Total Quartz Ineo MC3 5W30

[Shannow]

Re "ALL"

Originally Posted By: Pennzoil
Whilst blending together oils may give you the expected physical properties (e.g. viscosity) the performance of mixtures of performance additive packages is much harder to predict, I’m afraid chemistry is much less predictable than physics!


Originally Posted By: Pennzoil
The physical results may be very much as you expect i.e. viscosity is likely to be predictable following well known physical laws however the chemical effects are highly unpredictable. Wear performance is not dictated solely by the amount of wear protecting additives in an oil, the efficacy (effectiveness) of the additives must also be considered. Efficacy can be negatively impacted by changing the balance of a formulation package. The approach you suggest could conceivably result in poorer performance, I would recommend choosing a single tier of product, and Pennzoil Platinum has been designed to offer complete protection including unsurpassed wear performance.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Your past and current claim that this "higher oil pressure" actually increases oil flow is nonsense as others in addition to myself have pointed out.


Compare what I'm actually saying, to what you claim I am saying and have said.

You are clearly misrepresenting my position (again) so that you can swat down a strawman.

Go back and read...


Here's one from 2008...

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/1212972/Re:_OIL_"Cushion&#Post1212972

Originally Posted By: Shannow back in 2008, and every time the subject has been raised since then

Seeing as I'm having the day off, I worked through the example at the end of the spreadsheet that Gary and JAG posted, of the SAE 10 and 40 weight oils in the same.

Results were (note, too many significant figures for the printed graphs)
SAE 40 had 63% increase in film thickness over SAE10
SAE 40 had 61% increase in power requirement over SAE10
SAE 40 had 5F increase in Delta T (10F in outlet temp)
SAE 40 had 7.5% lower side flow (leakage and cooling)
SAE 40 had 113% more viscosity than SAE10 at working temp.

And having used the graphs in the spreadsheet, I'm Soooo glad that I studied in S.I....no wonder things run into Mars every now and then.


So if you are going to quote me as saying stuff...don't make stuff up.

It's bad enough that your theories are wrong without mis-stating my statements and position.

 

[Shannow]

And regarding cooling jet flow with Larry's (measured) oil pressures as an example

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3857079/Re:_Oil's_affect_on_motorcycle#Post3857079

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Take Larry's measured figures at 6,000RPM, and assume Mr Honda's squirters are 1.0mm dia.

Oils are considered at 100C, as that's what the KV is on the data sheet.
30W - 60 psi - M1 AFE
40W - 84 psi - M 4T 10W40
50W - 90 psi. - M 4T 15W50

Flow Rate through each squirter in litres per minute (using Benoulli's equation)
30W at 60 psi - 4.6 l/min
40W at 84 psi - 5.4 l/min
50W at 90 psi - 5.6 l/min

All at pump relief (99psi)...5.9l/s

Now the piston cooling is clearly dependent on piston cooling squirter flow, so by choosing an oil simply because you don't want flow through the pump relief means nearly a 20% reduction in piston squirter flow in the mid range....simple physics

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Re "ALL"

Originally Posted By: Pennzoil
Whilst blending together oils may give you the expected physical properties (e.g. viscosity) the performance of mixtures of performance additive packages is much harder to predict, I’m afraid chemistry is much less predictable than physics!


Originally Posted By: Pennzoil
The physical results may be very much as you expect i.e. viscosity is likely to be predictable following well known physical laws however the chemical effects are highly unpredictable. Wear performance is not dictated solely by the amount of wear protecting additives in an oil, the efficacy (effectiveness) of the additives must also be considered. Efficacy can be negatively impacted by changing the balance of a formulation package. The approach you suggest could conceivably result in poorer performance, I would recommend choosing a single tier of product, and Pennzoil Platinum has been designed to offer complete protection including unsurpassed wear performance.


+1

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Re "ALL"

Originally Posted By: Pennzoil
Whilst blending together oils may give you the expected physical properties (e.g. viscosity) the performance of mixtures of performance additive packages is much harder to predict, I’m afraid chemistry is much less predictable than physics!


Originally Posted By: Pennzoil
The physical results may be very much as you expect i.e. viscosity is likely to be predictable following well known physical laws however the chemical effects are highly unpredictable. Wear performance is not dictated solely by the amount of wear protecting additives in an oil, the efficacy (effectiveness) of the additives must also be considered. Efficacy can be negatively impacted by changing the balance of a formulation package. The approach you suggest could conceivably result in poorer performance, I would recommend choosing a single tier of product, and Pennzoil Platinum has been designed to offer complete protection including unsurpassed wear performance.


This has been discussed ad nauseum in the past and you're just bringing it up again because of your argumentative nature...that's what you apparently get off on.

Yes that's one opinion but not proof let alone any potential negative synergy quantified.
And Castrol (and other formulators) have claimed their synthetic oil will improve other premium conventional oils when blended with it. But of course like Pennzoil they still recommend using their product entirely to get the maximum benefit.

If one is at all concerned about blending any two or more oils stick with those from one formulator where you can get their opinion. Many formulators actively encourage the practice to fine tune what they offer to a specific application.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Your past and current claim that this "higher oil pressure" actually increases oil flow is nonsense as others in addition to myself have pointed out.


Compare what I'm actually saying, to what you claim I am saying and have said.

You are clearly misrepresenting my position (again) so that you can swat down a strawman.

Go back and read...


Here's one from 2008...

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/1212972/Re:_OIL_"Cushion&#Post1212972

Originally Posted By: Shannow back in 2008, and every time the subject has been raised since then

Seeing as I'm having the day off, I worked through the example at the end of the spreadsheet that Gary and JAG posted, of the SAE 10 and 40 weight oils in the same.

Results were (note, too many significant figures for the printed graphs)
SAE 40 had 63% increase in film thickness over SAE10
SAE 40 had 61% increase in power requirement over SAE10
SAE 40 had 5F increase in Delta T (10F in outlet temp)
SAE 40 had 7.5% lower side flow (leakage and cooling)
SAE 40 had 113% more viscosity than SAE10 at working temp.

And having used the graphs in the spreadsheet, I'm Soooo glad that I studied in S.I....no wonder things run into Mars every now and then.


So if you are going to quote me as saying stuff...don't make stuff up.

It's bad enough that your theories are wrong without mis-stating my statements and position.

More obfuscation.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
And regarding cooling jet flow with Larry's (measured) oil pressures as an example

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3857079/Re:_Oil's_affect_on_motorcycle#Post3857079

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Take Larry's measured figures at 6,000RPM, and assume Mr Honda's squirters are 1.0mm dia.

Oils are considered at 100C, as that's what the KV is on the data sheet.
30W - 60 psi - M1 AFE
40W - 84 psi - M 4T 10W40
50W - 90 psi. - M 4T 15W50

Flow Rate through each squirter in litres per minute (using Benoulli's equation)
30W at 60 psi - 4.6 l/min
40W at 84 psi - 5.4 l/min
50W at 90 psi - 5.6 l/min

All at pump relief (99psi)...5.9l/s

Now the piston cooling is clearly dependent on piston cooling squirter flow, so by choosing an oil simply because you don't want flow through the pump relief means nearly a 20% reduction in piston squirter flow in the mid range....simple physics

This is the first time I've seen this as I'm not able to find that post #3857079.
In racing it's well know that the higher the viscosity the higher the sump oil temp's which is one of the reasons not to run an oil any heavier than necessary.
If you can provide that post I'll have a look at it.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
It's not just my posit that lighter oil reduces start-up wear but the claim of auto manufacturers including Honda, Toyota, BMW and even race oil formulators such as Red Line and Joe Gibbs Driven.

Even if an oil is pumpable the more viscous it is the less the volume of oil that will be able to flow or circulate through an engine. The higher oil back-pressure thicker oil provides is proof of the increased resistance to oil flow. Your past and current claim that this "higher oil pressure" actually increases oil flow is nonsense as others in addition to myself have pointed out.


You keep wheeling out advertising puff pieces for your cold start flow...flow doesn't lubricate anything.

And now you are misrepresenting my statements (no surprise, it's CATERHAM 101).

Warm-up is where the wear takes place, and during this phase the oil is present and lubricating...the bearings draw off only what they need to replace side leakage, and they have less side leakage on thicker oils...require less make-up, and the artifact is oil pressure...that's what I've stated all along, thankyou.

Now, your posit is that you need to jam a full oil pump's worth of volume through the bearings to lubricate...that's just plain incorrect.

Calling Manufacturers claims of reduced engine wear on start-up/warm-up with lighters oils, specifically the 0W-20 grade as "advertising puff pieces" is a cop out. You're basically calling them liars. And since the oil formulators themselves make the same claim but of course also sell heavier oil grades, you can't dismiss it as just advertising? There is obviously some truth to it.

No you're wrong, oil flow does impact lubrication even in the bearings. The heavier the oil the longer it takes for the bearing to prime or fill with oil although that may be only a second or two at warmer start-up temp', it's adds up over the life of an engine. I have a friend who has installed a pre-oiler to address that very issue. And once the engine is running, the heavier the oil the less the amount of oil that leaks out of the bearing journals which is the main source of lubrication to the cylinder walls.

 

[userfriendly]

The new trick in the race manual is 0w50.
The KV100 gives the oil pressure a boost, without a corresponding rise in HTHS.

A win-win situation for all theories.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

More obfuscation.


For crying out load CATERHAM...IT's HOW BEARINGS WORK...from the design charts.

Just because it doesn't fit your blinkered view of how you FEEL the universe would work under your will, you call it obfuscation ???

That's where your oil pressure comes from, the bearing not needing a higher flow of more viscous oil, so it doesn't draw from the supply galleries.

You only use the term obfuscation because it doesn't fit with your ongoing and ridiculous claims that having the OP relief open is "starving" bearing of lubrication.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
This has been discussed ad nauseum in the past and you're just bringing it up again because of your argumentative nature...that's what you apparently get off on.

Yes that's one opinion but not proof let alone any potential negative synergy quantified.
And Castrol (and other formulators) have claimed their synthetic oil will improve other premium conventional oils when blended with it. But of course like Pennzoil they still recommend using their product entirely to get the maximum benefit.

If one is at all concerned about blending any two or more oils stick with those from one formulator where you can get their opinion. Many formulators actively encourage the practice to fine tune what they offer to a specific application.


It's only ad nauseum as you keep wheeling out the "of course two 0Ws when mixed are a 0W" advice as though it's a fact, when it's not.

The API don't guaranteee it, their miscibility test regime doesn't test for it, and the oil manufacturers don't guarantee it...

You "posit" that and back it with an "of course", then ridicule me and point to my argumentative behaviour...playig the man, not the ball.

I've demonstrated amply that poor results CAN occur, and a couple of instances have been catastrophic...in particular to cold pumping viscosities.

Here, again, have the ball, and I'll ask wjhat I keep asking for, and you only ever come back with "obvious" and "of course"...

CATERHAM, please wheel out some data, scientific, not advertising blurb that demonstrates that two 0W oils when mixed produce a 0W oil every time...

It can't be that hard, but over the last few years, when asked, you just attack, and ...dare I say it... waffle on with obfuscation.

The above quotes are from Pennzoil, and are specifically in response to blending within their branding.

Here's some caution expressed by Mobil.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4035322/Mixed_messaging_from_Mobil_on_

You are apparently the only BITOGer who has been advised by Mobil to "go ahead, it will be better than anything we could make"

Come on CATERHAM, wheel out the science to shut me down...

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Calling Manufacturers claims of reduced engine wear on start-up/warm-up with lighters oils, specifically the 0W-20 grade as "advertising puff pieces" is a cop out. You're basically calling them liars. And since the oil formulators themselves make the same claim but of course also sell heavier oil grades, you can't dismiss it as just advertising? There is obviously some truth to it.

No you're wrong, oil flow does impact lubrication even in the bearings. The heavier the oil the longer it takes for the bearing to prime or fill with oil although that may be only a second or two at warmer start-up temp', it's adds up over the life of an engine. I have a friend who has installed a pre-oiler to address that very issue. And once the engine is running, the heavier the oil the less the amount of oil that leaks out of the bearing journals which is the main source of lubrication to the cylinder walls.


If the oil is pumpable, and in it's correct operating range, it will clear the galleries in virtually exactly the same time, and get to the places it needs to be at the same time.

At 20C, it doesn't matter whether it's 0W20, 0W40, or SAE30, it will get there at the same time.

Yes, at -40C, 0W WILL reduce startup wear, as that oil is actually pumpable, and will flow, while the other grades simply won't...that's what they are referring to

Once it's there, 75% of the total wear over a 6 hour period occurs...during warmup...while the oil is flowing...and a 0W20 isn't going to make a scrap of difference...funnily, in fact the 0W20 will take LONGER to warm up as it has less power loss during that phase of operation...precisely why the OEMs are going to that grade for short run fuel economy.

Industry standard "warmup wear" test is the sequence IVA...if your posit was remotely true, then surely the 0W20s would excel in that test...but they apparently don't.

Again...got any papers (that aren't ads) for that ?

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Calling Manufacturers claims of reduced engine wear on start-up/warm-up with lighters oils, specifically the 0W-20 grade as "advertising puff pieces" is a cop out. You're basically calling them liars. And since the oil formulators themselves make the same claim but of course also sell heavier oil grades, you can't dismiss it as just advertising? There is obviously some truth to it.

No you're wrong, oil flow does impact lubrication even in the bearings. The heavier the oil the longer it takes for the bearing to prime or fill with oil although that may be only a second or two at warmer start-up temp', it's adds up over the life of an engine. I have a friend who has installed a pre-oiler to address that very issue. And once the engine is running, the heavier the oil the less the amount of oil that leaks out of the bearing journals which is the main source of lubrication to the cylinder walls.


If the oil is pumpable, and in it's correct operating range, it will clear the galleries in virtually exactly the same time, and get to the places it needs to be at the same time.

At 20C, it doesn't matter whether it's 0W20, 0W40, or SAE30, it will get there at the same time.

Yes, at -40C, 0W WILL reduce startup wear, as that oil is actually pumpable, and will flow, while the other grades simply won't...that's what they are referring to

Once it's there, 75% of the total wear over a 6 hour period occurs...during warmup...while the oil is flowing...and a 0W20 isn't going to make a scrap of difference...funnily, in fact the 0W20 will take LONGER to warm up as it has less power loss during that phase of operation...precisely why the OEMs are going to that grade for short run fuel economy.

Industry standard "warmup wear" test is the sequence IVA...if your posit was remotely true, then surely the 0W20s would excel in that test...but they apparently don't.

Again...got any papers (that aren't ads) for that ?

Hey buddy, why are you arguing with me if you're so convinced the Manufacturers and oil formulators have got it so wrong when they claim less wear with lighter higher VI oils such as the 0W-20 grade.
Write Toyota, or Honda or the latest company, BMW, that claim less wear with the 0W-20 grade. Or contact Pennzoil, BMWs current oil provider for an explanation.

 

[Trav]

Hang on there. I already provided you with documentation from Toyota that requires 10w60 if the car is raced at even an armature level. BMW does not spec 0w20 for the N20 worldwide.
Why is 0w30 spec elsewhere (yes 0w20 is available anywhere at any time)? Could it be that in anything other than grocery getter mode 0w20 will result in increased engine wear?

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
This has been discussed ad nauseum in the past and you're just bringing it up again because of your argumentative nature...that's what you apparently get off on.

Yes that's one opinion but not proof let alone any potential negative synergy quantified.
And Castrol (and other formulators) have claimed their synthetic oil will improve other premium conventional oils when blended with it. But of course like Pennzoil they still recommend using their product entirely to get the maximum benefit.

If one is at all concerned about blending any two or more oils stick with those from one formulator where you can get their opinion. Many formulators actively encourage the practice to fine tune what they offer to a specific application.


It's only ad nauseum as you keep wheeling out the "of course two 0Ws when mixed are a 0W" advice as though it's a fact, when it's not.

The API don't guaranteee it, their miscibility test regime doesn't test for it, and the oil manufacturers don't guarantee it...

You "posit" that and back it with an "of course", then ridicule me and point to my argumentative behaviour...playig the man, not the ball.

I've demonstrated amply that poor results CAN occur, and a couple of instances have been catastrophic...in particular to cold pumping viscosities.

Here, again, have the ball, and I'll ask wjhat I keep asking for, and you only ever come back with "obvious" and "of course"...

CATERHAM, please wheel out some data, scientific, not advertising blurb that demonstrates that two 0W oils when mixed produce a 0W oil every time...

It can't be that hard, but over the last few years, when asked, you just attack, and ...dare I say it... waffle on with obfuscation.

The above quotes are from Pennzoil, and are specifically in response to blending within their branding.

Here's some caution expressed by Mobil.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4035322/Mixed_messaging_from_Mobil_on_

You are apparently the only BITOGer who has been advised by Mobil to "go ahead, it will be better than anything we could make"

Come on CATERHAM, wheel out the science to shut me down...

Let me get this straight.
You're actually saying that when a formulator like Mobil says their 0W oils can be blended and they will remain 0W oils they're lying....? Boy you have a lot of nerve.

Yes years ago before Mobil reintroduced their PCMO 0W-20 and 0W-30 grades to the Cdn market I did contact Imperial Oil, Mobil's Cdn affiliate on their thoughts on blending what 0W oils were available to make a suitable PCMO 0W-30. One question I wanted to know was the affect on MRV. The best they could assure me was that the final MRV of any blend would be somewhere between the MRVs of the two blend oils.

So aside from your ridiculous assertion about degrading an oil's winter rating when blended, my interest in 0W oils is because most have the highest VIs; meaning for a given HTHSV they have to lowest viscosity at more typical start-up temp's. And that is easy to determine with a viscosity calculator, confirm with KV40 and KV100 tests and finally prove in service with an oil pressure gauge; the best indicator of actual operational viscosity that I know of.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Hang on there. I already provided you with documentation from Toyota that requires 10w60 if the car is raced at even an armature level. BMW does not spec 0w20 for the N20 worldwide.
Why is 0w30 spec elsewhere (yes 0w20 is available anywhere at any time)? Could it be that in anything other than grocery getter mode 0w20 will result in increased engine wear?

What's used in a race engine vs a passenger car is comparing apples and oranges; it's horses for courses.

The BMW N20 engine was designed with the 0W-20 grade in mind.
The LL-14 FE 0W-20 may have just recently arrived in the States for the N20 engine but it has been available in Europe for a couple of years now.
And the LL-01 FE 0W-30 have been available in Europe for many years.

The wear advantage of the 0W-20 obviously applies on start-up /warm-up vs the "standard" BMW 5W-30 which I believe owners can still use. I would agree that at very high above normal oil temp's the 5W-30 has the potential to provide greater protection. But BMW has obviously engineered N20 fitted cars, controlling maximum oil temp's along with electronic safety management systems.
So an owner could take his 241 hp four cylinder Bimmer to the track and thrash it without concern on the spec' 0W-20 just like Toyota 86, Subie BRZ and Mustang GT owners do.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Again...got any papers (that aren't ads) for that ?

Hey buddy, why are you arguing with me if you're so convinced the Manufacturers and oil formulators have got it so wrong when they claim less wear with lighter higher VI oils such as the 0W-20 grade.
Write Toyota, or Honda or the latest company, BMW, that claim less wear with the 0W-20 grade. Or contact Pennzoil, BMWs current oil provider for an explanation. [/quote]

I have provided multiple papers from Honda, where they are stating point blank that they are moving to thinner oils for reductions in fuel consumption and CO2 production..."while still maintaining acceptable wear".

THAT's Honda's position in their technical papers.

Do you have any TECHNICAL PAPERS that aren't advertsements that offer lower wear with thinner oils ?

All of the papers I'VE found indicate that when they move to thinner oils, they need to change/up the AW treatments to RECOVER to acceptable wear.

Also evidenced by the Japanese OEMs petitioning for higher TEOST limits for the 0W20 grade only, as their chosen AW strategies lead to more deposits.

THAT's the evidence for my position.

Now, you are playing the player again (buddy is cute)...

CATERHAM, please provide something (other than advertisements) demonstrating your lower wear with 0W20.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

Let me get this straight.
You're actually saying that when a formulator like Mobil says their 0W oils can be blended and they will remain 0W oils they're lying....? Boy you have a lot of nerve.


Nice work...I've never seen any published claims that mixing any two 0W oils will result in a 0W...

If you've got access to something that demonstrates that all 0Ws can be mixed and always result in 0W, then have at it.

On the other hand, I've provided in the past a number of DOCUMENTED cases where two oils were mixed, and the result became unpumpable even at ambient temperatures above freezing..

Again, I've provided evidence that mixing is not always a zero sum game.

You CLAIM that mobil told you that "two xWs always make an X=xW"....again, we have to trust your word, but I can see that within a brand range, that is likely close to the mark...crossing brands, you have no idea how they achieved their "W" rating, so you simply can't make that claims that you do.

So...did they specifically say any two 0Ws on the market, or within their range ?

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Yes years ago before Mobil reintroduced their PCMO 0W-20 and 0W-30 grades to the Cdn market I did contact Imperial Oil, Mobil's Cdn affiliate on their thoughts on blending what 0W oils were available to make a suitable PCMO 0W-30. One question I wanted to know was the affect on MRV. The best they could assure me was that the final MRV of any blend would be somewhere between the MRVs of the two blend oils.


Penrite offer mixing also (it's not blending, it's mixing)...but stipulate within their product streams...I've spoken to their (Ex Mobil) techs.


Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
So aside from your ridiculous assertion about degrading an oil's winter rating when blended


Again, there is nothing that you have ever provided that proves (or even supports your assertion) that any two 0Ws combined will always be a 0W.

I've provided cases where that clearly didn't happen, papers where the action of PPDs an VIs behave non linearly, and mixed result in failing viscometric tests.

See, for you posit to be true, all oil additives, regardless of manufacture MUST behave linearly in their action, and cumulatively in the new base oil blend that arises.

When you look at how these things vary properties with treat rate, it's a claim that you simply can't make.

You claim "of course", but in order to meet your premise, the universe has to function exactly the way your overly simplistic imagination would have it work...chemistry of additives isn't linear...you can't make those claims.

But again you CAN provide facts and data, rather than accusing me of calling the industry liars...the technical papers I've provided in the past are actual pieces of truth, published...and they offer that the behaviour of these properties is non linear.


Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
my interest in 0W oils is because most have the highest VIs; meaning for a given HTHSV they have to lowest viscosity at more typical start-up temp's. And that is easy to determine with a viscosity calculator, confirm with KV40 and KV100 tests and finally prove in service with an oil pressure gauge; the best indicator of actual operational viscosity that I know of.


Aside from the opening flaw (0Ws don't always have the highest VIs), if you are chasing the most fuel economy during warm-up, or another 1.5HP flooring it at 60C internal temperatures, your approach has merit.

However there's all sorts of stuff like polymer shear (which you've demonstrated in your testing) taking place.

The industry moving towards 0W16s so far appear to be chasing a solid HTHS number, and having a lower viscosity index. Ravenol's appears to have little or no impact from VIIs.

The Japanese push for uber high VIs was an artifact of working inside the J300 tables...with the new grades available, they will stop making those unicorns.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
The wear advantage of the 0W-20 obviously applies on start-up /warm-up vs the "standard" BMW 5W-30 which I believe owners can still use.


Again, this is utter rubbish.

0W provides better protection when starting at -40C.

at 0C, it does NOTHING.

During warmup, the oil is there, it's flowing, and 0W20 DOES NOTHING to reduce warmup wear.

Again, happy for you to provide some data to back your (much repeated never supported) position.

 

[OVERKILL]

Just to add to this, an oil that is predominantly PAO; that is, deriving its cold temperature performance from the base oil rather than PPD's, which was demonstrated in that graph that has been posted in the past adds yet another dimension to this discussion. A primarily PAO-based oil, which doesn't need or at the most may contain an extremely small amount of PPD's to manipulate the additive package cold temp performance, diluted with one that does (require a good slug of PPD's to meet its grade rating), what are the results of this? That's the unpredictability here. Yeah, if you blended the old PAO M1 0w-40 with M1 EP 0w-20, both of which were predominantly PAO, you'd likely retain the cold temp performance. Mix one that is mostly group III with one that isn't.... How's that PPD balance relative to the new base oil mix?

And this sort of plays into Pennzoil's statement here, as they are using GTL (Group III) and I'm not sure on the wax content in GTL, but if there is a requirement for PPD's depending on the viscosity of the base, if you are mixing heavier and lighter bases, the relative volumes of PPD's becomes potentially disproportionate, affecting the performance of the final product.

This is of course because oils are blends with all aspects of their performance accounted for. When you mix that fully formulated oil with another you are upsetting that chemistry and the results may be insignificant or they may not be. That's the gamble.