Rotella T6 15w40 at Walmart

Joined
Dec 20, 2021
Messages
40
Location
Dallas Texas
It's back!

My Hondas all love this stuff.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20220708_200906_HDR.jpg
    IMG_20220708_200906_HDR.jpg
    137.4 KB · Views: 99

Jay Freddy

Thread starter
Joined
Dec 20, 2021
Messages
40
Location
Dallas Texas
Hey Jay...
Does this Syn 15W-40 shear less than the 5W-40 in your bike?
I've always run regular T-4 with great results.

Never put 5w40 in any of my bikes.

I'm a long time T4 user as well.

Yes, the 15w40 should be more resistant to shearing than 5w40 or the T4.

I live in Dallas so I am more concerned with heat than cold, but the T6 15w40 is good for starts down to -22F, far colder than anything I'd ever ride in.

I have been perfectly happy with the T4 for many years (before it was called T4!), but my car greatly prefers synthetic oil, so when I found Rotella 15w40 in a full synthetic, I had to try it.

The jury is still out as to whether T6 is actually better than the T4, but I expect it will be.

While the T4 looks and feels like good ol fashioned motor oil, the T6 has this amazing tacky texture that is probably really bad for the environment... Lol

Seriously, I got a little T6 on my fingers, and it did not want to come off with soap and water. It took a serious amount of soap and scrubbing and my hand still felt kind of oily for the next 24 hours... A gallon of T6 could probably unintentionally exterminate the wildlife in an average sized pond!

Definitely wear rubber gloves.

I usually change my oil once a year or every 3k miles, whichever comes first. Last year the T4 in my Vtwin Shadow had 3700 miles on it and still looked pretty good when I pulled it out.

As far as shifting, the T6 seems about the same as the T4, but before with the T4 I was getting 52 mpg in my Shadow 750, now with the T6 I am averaging 54-56 mpg.

Going from Honda 10w40 to T6 in my CB1100, my mileage jumped from 40 mpg to 46 mpg, with an all time high of 48 mpg on the T6.

I will buy the T6 15w40 if it's available. If not, I have no problem going back to the T4.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 10, 2013
Messages
401
Location
Tonville, Colorado
Thanks for the great comments and observations @Jay Freddy .

Your mileage observations in your CB1100 really have me scratching my head. If I could realize 30 more miles range per tank out of my C-14, I'd be a mighty happy camper!

Like you, I've been using Rotella (T4?) in my bikes for 25 years now. Actually, I've been using any HDEO I could find lately, including Kirkland from Costco. When I can feel any notchiness in the shifting, I change it. That's usually around 3k miles in the road bike.
Going to have to bite the bullet and make one of my twice a year trips to the silliness that is Walmart and pick up some T-6.
Happy riding...
 

Jay Freddy

Thread starter
Joined
Dec 20, 2021
Messages
40
Location
Dallas Texas
I have never found a difference in gas mileage with changing oils.
I have. At least when going from cheap dino oil to a premium synthetic.

I calculate my gas mileage on all my street bikes and cars by hand, the old fashioned way.

I got a bunch of free oil changes from Nissan when I bought my Versa Note. It was just regular generic 5w30 and a Nissan filter, but I was changing it every 3k miles. I was getting 29-30 mpg around town.

Once the free oil changes ran out, I put in some Pennzoil Ultra 5w30. Immediately I started averaging 32-33 mpg under the same conditions.

It's not a huge difference, but 10% is significant.

Going from the Honda 10w40 dino oil to the Rotella T6 15w40 saw a similar 10% improvement.

Going from Rotella T4 15w40 to Rotella T6 15w40, the difference was less pronounced, but the T6 seems a little more efficient.

The main reason for me to use the T6 is for a longer drain interval.

I'm still going to change it after a year or 4k miles, per Honda's recommendation. Who knows? If I find a reliable source of free T4, I'd have no problem going back to it!
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
1,284
Location
Colorado
I purchased 6 gallons before the ridiculous Biden-Shortages. Since, I haven't seen a single gallon in either of my WallyWorlds. Of course, haven't seen the 5w40 either. Just plenty of SuperTech 15w40. Of course I could go to any of the auto parts stores and pay $35 a gallon for it.

I agree with most that the T6 15w40 is about the best motorcycle oil out there.

And yes, T6, 5w40 shears too quickly in a shared sump for my flavor.
 
Joined
Jul 15, 2003
Messages
3,169
Location
MN
I purchased 6 gallons before the ridiculous Biden-Shortages. Since, I haven't seen a single gallon in either of my WallyWorlds. Of course, haven't seen the 5w40 either. Just plenty of SuperTech 15w40. Of course I could go to any of the auto parts stores and pay $35 a gallon for it.

I agree with most that the T6 15w40 is about the best motorcycle oil out there.

And yes, T6, 5w40 shears too quickly in a shared sump for my flavor.
Its hard to find the 5W40 even in part stores around here.
 
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Messages
2,716
Location
in the shop
Nice to see stock coming back finally. I have pretty much gone to buying 95% of my oil from WM online. Over $35 and it's free shipping. My tax rate is 3% and the in town stores are closer to 9% so it's a no brainer. I think I'm ok for a while with 120 quarts in the basement...
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
1,946
Location
Ca USA
People advise between 5w and 15w but W is not a grade test nor is a
shear stable test... W is a Cold Crank Simulator test to assess the
low temp performance... low temp is any degree number below operating
temp or 212F... The lower the W number better the flow performance
during critical start up before warm up... CCS test is important
against wear because roughly 60% of total engine wear occurs during
start up before warm up conditions while you wait for the oil to circulate
through the engine...


coldcranksim-jpg.98853

 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Messages
10,075
Location
Canuck - moved to —> California —> Texas —> ???
People advise between 5w and 15w but W is not a grade test nor is a
shear stable test... W is a Cold Crank Simulator test to assess the
low temp performance... low temp is any degree number below operating
temp or 212F... The lower the W number better the flow performance

during critical start up before warm up... CCS test is important
against wear because roughly 60% of total engine wear occurs during
start up before warm up conditions while you wait for the oil to circulate
through the engine...

Simply put you are wrong. The W rating is a combination of the CCS and MRV tests, both are done at negative temperatures, not just below operating temps. For CCS test 0w is done at -35c, 5w at -30c, 10w at -25c.
The MRV test is similar, just 5c lower for each grade rating.

And it has nothing to do with flow, but being able to be pumped and picked up by the oil pump.

The oil pump can pump jello, but jello could not be picked up through the pickup tube, so the pump would cavitate. That’s the whole point behind these ratings, not which oil flows better.
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
1,946
Location
Ca USA
The oil pump can pump jello, but jello could not be picked up through the pickup tube, so the pump would cavitate. That’s the whole point behind these ratings, not which oil flows better.
Did you get that Jello analogy from Tom NJ???

CCS and MRV measure different oil properties. The CCS test measures the ability of the oil to be picked up and pumped by the oil pump under shear stress. MRV measures the ability of the oil to flow under its own weight back into the hole sucked out by the oil pump. Think of Jell-O. Jell-O can be easily sucked up and pumped by a mechanical pump, in fact you can suck it up through a straw. But once pumped the remaining Jell-O will not flow back to fill the hole, and the pump (or straw) will now suck air. Jell-O, like many oils, has a weak crystalline structure that can be easily overcome by applying shear, but without such external mechanical force it cannot flow. Both tests are influenced by viscosity and wax crystal growth/pattern, but they differ in shear rate, i.e. higher shear pumping versus lower shear flowing. The actual conditions under which the tests are run were developed to correlate with known oil performance observed in the field and has proved very useful over the years. I would consider CCS to be less critical than MRV since modern oil pumps are quite capable and efficient. The factors that influence MRV are more elusive and sometimes unexpected issues arise during formulation. Tom NJ
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
34,436
Location
PNW
This is info about the CCS and MRV viscosity tests from Chevron. CCS is related to the starting resistance the cold oil will cause on the engine while it's cranking and turning over during a very cold winter start-up. It basically relates to how easy an engine will crank over with the starter. Ever try to start an engine at -25F with 20W-50 in the sump? All that very cold thick oil between all the moving parts is very shear resistant.

The MRV is the test of the pumpability of the oil from the sump by the pump, including how the oil fills back in the hole caused by the pump sucking oil from around the oil pick-up. The MRV is more critical, because if the engine cranks over and starts, the oil better be pumpable or the pump will be sucking air and the engine will lack proper lubrication.

The MRV (the oil's pumpability) is the more important and critical "W" rating spec. If you look at SAE J300, the corresponding "W" rating an oil receives has to meet both the CCS and MRV limits shown in J300 for that W rating.

 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Messages
10,075
Location
Canuck - moved to —> California —> Texas —> ???
@BusyLittleShop it’s hard to tell if your quoting Tom NJ or not, but I might’ve read it before, although his understanding of CCS and MRV is not correct.

My jello analogy applies to the MRV test which is nicely summarized above by @ZeeOSix. His CCS explanation is also spot on.
The oil not only has to be pumpable, but also it cannot create a void where the oil was sucked out. That’s what jello does. It creates a void and doesn’t fill it back up.

Waxes in oil create a similar effect in very cold conditions. Hence these tests were develop to deal with this kind of problem. Not to provide some sort of flow comparison between oils, like you alluded to.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
1,946
Location
Ca USA
@BusyLittleShop it’s hard to tell if your quoting Tom NJ or not, but I might’ve read it before, although his understanding of CCS and MRV is not correct.
Its indeed a Tom NJ quote dated Feb 4 2015 in a thread where you had CCS questions:

Quote KrisZ
"The detail that has me questioning the CCS test is why keep the apparatus at the target temp. and only allow the oil 3 minutes in there before the test begins?"

and Tom NJ explained to you:

Quote Tom NJ
"The CCS is an old test, developed in 1964 - I used to run them back in the 70s. I don't know the rational behind the original development of test conditions, but I do know such tests are carefully scrutinized by the industry for correlation to known field performance before acceptance into specifications. The test uses a small quantity of oil, and with agitation it can easily reach test temperature in three minutes."

where upon you thanked Tom NJ for his input even though you couldn't wrap your "head around his post."

Quote KisZ
"Thanks Tom for your input. However I still can't wrap my head around your post that the CCS test represents the oil ability to be picked up by the pump. It's just a rotor spinning at certain RPM and the resistance is measured, or was it energy consumption? I can't remember. Yes, it applies shear stress to the oil, but the oil does not have to flow or be moved by the rotor. It's a positive displacement pump, it will pick up rocks if they're small enough, so to me it would make sense to see if it can be rotated, that's it. It's a great discussion BTW
cheers


So fast forward to this thread and what part of Tom NJ understanding of CCS and MRV is not correct???
Like
Report
 
Top