Straight to the point as always eh mon ami.
Which oil for -30 starts
- Thread starter Ironthinker
- Start date
- Status
Patman
Staff member
Hehe, true, our summer wasn't too hot this year, but even still, my LT1 really heats up the oil a lot (close to 300 degrees for sure) so that's why I would probably see better wear in the summer with a 40wt oil. I'll have to see how GC 0w30 handles the hot summer months next year to decide if I'll keep using it or switch to something even thicker.
Patman
Staff member
I have considered the Mobil 1 mix, however I don't like the idea of ending up with an oil that's too thick at the low end, which is what would happen if I mixed in 15w50 with 5w30 M1.quote:
Originally posted by buster:
Patman, I'm surprised you don't want to try Delvac 1 in the summer months for your LT1. Or a mix of of M1. It's readily available.
As far as Delvac 1 goes, it's simply a pain to try and run this oil in my Firebird, since it only comes in a 4L jug here, but my car takes 5L of oil. So I'd end up needing to buy two jugs to do one oil change, and at $35 for 4L of oil it's a tad pricey compared to GC at $6.66 per liter or M1 at $7.12 per liter (or less if you get the big M1 jugs on special)
Plus I'm not 100% confident that Delvac 1 would work all that well in my LT1 engine. I really don't like how thick it is at 40C either, with specs like that it looks to me more like a 10w40 or 15w40 oil.
Terry,
The CCS viscosities of the Amsoil formulations continue to be improved. Most recent data I have shows the 10w-30 to be 3100 Cp @ -25C - the VI is up to 176. The CCS viscosity on the Series 3000, 5w-30 has dropped from 6100 Cp @ -30C, to 5000 Cp @ -30C. I would assume that ASL has been improved as well.
Ted
The CCS viscosities of the Amsoil formulations continue to be improved. Most recent data I have shows the 10w-30 to be 3100 Cp @ -25C - the VI is up to 176. The CCS viscosity on the Series 3000, 5w-30 has dropped from 6100 Cp @ -30C, to 5000 Cp @ -30C. I would assume that ASL has been improved as well.
Ted
I generally think that pump and gelation are more critical than crank as most newer starting systems are strong enough to start with liquid concrete in the crankcase !
Nice to know AL is improving the oils for cold. They really hae always been exceptional for cold wx ops.
BTW do you have any pumping or gelation index data, Slick ?
Note that many oils will publish the CCS data but not gelation or pumping vis !
Terry
Nice to know AL is improving the oils for cold. They really hae always been exceptional for cold wx ops.
BTW do you have any pumping or gelation index data, Slick ?
Note that many oils will publish the CCS data but not gelation or pumping vis !
Terry
Patman if you can get BP product a low/mid 40W is Visco 5000 5W50 13.95cSt @ 100C (ASTM D445), Pour -42C (ASTM D97) and cranking @ -25C 3330 (ASTM D5293). I believe GC is looking good mainly because it's a thicker 30W but that will open up a can of worms for sure. If we had a 12.4 30W (I'm looking) it would be wow, how good is that but woe betide if it should be a 12.5 and a 40W. Obviously ridiculous. Too much time here is spent looking at 20/30/40/50W et al as if theres some magical jump between them. Think of this, we have a range of XW20 to XW70 generally available worldwide so the actual mid point is 45W. So a 40W, let alone a low end 40W cannot be classified as a thick oil. Just my two cents worth (replies should be interesting??)
Visco 5000 is 5W40 not 5W50 (typo)
Patman
Staff member
I truly think if I could find a 0w40 oil for my Firebird that is around 13cst at 100c, it would work out very well for me. It would have to remain shear stable though, I don't want something that's going to thin out to 11cst in 10,000km. If GC 0w30 remains very close to 12.2 cst in my 10,000km intervals then it might just work out to be the best all year round oil for me and then I wouldn't absolutely need to switch to something thicker in the summer. Another alternative for me would be to install an oil cooler, as that would keep the oil temps lower in the heat, and then lessen my need for a thicker oil under those conditions.
Your wait is over> Esso XD-3 0W40, and its a PAO.
In USA Exxon XD-3.
In USA Exxon XD-3.
Patman
Staff member
The problem is finding it though, as the only oils our Esso stations here carry are the cheap dino stuff and Mobil 1.
Oh well, the sooner you wear that engine out, the sooner you can put a real one under the hood.
Do you have a GM performance parts catalogue?
[ September 29, 2003, 06:54 AM: Message edited by: userfriendly ]
Do you have a GM performance parts catalogue?
[ September 29, 2003, 06:54 AM: Message edited by: userfriendly ]
Patman
Staff member
I'd love to have a bigger motor under my hood, but it's not going to happen on my budget. Ideally I'd love to have a nice mild 383 stroker LT1 in my 95 Firebird, something that makes a ton of torque but isn't so radical that I couldn't drive it everyday. I should've just stuck with my LS1 f-body though, it made about 100 more horsepower, yet got better MPG and I had not even changed a thing inside the engine so it could have remained very reliable for a long time.
But this current LT1, even though it's stock, is still fun to drive. It might only have just a bit over 275hp, but it makes a lot of torque down low which makes the fun factor nice. And the LT1 is known for it's reliability, so it should be able to go 300,000km without too much trouble.
Terry - I say if it's too cold to crank ASL (Amsoil 5W-30) then it's too cold to be outside!!!
Patman: “Not many people switch viscosities from winter to summer anymore but it's probably the best way to get an oil that is more fine tuned, one that's better in extreme cold, the other better in extreme heat.”
Yes, that would be my suggestion as well. But, unlike Patman, I’m not as gun-shy when it comes to switching brands. We’ve seen UOAs (used oil analysis) on some really weird homemade concoctions and they seem to hold up well enough with no known adverse effects. So, I’d use a 0W30 or 0W20 Mobil 1 or German Castrol Syntec for the coldest months of the year in Minnesota. Terry’s recommendation of Amsoil’s 5W30 surprised me a little … but I’m sure it’s sound advice. I use 5W30 synthetics (Red Line) or 5W30 synthetic blends (Schaeffer Supreme 7000) during the winter here in upstate NY but it rarely gets colder than –20F.
Regardless, I’d switch back to whatever you wanted to use for the warmer weather. Your current Pennzoil 5W30 or 10W30 would probably be fine.
I just don’t recommend their synthetic … or any other Group III synthetic oil. The Pennzoil high mileage synthetic would also be a good choice for the warmer weather … but it is thicker than
For true extreme conditions, I think you need to put some thought into what you use. The idiotized, one-size-fits-all solutions most manufacturers may be OK for about 80-90% of North America residents but for those who fall into the extremes, you’d be best to put a little more thought into what you are using. It’s not unlike snowtires. Most people in North America can’t get by with mediocre all-seasons but folks who drive a lot up north in the wintertime would be best to shod their ride with some serious snow & ice tread.
--- Bror Jace
Yes, that would be my suggestion as well. But, unlike Patman, I’m not as gun-shy when it comes to switching brands. We’ve seen UOAs (used oil analysis) on some really weird homemade concoctions and they seem to hold up well enough with no known adverse effects. So, I’d use a 0W30 or 0W20 Mobil 1 or German Castrol Syntec for the coldest months of the year in Minnesota. Terry’s recommendation of Amsoil’s 5W30 surprised me a little … but I’m sure it’s sound advice. I use 5W30 synthetics (Red Line) or 5W30 synthetic blends (Schaeffer Supreme 7000) during the winter here in upstate NY but it rarely gets colder than –20F.
Regardless, I’d switch back to whatever you wanted to use for the warmer weather. Your current Pennzoil 5W30 or 10W30 would probably be fine.
For true extreme conditions, I think you need to put some thought into what you use. The idiotized, one-size-fits-all solutions most manufacturers may be OK for about 80-90% of North America residents but for those who fall into the extremes, you’d be best to put a little more thought into what you are using. It’s not unlike snowtires. Most people in North America can’t get by with mediocre all-seasons but folks who drive a lot up north in the wintertime would be best to shod their ride with some serious snow & ice tread.
--- Bror Jace
Wow, another 307 Olds owner on this board, I thought I was the only one. I have two sitting in the driveway, although they Olds' not Cadillacs. I used Pennzoil dino last winter with pretty good results. I kept my winter car outside and have a circulating coolant heater on it. It always started with no issues down to nearly -40, even when unplugged (at work).
This last oil change I just switched to Pennzoil Long Life 0W30 blend HD oil. It's base stock is primarly PAO sythentic, and the rest is Pennzoil's group II+ purebase. It has a thicker viscosty than Pennzoil's multigrade 10W30 and 5W30 at 100*C but has a pour point of -60*F. I am not sure if it is available in your area, but it's a cheaper alternative than running a fully synthetic.
This last oil change I just switched to Pennzoil Long Life 0W30 blend HD oil. It's base stock is primarly PAO sythentic, and the rest is Pennzoil's group II+ purebase. It has a thicker viscosty than Pennzoil's multigrade 10W30 and 5W30 at 100*C but has a pour point of -60*F. I am not sure if it is available in your area, but it's a cheaper alternative than running a fully synthetic.
The 68-73 307 chev was the best one ever built. 283's bore, 327 crank.
there's nuthin' wrong with the Olds 307, but the 403 is a disaster waiting to happen. Too light.
Patman, a 383 might just put you into the 11s
Bad, need roll cage and about 20 other changes including frame joiners....
Oh yea, and a poor boy locker. Welded diff gears and c-clip eliminators
there's nuthin' wrong with the Olds 307, but the 403 is a disaster waiting to happen. Too light.
Patman, a 383 might just put you into the 11s
Oh yea, and a poor boy locker. Welded diff gears and c-clip eliminators
Patman
Staff member
Nope, running 11.9s won't require a cage at the two tracks I run at, one is IHRA, which necessitates a cage at 11.49 or quicker, and the other track just lost it's NHRA sanctioning, so they are pretty lax on the rules and I know of a few guys running 10.9s with no cage! (not smart, but they are getting away with it)quote:
Originally posted by userfriendly:
The 68-73 307 chev was the best one ever built. 283's bore, 327 crank.
there's nuthin' wrong with the Olds 307, but the 403 is a disaster waiting to happen. Too light.
Patman, a 383 might just put you into the 11sBad, need roll cage and about 20 other changes including frame joiners....
Oh yea, and a poor boy locker. Welded diff gears and c-clip eliminators
Well you don't want to get me started on NHRA and their rules. 11.49 is far more realistic than 12.0 for roll cage rules.
The rule should be a speed restriction and not an ET based one.
It is not speed that kills its the sudden stop.
On the other hand, tracks that allow guys to run in the mid to low 10s are asking for litigation and insurance problems which will shut them down sooner than later.
My mother used to say; "its all fun and games until someone loses an eye".
Most racers that switch from NHRA to IHRA, think they have died and gone to heaven.
I've seen some anal NHRA teck inspectors flunk a car over the stupidest little thing, and send the ower home without a refund, then wonder why the track is going bankrupt the next season due to low car counts.
I know one guy got put on his trailer because his car ran an 11.94/114 on a cool day with a tail wind.
He has not been back to that track since.
Oh yea, the tech guy is 5 foot 3.
The rule should be a speed restriction and not an ET based one.
It is not speed that kills its the sudden stop.
On the other hand, tracks that allow guys to run in the mid to low 10s are asking for litigation and insurance problems which will shut them down sooner than later.
My mother used to say; "its all fun and games until someone loses an eye".
Most racers that switch from NHRA to IHRA, think they have died and gone to heaven.
I've seen some anal NHRA teck inspectors flunk a car over the stupidest little thing, and send the ower home without a refund, then wonder why the track is going bankrupt the next season due to low car counts.
I know one guy got put on his trailer because his car ran an 11.94/114 on a cool day with a tail wind.
He has not been back to that track since.
Oh yea, the tech guy is 5 foot 3.
Ironthinker check your PM's.
Userfriendly, the Chevy 307 was not all that great of an engine IMO. It had very low output for it's entire production run. I much prefer a Chevy 283 over it, or even a 305. The Olds 307 is no powerhouse either, but at least they have excellent low end torque (unlike the Chevy 307).
Although the 403 Olds has windowed mains and siamesed cylinders, it can be a very reliable engine. I know several people who got well over 200K out of 403 with no issues. The one nice thing about the 403 is the huge amount of low end torque. Its too bad they weren't made prior to 1977 when Olds still had solid mains.
[ October 03, 2003, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: Oldswagon ]
Userfriendly, the Chevy 307 was not all that great of an engine IMO. It had very low output for it's entire production run. I much prefer a Chevy 283 over it, or even a 305. The Olds 307 is no powerhouse either, but at least they have excellent low end torque (unlike the Chevy 307).
Although the 403 Olds has windowed mains and siamesed cylinders, it can be a very reliable engine. I know several people who got well over 200K out of 403 with no issues. The one nice thing about the 403 is the huge amount of low end torque. Its too bad they weren't made prior to 1977 when Olds still had solid mains.
[ October 03, 2003, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: Oldswagon ]
Oldswagon;
I was seriously thinking of building a 403 high performance engine just for the heck of it.
The bore/stroke/con-rod ratio engine weight and all that, looked very good, but the windowed mains......
You are right about the Chev 307. Never offered in anything but a lame 2V 8.5 CR engine.
The 68 and newer 307s had the big journal crank and spin on filter heavy block.
The bore and stroke ratio is superior to the Chev 305, and the block is not a thin wall casting like the 305.
I have a 307 in progress, I just have to assemble the long block.
The short block has flat top pistons, the heads are 305's with 1.94/1.6 valves.
The 305 heads have the intake valve moved toward the bore C/L to accomodate the small bore.
Block deck is zero, the gasket will be .039", the head volume 58cc, and the piston volume -6cc, for 9.25 CR or there abouts.
The rods, mains and pistons are all in at .0025", the guides .0015".
Depending on camshaft, intake manifold, ect, I'm sure that little 307 will blow away any 305, marine or otherwise, with the same modifications, due to the 307's better bore/stroke/con-rod ratio, and stronger block.
The attraction of the Olds BB 425s and 455s is their light weight, especially when compared to the 440s and 460s.
I'm having trouble lifting 454 blocks into the back of pick-ups as old age is setting in.
Those Ford and Mopar BBs are insanely heavy for one guy to move around.
The Olds engines are de'light in the weight department, and make great boat engines.
[ October 03, 2003, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: userfriendly ]
I was seriously thinking of building a 403 high performance engine just for the heck of it.
The bore/stroke/con-rod ratio engine weight and all that, looked very good, but the windowed mains......
You are right about the Chev 307. Never offered in anything but a lame 2V 8.5 CR engine.
The 68 and newer 307s had the big journal crank and spin on filter heavy block.
The bore and stroke ratio is superior to the Chev 305, and the block is not a thin wall casting like the 305.
I have a 307 in progress, I just have to assemble the long block.
The short block has flat top pistons, the heads are 305's with 1.94/1.6 valves.
The 305 heads have the intake valve moved toward the bore C/L to accomodate the small bore.
Block deck is zero, the gasket will be .039", the head volume 58cc, and the piston volume -6cc, for 9.25 CR or there abouts.
The rods, mains and pistons are all in at .0025", the guides .0015".
Depending on camshaft, intake manifold, ect, I'm sure that little 307 will blow away any 305, marine or otherwise, with the same modifications, due to the 307's better bore/stroke/con-rod ratio, and stronger block.
The attraction of the Olds BB 425s and 455s is their light weight, especially when compared to the 440s and 460s.
I'm having trouble lifting 454 blocks into the back of pick-ups as old age is setting in.
Those Ford and Mopar BBs are insanely heavy for one guy to move around.
The Olds engines are de'light in the weight department, and make great boat engines.
[ October 03, 2003, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: userfriendly ]
- Status
Similar threads
