The Blackstone Labs Newsletter quietly scrubbed from the internet...

[cheesepuffs2]

There's nothing special about a CK-4 oil, especially for racing use. They tend to be volatile and lacking in friction reducing additives which is the opposite for what you want for a racing oil. You want low volatility so the oil doesn't evaporate as much around the rings and can hold a better, thicker oil film. You want a lot of friction modifier to drop the CoF for less friction and more power. You want minimal VII loading to ensure the oil is shear stable. There's no CK-4 oil on the shelf at Walmart that caters to that environment. An oil formulated for a diesel engine turning 4000 rpm max with a big oil capacity measured in gallons isn't going to be favorable to a gas engine turning twice that rpm with half (or less) the oil capacity. They're two very different environments that like distinctly different formulas.

This is why I'll never use a diesel oil in a motorcycle, and I think the myth that diesel oils are the superior option for all applications really needs to stop. There are riders that run Rotella in motorcycle engines that redline at 14,000 RPM instead of 4,000. To me, it's like you said - you're running that oil outside of the parameters in which it was designed to be adequate for.

Are motorcycle specific oils, or in your case, racing specific PCMOs a bit more costly than picking up Rotella at Walmart? Yeah. But what does that small savings cost your engine if that Rotella becomes frothy? It's like people think that because diesel engines are "tough" that the oil they spec must also be automatically more resilient across the board.

 

[JustN89]

I haven’t been paying much attention. Could you point me to where this was evidenced?

You can start here and work your way back. I believe @OVERKILL also had some cleaning occurring, despite running M1 EP.

 

[JustN89]

Here is API SN Plus Amsoil Signature 5W30 up against API SP SuperTech Advanced 5W30. Is there any need to get Amsoil anymore?

The other 2 oils on there are Pennzoil Ultra Platinum 5W30 and Quaker State 5W30 Euro.

View attachment 162997View attachment 162998

Seriously. How many times do you have to be told that UOAs cannot be used to compare oils, before it finally sinks in?

At this point, I think you're just trolling. Surely no one can be this obtuse.

 

[cheesepuffs2]

It may be because UOA PPM numbers are not correlated with the rate of engine wear. The only way to assess engine wear is to measure the wear physically.

Louder for the people in the back.

It blows my mind that people are still looking at Blackstone reports for, really, anything anymore.

The wear metals doesn't really tell you anything. The TBN value doesn't really tell you anything. The elemental analysis doesn't tell you the whole picture. People treat these reports as gospel and it seems totally misinterpreted and over-valued.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Surely no one can be this obtuse.

I'm not putting money on that bet.

 

[buster]

Nothing can beat Acme 5w30 and 7-Eleven 10w50 though. It's loaded with Hi-Tech molecules.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Louder for the people in the back.

It blows my mind that people are still looking at Blackstone reports for, really, anything anymore.

The wear metals doesn't really tell you anything. The TBN value doesn't really tell you anything. The elemental analysis doesn't tell you the whole picture. People treat these reports as gospel and it seems totally misinterpreted and over-valued.

UOAs do actually tell you things, though... but you have to know where to draw the line from actual results and what some people want the UOA to tell them.

UOAs should simply be used to tell you if the oil is still serviceable- is it still in grade, does it have reserve acid neutralization capability, is there contamination in concerning levels. You are correct that a UOA can't be used to decipher tea leaves, but then again there are plenty of threads and posts by Doug Hillary, dnewton3, and many others that help separate what can actually be determined from a UOA and what is (usually) incorrectly inferred from a UOA.

As dnewton3 has repeatedly said, you must separate facts from emotions when using and interpreting oil analysis.

 

[Navi]

You are talking about things which never happened to me like piston ring damage. I was a victim of a sludging to a 1999 Toyota but that was the engine design and didnt have to do with the oil.

Internal engine damage will happen at some point probably over 200,000 miles but at some point its bound to happen and has nothing to do with the oils.

I cant imagine these modern oils from known brands causing piston ring damage.

Im in the taxi and limousine industry where literally a transmission is a wear away maintenance item because we put that many miles on these things. Ive had problems with camphasers, but not piston rings.

The GM 5.3 liter has a problem with pistons but its not the oil. Its the cylinder deactivation system.

Its not that Im ignoring your thing about piston rings, but as a daily user and fleet owner of many vehicles that is not our problem. I know Fords, GMs and Toyotas expertly and the oil causing damage is not an issue. Maybe not changing the oil or too long of an interval, but not the oil itself causing internal engine damage. All the brands on the Walmart shelf are good to go. Its a matter of figuring out which ones resist shear or dilution the most. Blackstone says shear wont cause damage but Im not comfortable with that answer.

 

[Jetronic]

I bet Liquimoly has an addictive for that.

an additional addict?

 

[OVERKILL]

You are talking about things which never happened to me like piston ring damage. I was a victim of a sludging to a 1999 Toyota but that was the engine design and didnt have to do with the oil.

Internal engine damage will happen at some point probably over 200,000 miles but at some point its bound to happen and has nothing to do with the oils.

I cant imagine these modern oils from known brands causing piston ring damage.

Im in the taxi and limousine industry where literally a transmission is a wear away maintenance item because we put that many miles on these things. Ive had problems with camphasers, but not piston rings.

The GM 5.3 liter has a problem with pistons but its not the oil. Its the cylinder deactivation system.

Its not that Im ignoring your thing about piston rings, but as a daily user and fleet owner of many vehicles that is not our problem.

When the rings start to coke up, the first thing that will typically be observed is increased oil consumption, as the oil control rings are the first to be impacted. Eventually compression and blow by enter the picture.

None of the API or ACEA sequences require the ring land area to stay pristine. There's simply a limit as to how much coking is acceptable.

 

[buster]

The Sequence IIIH test is designed to measure viscosity increase and piston cleanliness. It subjects a candidate oil to 90 hours of use at 304ºF (151ºC).

https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-iiih-test.pdf

Mobil 1 scored 20x better than the max limit on this test. Amsoil also does well on this test.

Noack volatility and certain deposit/additive chemistries also play a big role.

 

[Jetronic]

When the rings start to coke up, the first thing that will typically be observed is increased oil consumption, as the oil control rings are the first to be impacted. Eventually compression and blow by enter the picture.

None of the API or ACEA sequences require the ring land area to stay pristine. There's simply a limit as to how much coking is acceptable.

Also, the test is limited in time so coking over time can get worse than seen during testing, This is because every oci there's some more deposits added.

 

[Jetronic]

The Sequence IIIH test is designed to measure viscosity increase and piston cleanliness. It subjects a candidate oil to 90 hours of use at 304ºF (151ºC).

https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-iiih-test.pdf

Mobil 1 scored 20x better than the max limit on this test. Amsoil also does well on this test.

Noack volatility and certain deposit/additive chemistries also play a big role.

View attachment 163065

While high temperature does cause the oil ageing and coking, it also helps the oil to keep contaminants in suspension. I'm fairly certain hot/cool cycles can result in worse results for a lot of oils.

 

[buster]

Oils need to be subjected to testing, otherwise it's anecdotal and pretty much useless.

 

[buster]

I sound like a broken record but consider that Amsoil had to develop their own in-house dewpoint controlled test cell to allow them to get their chemistry just right.

Triax of all companies gives you some of this data, as does Schaeffer's. Puroil, Maxima, and many other small blenders don't provide you with much of anything and that is a red flag for me. Step up and test your products.

 

[buster]

Here is a snippet from Triax 5w30 PDS. FWIW I know nothing about the Triax brand and didn't even know there was a recent post about them. I'm just pointing out that they do provide some interesting data to go off of.

 

[OVERKILL]

Here is a snippet from Triax 5w30 PDS

View attachment 163071

That's some good transparency there. So, M1 EP does significantly better (20x better than the limit).

 

[Navi]

Amsoil is a very good oil but at $57 per gallon its not going to work for me. I looked at the website now and it says $57 per gallon.

 

[RDY4WAR]

I always get a good chuckle when people who will drop $10,000 on an engine build and turbos, without a second thought, complain about spending an extra $30 for a quality oil to protect it. If you take advantage of the longer intervals, the cost difference is zilch or even in the positive. I will never understand that mindset.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Amsoil is a very good oil but at $57 per gallon its not going to work for me. I looked at the website now and it says $57 per gallon.

You can get HPL for about $10/quart plus a nominal shipping fee @ advlubrication.com, discount code BITOG15

HPL's proven daily in over 12,000 3.5 EcoBoosts driven in much tougher conditions than yours, and changed on a 5x longer OCI with zero chain or phaser failures.

It's kind of amazing how you'll spend $38 every two weeks to test your $24 oil, but won't even try the $60-100 oils that could extend your OCIs to once per quarter without any increased risk. I believe the term is cognitive dissonance.