quote:
Originally posted by 427Z06:
This link refers to a VW 2.0, and having owned one of those in the past, I can say without a doubt it's requirements are totally different than a Nissan VQ35 engine.
quote:
Originally posted by 427Z06:
This link refers to a VW 2.0, and having owned one of those in the past, I can say without a doubt it's requirements are totally different than a Nissan VQ35 engine.
Member "Patman" is a German Castrol fanatic, he's near Toronto. He should be able to tell you where it can be found in Ontario.quote:
Originally posted by il_signore97:
Walmart only has North American Castrol Syntec. I have never seen German Castrol at Walmart!
I agree with going for the lowest wear as well as the best fuel mileage. They may not be mutually exclusive. Better fuel mileage is the result of lower friction losses in the engine. It stands to reason that lower friction losses could also mean less wear. It does mean you have more HP (slightly, just the same as the mileage is slightly better). Of course some will argue and rightly so that that may not be true for the whole engine. An yes, with thinner oil friction losses are reduced in the journal bearings, piston rings, and the the piston skirt area. They do increase in the valve train, but the net net is less friction overall.quote:
Originally posted by il_signore97:
Ron, I appreciate what you're saying about CAFE and fuel economy, and I've already read that Shell paper on thinner oils, but I'm not really looking for the "best" fuel economy if it comes at the expense of engine protection. I'm interested in the lowest wear as I intend to keep my car for quite a long time, and I put a large amount of mileage on it every year.
Yes, those are all good thoughts. The wear tests however are verifying that the thinner oils work. Keep in mind that the viscosity difference between a 20 and 30, expecially when you consider the allowable tolerances, is very small. With the heavier oil more HP goes into heat and potentially in localized areas the actual running viscosity of both grades may be the essentially the same, with the temperature being the difference. The 20 wt running cooler than the 30? Just further thoughts.quote:
Originally posted by il_signore97:
While I don't want to risk starting up a 20 wt vs. 30 wt debate or anything like that, I do think that this discussion is pertinent to the topic of the Euro VQ specs vs. the N.A. VQ specs, so I'll continue with my thoughts...
I have no experience with auto UOA analysis, so take this with a grain of salt (well don't put it in the oil!). I know from electrical transformer oil and gas analysis that sampling technique is extremely critical. Without insulting the pros too much I would take it like you do a urine analysis for the medical labs....midstream, not too early or too late!quote:
Originally posted by il_signore97:
Do you think that back-to-back UOA's using different products/viscosities will be accurate enough, or should I definately include a "flush" fill first before actually doing a UOA on each oil?
Originally posted by Ron AKA:
[ No the reason heavier oils are recommended in Europe is because the Europeans are confused. They think heavier oil is better and without any CAFE to challenge their thinking, they continue to put molasses in their engines.
Ron AKA have you noticed that those confused VW 1.8T owners in Europe do not experience such catasthropic engine failures with all that molasses in their engines as the not so confused 5/10W-30 users. This is just one of the exeamples LONG OCI's that is another thing worth mentioning here. After all this molasses seems to work pretty good for not so knowledgeable folks across the puddle.
PLEASE do yourself a favour and don't learn about lubricants from the Red and Green Show.
This one was more of a mineral vs synthetic issue rather than a particular grade issue.quote:
Originally posted by Dominik:
Ron AKA have you noticed that those confused VW 1.8T owners in Europe do not experience such catasthropic engine failures with all that molasses in their engines as the not so confused 5/10W-30 users.
I understand and my response would be the same. If there is going to be a difference in performance of the oil that is going to happen within a minute or two of starting the engine after you change the oil. The only issue will be the extent of contamination of the new oil with the oil, and that happens every oil change. In thinking over the example I gave it probably is going to be a bit more than what I said, but not much. I should have used the contamination factor as the difference between a dry fill and a normal drain and refill. Still you are only going to get a few % error and it really is going to be insignificant. I recall someone posted UOA results for the same oil sample sent to two different labs. The difference was much more than what you are going to see from change to change contamination.quote:
Originally posted by il_signore97:
Ron, I didn't mean flushing with new oil and draining immediately. Let me clarify...
My current oil is Amsoil 0W30. Say, next summer when I want to start my tests, I take a sample of the Amsoil 0W30 when I change the oil. Then, I fill with GC 0W30 for example. I would leave that in for the full OCI...
Now, at this point, should I simply drain the GC, fill with GC again, and then do the UOA after the second OCI with GC, or can I simply do the UOA after the first OCI with GC? (What I'm getting at is would the left-over Amsoil 0W30 skew OAI results from the first fill of GC???)
Hope that clarified the question. I have done numerous UOA's before, so I'm good with regards to the sampling procedure. I am just not sure about the accuracy of testing back-to-back products for comparison purposes.
Yes, it will.quote:
Originally posted by il_signore97:
(What I'm getting at is would the left-over Amsoil 0W30 skew OAI results from the first fill of GC???)