
NEO 0w5 Racing Synthetic, 25K, VW Golf 1.9TDI, ALH
- Thread starter azsynthetic
- Start date
- Status
I like that your using a thin oil and the engine isn't dissolving. I just started to appreciate them.
I'm thankful that y
I'm thankful that y
I too appreciate the posts. A little combative at times but very interesting.
I'm also in the thin oil camp after ditching the 10W-60 grease BMW recommends for the S65 engine for a mixture of Redline 40W race and 5W-30 Street oil. First UOA came back good at 8k miles and I'm about to perform a mid cycle check at 4k on the current fill.
Keep up the good work. BTW, I'm still letting the dealer fill my wife's TDI Sportwagen. It rarely get's better than 40 mpg.
I'm also in the thin oil camp after ditching the 10W-60 grease BMW recommends for the S65 engine for a mixture of Redline 40W race and 5W-30 Street oil. First UOA came back good at 8k miles and I'm about to perform a mid cycle check at 4k on the current fill.
Keep up the good work. BTW, I'm still letting the dealer fill my wife's TDI Sportwagen. It rarely get's better than 40 mpg.
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Originally Posted By: Thermo1223
We all get that, the one thing I don't get is you want to spend as little on fuel as possible. You will however spend countless dollars on boutique racing oils & oil additives which would pretty much negate any savings at all.
Which level of high school math are you at? I need to know this before I can explain to you how I save money. Here are some primers: NEO oil ($30/gallon), ZMAX ($15/quarts), 2T oil ($4/qt), full flow filter ($7 per OCI), Bypass filter ($30 every 50-60K). 25-35K OCI (OEM is 10K), diesel ($4/gallon), 57mpg instead of 44mpg. Can you do the math?
Also, this experiment will apply to my other vehicles in the near future.
+1.
way to go azsyhthetic, really thanks for your posts and experiment into uncharted territory!
pls continue your journey...
BTW what is your opinion on WHY this real thin oil is still in the good and engine has not failed... is it because the NEO and RL oils contain a heavy dose of the antiwear and anti oxidant additives (a few 100% higher than the regular oils) OR is it mainly because of the highly stable synthetic base stocks ?
Originally Posted By: Thermo1223
We all get that, the one thing I don't get is you want to spend as little on fuel as possible. You will however spend countless dollars on boutique racing oils & oil additives which would pretty much negate any savings at all.
Which level of high school math are you at? I need to know this before I can explain to you how I save money. Here are some primers: NEO oil ($30/gallon), ZMAX ($15/quarts), 2T oil ($4/qt), full flow filter ($7 per OCI), Bypass filter ($30 every 50-60K). 25-35K OCI (OEM is 10K), diesel ($4/gallon), 57mpg instead of 44mpg. Can you do the math?
Also, this experiment will apply to my other vehicles in the near future.
+1.
way to go azsyhthetic, really thanks for your posts and experiment into uncharted territory!
pls continue your journey...
BTW what is your opinion on WHY this real thin oil is still in the good and engine has not failed... is it because the NEO and RL oils contain a heavy dose of the antiwear and anti oxidant additives (a few 100% higher than the regular oils) OR is it mainly because of the highly stable synthetic base stocks ?
Originally Posted By: fpracha
BTW what is your opinion on WHY this real thin oil is still in the good and engine has not failed... is it because the NEO and RL oils contain a heavy dose of the antiwear and anti oxidant additives (a few 100% higher than the regular oils) OR is it mainly because of the highly stable synthetic base stocks ?
High additive levels and high quality base stocks are the keys. Both oils have proven themselves being able to handle extreme racing conditions so using them in my car is just a walk in the park.
I am 12K miles into a 35K OCI of this oil and RL blend. So far mileage is up and nothing unusual that I can detect. Best mileage so far is 64mpg for several tanks. Probably early next year before I can get an UOA.
BTW what is your opinion on WHY this real thin oil is still in the good and engine has not failed... is it because the NEO and RL oils contain a heavy dose of the antiwear and anti oxidant additives (a few 100% higher than the regular oils) OR is it mainly because of the highly stable synthetic base stocks ?
High additive levels and high quality base stocks are the keys. Both oils have proven themselves being able to handle extreme racing conditions so using them in my car is just a walk in the park.
I am 12K miles into a 35K OCI of this oil and RL blend. So far mileage is up and nothing unusual that I can detect. Best mileage so far is 64mpg for several tanks. Probably early next year before I can get an UOA.
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Originally Posted By: fpracha
BTW what is your opinion on WHY this real thin oil is still in the good and engine has not failed... is it because the NEO and RL oils contain a heavy dose of the antiwear and anti oxidant additives (a few 100% higher than the regular oils) OR is it mainly because of the highly stable synthetic base stocks ?
High additive levels and high quality base stocks are the keys. Both oils have proven themselves being able to handle extreme racing conditions so using them in my car is just a walk in the park.
Interesting experiment, although the park might be a better place to be if you didn't use an oil that contains Lead.
Originally Posted By: fpracha
BTW what is your opinion on WHY this real thin oil is still in the good and engine has not failed... is it because the NEO and RL oils contain a heavy dose of the antiwear and anti oxidant additives (a few 100% higher than the regular oils) OR is it mainly because of the highly stable synthetic base stocks ?
High additive levels and high quality base stocks are the keys. Both oils have proven themselves being able to handle extreme racing conditions so using them in my car is just a walk in the park.
Interesting experiment, although the park might be a better place to be if you didn't use an oil that contains Lead.
I recommend that you go to the park and leave this thread alone. Your opinion is worthless to me.
Effects of lead on Bitogers!
NEO 0w5:
UOA.....VOA
Iron................31.........1
Chromium.........0..........0
Nickle..............0..........0
Aluminum.........6..........1
Copper.............4.........1
Lead...............103.......89
NEO 0w5:
UOA.....VOA
Iron................31.........1
Chromium.........0..........0
Nickle..............0..........0
Aluminum.........6..........1
Copper.............4.........1
Lead...............103.......89
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
I recommend that you go to the park and leave this thread alone. Your opinion is worthless to me.
Hehehe. Did skyship's opinion ever matter to anyone here?
Why would it matter now? A new user name but still the same ole sunkship
I recommend that you go to the park and leave this thread alone. Your opinion is worthless to me.
Hehehe. Did skyship's opinion ever matter to anyone here?
Why would it matter now? A new user name but still the same ole sunkship
The first to reply to a comment on toxic Lead levels, are always those suffering the most from the side effects. Some even add oil to their fuel to guarantee it gets inhaled, or use old engines with lots of blowby and leaks.
lead 100ppm...0.1 grammes in a litre sump...consume 1L/1,000km, and the engine has consumed approximately 600Kg of air, and 40KG of fuel...lead is therefore 0.15, less than 1/3 the ellowable environmental lead levels in Oz (for a year), assuming that you sucked on the exhaust pipe the entire time.
80 percent falls out of the air "quickly", meaning that unless you are drinking NEO, 100ppm of lead is meaningless.
80 percent falls out of the air "quickly", meaning that unless you are drinking NEO, 100ppm of lead is meaningless.
FWIW I believed that the lead was in the form of lead napthenate although Mola said lead dithiocarbamate so I defer to his far greater knowledge of chemistry and additives.
They may or may not still be using it.
The reason Neo/Paul Baker used to call it a 0W-5 was that no SAE grade existed below an xW-30 when it came on the market around 1989 or so.
I first started using it in race engines in 1993 and it was well worth it, even though I needed to tailor engine clearances and surface finishes to suit the oil.
It gave me a huge advantage over most of the opposition.
I remember being told RL is using tin napthenate to combat the fuel dilution issues prevalent these days, particularly with DI petrol engines.
I hope I'm not talking out of school with that.
They may or may not still be using it.
The reason Neo/Paul Baker used to call it a 0W-5 was that no SAE grade existed below an xW-30 when it came on the market around 1989 or so.
I first started using it in race engines in 1993 and it was well worth it, even though I needed to tailor engine clearances and surface finishes to suit the oil.
It gave me a huge advantage over most of the opposition.
I remember being told RL is using tin napthenate to combat the fuel dilution issues prevalent these days, particularly with DI petrol engines.
I hope I'm not talking out of school with that.
Originally Posted By: Swissdieselfan
Lead...............103.......89
If I don't care about the lead increase then why do you? You obviously have no clue what I am trying to do here. You don't even live in the US, so why do you care? Why don't you post on the China auto forum since they are the world worst polluter and is much closer to your own country.
Come to think of it, may be you are effected by the lead from China.
Lead...............103.......89
If I don't care about the lead increase then why do you? You obviously have no clue what I am trying to do here. You don't even live in the US, so why do you care? Why don't you post on the China auto forum since they are the world worst polluter and is much closer to your own country.
Come to think of it, may be you are effected by the lead from China.
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Originally Posted By: Brule
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
My mileage went from annual average of 44mpg (48 max) when new to 57mpg (62 max) now with all the mods and the low viscosity oil.
What other mods have you done? How much of the mpg improvement do you attribute to oil viscosity?
You can see some of the mods in the engine pic. OMI intake, EGR deletion, DG race pipe, PCV vent to atmosphere, 3" straight exhaust, Aiken fuel box, advance injection timing, 205/70-15 tires, 2T fuel mix, and low viscosity oils. The low oil viscosity is good for 3-5mpg.
The Amsoil bypass filter took care of the soot and allows me to run non diesel oil.
Deleting the EGR valve results in a big increase is NOX emissions. EGR valves are a slight negative in fuel economy and servicing terms but they are fitted for a good reason. Removing them is an anti social act, as it using an oil that contains Lead.
Originally Posted By: Brule
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
My mileage went from annual average of 44mpg (48 max) when new to 57mpg (62 max) now with all the mods and the low viscosity oil.
What other mods have you done? How much of the mpg improvement do you attribute to oil viscosity?
You can see some of the mods in the engine pic. OMI intake, EGR deletion, DG race pipe, PCV vent to atmosphere, 3" straight exhaust, Aiken fuel box, advance injection timing, 205/70-15 tires, 2T fuel mix, and low viscosity oils. The low oil viscosity is good for 3-5mpg.
The Amsoil bypass filter took care of the soot and allows me to run non diesel oil.
Deleting the EGR valve results in a big increase is NOX emissions. EGR valves are a slight negative in fuel economy and servicing terms but they are fitted for a good reason. Removing them is an anti social act, as it using an oil that contains Lead.
Originally Posted By: Swissdieselfan
Deleting the EGR valve results in a big increase is NOX emissions. EGR valves are a slight negative in fuel economy and servicing terms but they are fitted for a good reason. Removing them is an anti social act, as it using an oil that contains Lead.
Since I don't live in a Socialist country, why do I care? It is my car and I can use whatever I want in it. THIS IS AMERICA, GET IT?
Oh yeah, almost forgot, time for me to go and shoot a few hundred rounds of lead into the air and the ground. I love America.
Deleting the EGR valve results in a big increase is NOX emissions. EGR valves are a slight negative in fuel economy and servicing terms but they are fitted for a good reason. Removing them is an anti social act, as it using an oil that contains Lead.
Since I don't live in a Socialist country, why do I care? It is my car and I can use whatever I want in it. THIS IS AMERICA, GET IT?
Oh yeah, almost forgot, time for me to go and shoot a few hundred rounds of lead into the air and the ground. I love America.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Since I don't live in a Socialist country, why do I care? It is my car and I can use whatever I want in it. THIS IS AMERICA, GET IT?
Oh yeah, almost forgot, time for me to go and shoot a few hundred rounds of lead into the air and the ground. I love America.
I agree, he sounds anti-social indeed. Freedom and America has nothing to do with that.
Since I don't live in a Socialist country, why do I care? It is my car and I can use whatever I want in it. THIS IS AMERICA, GET IT?
Oh yeah, almost forgot, time for me to go and shoot a few hundred rounds of lead into the air and the ground. I love America.
I agree, he sounds anti-social indeed. Freedom and America has nothing to do with that.
Here's the NEO PDS:
http://www.bakerprecision.com/neo/0w5.htm
I am surprised it has a claimed VI as high as 180. Nevertheless as has been mentioned has been mentioned this oil is really a light 20wt. What's interesting is it's chemistry and high Phos' level typical of a racing oil. But based on it's spec's it's more interesting than anything from RL, Motul or Millers.
Anyway as far as being a light oil, TGMO 0W-20, Mazda 0W-20, Sustina 0W-20 and SynGard 0W-20 will all be lighter.
http://www.bakerprecision.com/neo/0w5.htm
I am surprised it has a claimed VI as high as 180. Nevertheless as has been mentioned has been mentioned this oil is really a light 20wt. What's interesting is it's chemistry and high Phos' level typical of a racing oil. But based on it's spec's it's more interesting than anything from RL, Motul or Millers.
Anyway as far as being a light oil, TGMO 0W-20, Mazda 0W-20, Sustina 0W-20 and SynGard 0W-20 will all be lighter.
Can you elaborate on your future planned experiments?
By using multiple additives in succession, you introduce the possibility of a synergistic or antagonistic interaction between them.
The only way to conclusively attribute increased fuel economy to a single additive would be to change the oil each time a different additive is used or to run a follow-up experiment using only the additive believed to be responsible for the improved mpg.
By using multiple additives in succession, you introduce the possibility of a synergistic or antagonistic interaction between them.
The only way to conclusively attribute increased fuel economy to a single additive would be to change the oil each time a different additive is used or to run a follow-up experiment using only the additive believed to be responsible for the improved mpg.
Originally Posted By: HardbodyLoyalist
By using multiple additives in succession, you introduce the possibility of a synergistic or antagonistic interaction between them.
And why would I care? I am not looking for minimum engine wear. There are many possibilities of what could happen to my engine and synergistic or antagonistic interaction between additives is not even on my list of things to worry about.
Originally Posted By: HardbodyLoyalist
The only way to conclusively attribute increased fuel economy to a single additive would be to change the oil each time a different additive is used or to run a follow-up experiment using only the additive believed to be responsible for the improved mpg.
Have you read all my posts on this subject? It is not complicated and to calculate fuel economy is just a simple division. Run 10K without the additive and calculate average fuel economy, add the additive then run for another 10K and calculate the average fuel economy again. How hard can that be?
I currently have over 24K miles on my second run with NEO 0W5. Everything is normal and the fuel economy is getting a hair better by thinning the NEO out with Red Line 2WT race oil. I should go over 300K miles on my car sometime next week. If there is something wrong with my engine as we speak then I have no idea what it is since there is no symptom that I can hear, see, or feel. I should have a 35K UOA sometime in May 2014. Stay tuned.
By using multiple additives in succession, you introduce the possibility of a synergistic or antagonistic interaction between them.
And why would I care? I am not looking for minimum engine wear. There are many possibilities of what could happen to my engine and synergistic or antagonistic interaction between additives is not even on my list of things to worry about.
Originally Posted By: HardbodyLoyalist
The only way to conclusively attribute increased fuel economy to a single additive would be to change the oil each time a different additive is used or to run a follow-up experiment using only the additive believed to be responsible for the improved mpg.
Have you read all my posts on this subject? It is not complicated and to calculate fuel economy is just a simple division. Run 10K without the additive and calculate average fuel economy, add the additive then run for another 10K and calculate the average fuel economy again. How hard can that be?
I currently have over 24K miles on my second run with NEO 0W5. Everything is normal and the fuel economy is getting a hair better by thinning the NEO out with Red Line 2WT race oil. I should go over 300K miles on my car sometime next week. If there is something wrong with my engine as we speak then I have no idea what it is since there is no symptom that I can hear, see, or feel. I should have a 35K UOA sometime in May 2014. Stay tuned.
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Originally Posted By: HardbodyLoyalist
By using multiple additives in succession, you introduce the possibility of a synergistic or antagonistic interaction between them.
And why would I care? I am not looking for minimum engine wear. There are many possibilities of what could happen to my engine and synergistic or antagonistic interaction between additives is not even on my list of things to worry about.
Originally Posted By: HardbodyLoyalist
The only way to conclusively attribute increased fuel economy to a single additive would be to change the oil each time a different additive is used or to run a follow-up experiment using only the additive believed to be responsible for the improved mpg.
Have you read all my posts on this subject? It is not complicated and to calculate fuel economy is just a simple division. Run 10K without the additive and calculate average fuel economy, add the additive then run for another 10K and calculate the average fuel economy again. How hard can that be?
I currently have over 24K miles on my second run with NEO 0W5. Everything is normal and the fuel economy is getting a hair better by thinning the NEO out with Red Line 2WT race oil. I should go over 300K miles on my car sometime next week. If there is something wrong with my engine as we speak then I have no idea what it is since there is no symptom that I can hear, see, or feel. I should have a 35K UOA sometime in May 2014. Stay tuned.
Awesome.
I'm testing mos2 in a new to me vehicle. Ran 3000 miles with new oil and filter. Changed oil and filter with exact same products,added ms2 and am posting each tanks mileage.
Some guys just don't get it. If all other variables remain relatively consistent then its easy to figure out if anything specific helps in the fuel economy department.
Have you ever tried mos2 or cera-tec. Since you do uoa it would be interesting to see if either helped in the wear department. I'm already convinced that mos2 improves fuel consumption.
I'm not interested enough that I'd spend any money on one. Fuel savings is more than enough for me.
Anyways keep on keeping on.
Originally Posted By: HardbodyLoyalist
By using multiple additives in succession, you introduce the possibility of a synergistic or antagonistic interaction between them.
And why would I care? I am not looking for minimum engine wear. There are many possibilities of what could happen to my engine and synergistic or antagonistic interaction between additives is not even on my list of things to worry about.
Originally Posted By: HardbodyLoyalist
The only way to conclusively attribute increased fuel economy to a single additive would be to change the oil each time a different additive is used or to run a follow-up experiment using only the additive believed to be responsible for the improved mpg.
Have you read all my posts on this subject? It is not complicated and to calculate fuel economy is just a simple division. Run 10K without the additive and calculate average fuel economy, add the additive then run for another 10K and calculate the average fuel economy again. How hard can that be?
I currently have over 24K miles on my second run with NEO 0W5. Everything is normal and the fuel economy is getting a hair better by thinning the NEO out with Red Line 2WT race oil. I should go over 300K miles on my car sometime next week. If there is something wrong with my engine as we speak then I have no idea what it is since there is no symptom that I can hear, see, or feel. I should have a 35K UOA sometime in May 2014. Stay tuned.
Awesome.
I'm testing mos2 in a new to me vehicle. Ran 3000 miles with new oil and filter. Changed oil and filter with exact same products,added ms2 and am posting each tanks mileage.
Some guys just don't get it. If all other variables remain relatively consistent then its easy to figure out if anything specific helps in the fuel economy department.
Have you ever tried mos2 or cera-tec. Since you do uoa it would be interesting to see if either helped in the wear department. I'm already convinced that mos2 improves fuel consumption.
I'm not interested enough that I'd spend any money on one. Fuel savings is more than enough for me.
Anyways keep on keeping on.
- Status
Similar threads
