I think Pennzoil often does not get the respect it deserves. Pz is usually on the leading edge in meeting the requirements of new API specs and I believe Pz technology is in the vanguard as well. What will prove interesting is how the repackaged Shell Helix products will perform as compared to Pz's own formulations. I'm not sure it will be an improvement, but we will see. On a side note, in attempting to use up remaining stocks of M1 0W40 I put that oil in two vehicles (not the Audi, it gets SLX ONLY) and both exhibit lifter noise on engine start that I had not heard before the change. Not intended to knock M1, just an interesting observation from two different make vehicles: a Ford and a Nissan.
Pennzoil 5w20, 3050 miles, Chrysler 3.5 HO
- Thread starter G-MAN
- Start date
- Status
This is making me less convinced to use pao and poe based synthetic. I'm not so sure that this is totally a viscosity based argument.
I can't resolve some of these high iron issues in my mind either.
Could it be more of of question of base oil, this engine prefers?
I can't resolve some of these high iron issues in my mind either.
Could it be more of of question of base oil, this engine prefers?
Certain chemistries work better then others. It's really that simple. Some oil makers come up with a winner, and some don't. They constantly have to tweak and modify formultions based on technology and API requirements. For M1, I think Fe could be higher due to lower amounts of ZDP or the Boron. It's been talked about before but these are two theories. If you talk to Redline/Amsoil both will tell you that ZDDP is still the most cost effective and proven method for preventing wear.
[ July 03, 2004, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
The main function of ZDDP is to prevent valvetrain/camshaft wear. It would be very rare, IMO, for ZDDP to be needed in the main or rod bearing areas short of a catastrophic failure of the oil supply to those bearings. As Terry has been preaching, and this UOA bears out, the issue with preventing main and rod bearing wear is flow—irrespective of viscosity.
The thing that struck me with this 5w20 UOA is how low the typical valvetrain wear metals are, and this oil has GF-4 levels of zinc and phos.
Yep, for sure. I'm finally glad to see someone say this instead of bashing group III basestocks.quote:
Originally posted by buster:
Certain chemistries work better then others. It's really that simple. Some oil makers come up with a winner, and some don't. They constantly have to tweak and modify formultions based on technology and API requirements. For M1, I think Fe could be higher due to lower amounts of ZDP or the Boron. It's been talked about before but these are two theories. If you talk to Redline/Amsoil both will tell you that ZDDP is still the most cost effective and proven method for preventing wear.However, many other oils with lower ZDP levels, like M1,GC,MC all do well in certain engines so it is at times dependent on the metals used in various engines. For example, Subarus or Fords which show good #'s. Or Redline in Vw's.
Actually M1 is working superbly for me. I'm playing around trying to improve upon it, but I doubt I can and will stop soon.
Bottom line is to keep an open mind and find what works for you and hope they don't change the formula.
If you aren't willing to try and experiment a little, you'll not find what works for your "unique" engine.
M1 doesn't do high iron in my engine, so not a big problem.
UOA till you find the right elixir??
hey Gman, dont know if I missed it in an earlier post but what kind of oil filter were you running, Im just curious especially with the importance of oil flow?
1) Disregard my last; I misread the Blackstone report. Gee, your tact leaves almost as much to be desired as my attention to detail.quote:
Originally posted by G-Man II:
Are you serious? The engine has almost 60,000 miles on it and you think the UOA is still showing break-in wear metals?
As for the slight increase in tin and lead, I'll take Terry Dyson's word that this is NOT coming from wear.
2) From my own experience with Terry, I'll accept his analysis. This, of course, begs the question: where IS it coming from?
What's a vacation
Whimsey
[ July 04, 2004, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Whimsey ]
Terry,quote:
Originally posted by Terry:
Our data shows "GC" 0w-30 testing from 0 to 4 ppm iron. The Gman clean test of 9 ppm is much higher than normal. Bklabs universal averages on this oilclean = 4 ppm.
Elemental wear rates are not linear in the automotive engine unless it sits on a test stand and in a controlled environment.
427 I think NEO has a oil for you, smarty.....
I wonder if you think I'm wrong in being so cautios with these 20W? I still believe the 5W-30 would have done the same job (as demostrated by the GC batch) and MPGs would have suffered very little.
You also have my wife's report coming your way! M1 with 8700+ miles.
Ekpolk,
I'm not jumping on the 20W bandwagon.....in fact, I was the first one to run away from such wagon!
427Z06,
You've got very sharp eyes!
G-Man,
One last time, I believe this report is very good. However, it isn't any better than GC. Iron is statiscally the same. Tin and Lead has to be coming from somewhere. I doubt very much it's a result of Mobil 1 and GC oils since you flushed this engines so many times. So, where is the tin and lead coming from?
Also, I and some of us here believe so many flushes in such a short time could have worked in favor of the 5W-20 oil, since all the previous wear metals were gone at the time of this test. I don't believe it is fair to change the interval and flush (or lack thereof) procedures when switching from brand to brand or weight to weight.
With that said (and not meaning to burst your bubble) and much analyzing in my part, I would still have used the 5/10W-30 and get the same reuslts.
Of course, this is my vastly "un-educated" opinion.
I heard my name mentioned, so I guess I'll post!
Interesting stuff. I'm still on the same side as Whimsey - I probably wouldn't have gone on the thin side of the manufacturer specification, (Of course, I'm trying out a 5w40 in my 4.6l V8, on the thick side, but I digress!) but this 1 UOA shows that for the moment, the switch was not an issue. As things get trended out over time, that may also be of interest...
I'd be curious what kind of psi is standard for oil pressure on this motor - placing a guess its plenty high like the Ford Mod V-8's to go along with plenty of oil flow.
Ultimately, I'm in the boat that every engine has a window of perfection and that no 1 oil brand and vicosity will provide the best results for every engine. I am firmly NOT on the bandwagon that thinner is better for everything, but I also don't believe the opposite - thicker is better for everything. I've had too much experience using "terrible" dino 5w30 oils starting nearly 20 years ago that many doomsayers on this board routinely predict dooms an engine to a short life to think otherwise...
As far as the thinning, that is still Solidly a 20w, and just barely thinner than Citgo Supergard 5w20 is new at 7.8. (Hav/Chev Supreme is 8.0, BTW).
Interesting to see and great to see a bit more "out of the box" thinking...
Interesting stuff. I'm still on the same side as Whimsey - I probably wouldn't have gone on the thin side of the manufacturer specification, (Of course, I'm trying out a 5w40 in my 4.6l V8, on the thick side, but I digress!) but this 1 UOA shows that for the moment, the switch was not an issue. As things get trended out over time, that may also be of interest...
I'd be curious what kind of psi is standard for oil pressure on this motor - placing a guess its plenty high like the Ford Mod V-8's to go along with plenty of oil flow.
Ultimately, I'm in the boat that every engine has a window of perfection and that no 1 oil brand and vicosity will provide the best results for every engine. I am firmly NOT on the bandwagon that thinner is better for everything, but I also don't believe the opposite - thicker is better for everything. I've had too much experience using "terrible" dino 5w30 oils starting nearly 20 years ago that many doomsayers on this board routinely predict dooms an engine to a short life to think otherwise...
As far as the thinning, that is still Solidly a 20w, and just barely thinner than Citgo Supergard 5w20 is new at 7.8. (Hav/Chev Supreme is 8.0, BTW).
Interesting to see and great to see a bit more "out of the box" thinking...
- Status
Similar threads
