Why Not Use HDEO in Everything?
- Thread starter miraCRD
- Start date
- Status
Except additives are only one part of the lifespan of the oil or should I say OCI. You still have the contaminate load. The only way to get rid of it is to dump the oil. Some people are comfortable running 5 quarts 15,000 miles, I am not. My HDEO Amsoil ACD got changed out at 5,000 and my Redline gets changed at 5,000. I'm sure there's plenty of life left in the oil but I don't want all of the junk in my engine.
This thread is turning into an HDEO vs OCI. There are other reasons to run one besides OCI. HTHS comes to mind. More anti-wear additives are another.
This thread is turning into an HDEO vs OCI. There are other reasons to run one besides OCI. HTHS comes to mind. More anti-wear additives are another.
In Australia, semi synth/mineral HDEO are cheaper than most Mineral Petrol Engine oils. As the DIY hasnt really caught onto it. The limiting factor we have here is that most on the shelf mixed fleet HDEO are only SL/CI-4/4+ rated. SM rated ones are hard to come by and i think only Mobil Delvac Synthetic is by special order.
My attraction to them is most of them are HN 2314 rated, which is the Holden GM rating for dual fuel Petrol and LPG gas spec oils. Also their price, have better base oils that most Semi synthetic oils, and their proven robustness and track record.
My attraction to them is most of them are HN 2314 rated, which is the Holden GM rating for dual fuel Petrol and LPG gas spec oils. Also their price, have better base oils that most Semi synthetic oils, and their proven robustness and track record.
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
BuickGN - I see the point you are trying to make, but I disagree on some level.
The "contaminants" can range widely in form and function. Coolant, fuel, dirt and soot are the main culprits. We'd probably agree on this.
No oil can really do much with fuel and coolant; once they get into the oil, they simply exist. Let's not confuse "coolant" with "moisture". Some amount of moisture is always present. The longer use cycles of an engine can help boil this out (technically, it's an evaporation process). But coolant and it's negative effects cannot be "handled" for too long by the host oil. Fuel does not really harm the oil, but it does dilute the oil, thereby reducing the oil's abilities. Further, moisture can be handled by the TBN of the oil add-pack; this is a direct relationship (the more TBN, the longer the oil can last in service to control the sulphuric acid, etc.).
Other issues are also intended to be controlled by the additive package. Soot and dirt (silicon) are able to be controlled by the dispersent portion of the package. Soot is basically the carbonized form of fuel from incomplete combustion. Dirt is typically ingested by the air intake process. These can be "held" in suspension by the anti-agglomerates, and thereby be kept at a size small enough to be harmless. Only AFTER that part of the add-pack becomes overwhelmed, does the soot and dirt start to co-join, thereby becoming large enough to become an issue. This is precisely why oil turns "black", but does no harm early on in the lifecycle of an oil. Because these items are controlled by the add-pack, the life-span of the oil is at least conceptually a direct relationship to the "robustness" of the add-pack. The more dispersants and detergents that are present, the longer the oil can perform. Your concept of dumping oil because these contaminants are building up is accumulating is sound, but I highly suspect your frequency is far too great. Premium oils should be able to last much longer than 5k miles.
So, in part I agree with you. If you have an engine that has a mechanical issue (leaking fuel injectors, intake filtration leak, coolant leak, etc) then dumping oil early and often can help control this problem and keep the oil health in a decent, manageble form.
But if your engine is in good shape mechanically, dumping oil (especially expensive PAOs) every 5k miles is simply a waste of good oil, because it's likely they are FAR MORE CAPABLE of extended duration due to higher base stock configuration and add-pack construction.
Also, I take exception your to comment that the only way to get rid of contaminants is to dump the oil. Bypass filtration can help control the dirt and soot for quite a long time. They cannot help with coolant and fuel. But again, this all comes down to how good of shape your equipment is in.
Equipment longevity is a result of "proper maintenance". Proper maintenance is perhaps best defined as a combination of your frequency of maintenance, product choices, and equipment condition.
You must tailor your inputs to control your outputs. There is no one perfect answer, as often times there is more than one road to the same destination. There are, however, "better" answers depending upon each individual scenario.
So, coming back full circle to the OPs post, "why not use HDEO in everything" if they are a "better" product over PCMOs? You certainly can. Though the question really is: "are you going to get your full value from it?"
You seem to infer that there are other reasons to use oil or change oil other than OCI, but I completely disagree with you here. "This thread is turning into an HDEO vs OCI. There are other reasons to run one besides OCI. HTHS comes to mind. More anti-wear additives are another."
What the heck good is "more anti-wear additives" if you don't use them all??? Why have "more" of anything if you never intend use it? At this point, you are admitting to paying for well more than you will consume. If you use HDEO because it has "more" of any characteristic, but you only use it to a level that can be satisfied by PCMO, then where in the world is the logic of doing that??????? It simply confounds me; there is no "logic" to this decision. You are operating soley on emotion; you "feel" that it's "better" even though there is no proof of it being so. Your comment about this being "HDEO vs OCI" is EXACTLY what this is about. You may have completely missed the boat in my previous post. There are mounds upon mounds of UOA evidence that show premium products do not do their job "better" (as defined by some level of "more at a single point in time"). They do the jobs LONGER. Show me any UOA where the wear-protection is 3x less by using a synthetic over a PCMO, that equates to the 3x higher cost, at some short or moderate OCI duration. Premium products, be they HDEO or syns, don't retard wear any "better" than a PCMO, UNTIL that PCMO is used up, thereby surpassing the PCMO.
That same concept goes for contamination control. If we assume the equipment is in good mechanical condition, then soot/dirt is going to be the major issue. I'm going to pick arbitrary numbers for the debate, so don't nit-pick. Let's say an engine produces 10ppm of soot for every 1k miles it travels. After 10k miles, it will have produced 100ppm of soot. If you use a PCMO that can safely handle 70ppm of soot, your oil will be capable up to 7k miles. If you use an HDEO that can handle 100ppm of soot, it's OK for 10k miles. If you use a syn that can handle 120ppm of soot, it's good for 12k miles. So, the premium products can last longer. But if you measure the soot load at 5k miles, it would have 50ppm of soot, REGARDLESS OF WHAT PRODUCCT IS IN THE SUMP! That is well within the capablility of all three products. The HDEO or syn CANNOT do a "better" job of controlling soot, because the presentation rate of the soot is constant. The premium products cannot control soot to a "better" level because even though they have "more" additive package, they cannot absorb the soot any faster than it is presented! The premium products cannot hasten the production of soot; they only can do the job longer! Get it?
OCI duration should be completely driven by one of two means.
1) arbitrary duration based upon some "guess" of ultra-conservative safety margin
2) data and planning.
Take your pick.
The "contaminants" can range widely in form and function. Coolant, fuel, dirt and soot are the main culprits. We'd probably agree on this.
No oil can really do much with fuel and coolant; once they get into the oil, they simply exist. Let's not confuse "coolant" with "moisture". Some amount of moisture is always present. The longer use cycles of an engine can help boil this out (technically, it's an evaporation process). But coolant and it's negative effects cannot be "handled" for too long by the host oil. Fuel does not really harm the oil, but it does dilute the oil, thereby reducing the oil's abilities. Further, moisture can be handled by the TBN of the oil add-pack; this is a direct relationship (the more TBN, the longer the oil can last in service to control the sulphuric acid, etc.).
Other issues are also intended to be controlled by the additive package. Soot and dirt (silicon) are able to be controlled by the dispersent portion of the package. Soot is basically the carbonized form of fuel from incomplete combustion. Dirt is typically ingested by the air intake process. These can be "held" in suspension by the anti-agglomerates, and thereby be kept at a size small enough to be harmless. Only AFTER that part of the add-pack becomes overwhelmed, does the soot and dirt start to co-join, thereby becoming large enough to become an issue. This is precisely why oil turns "black", but does no harm early on in the lifecycle of an oil. Because these items are controlled by the add-pack, the life-span of the oil is at least conceptually a direct relationship to the "robustness" of the add-pack. The more dispersants and detergents that are present, the longer the oil can perform. Your concept of dumping oil because these contaminants are building up is accumulating is sound, but I highly suspect your frequency is far too great. Premium oils should be able to last much longer than 5k miles.
So, in part I agree with you. If you have an engine that has a mechanical issue (leaking fuel injectors, intake filtration leak, coolant leak, etc) then dumping oil early and often can help control this problem and keep the oil health in a decent, manageble form.
But if your engine is in good shape mechanically, dumping oil (especially expensive PAOs) every 5k miles is simply a waste of good oil, because it's likely they are FAR MORE CAPABLE of extended duration due to higher base stock configuration and add-pack construction.
Also, I take exception your to comment that the only way to get rid of contaminants is to dump the oil. Bypass filtration can help control the dirt and soot for quite a long time. They cannot help with coolant and fuel. But again, this all comes down to how good of shape your equipment is in.
Equipment longevity is a result of "proper maintenance". Proper maintenance is perhaps best defined as a combination of your frequency of maintenance, product choices, and equipment condition.
You must tailor your inputs to control your outputs. There is no one perfect answer, as often times there is more than one road to the same destination. There are, however, "better" answers depending upon each individual scenario.
So, coming back full circle to the OPs post, "why not use HDEO in everything" if they are a "better" product over PCMOs? You certainly can. Though the question really is: "are you going to get your full value from it?"
You seem to infer that there are other reasons to use oil or change oil other than OCI, but I completely disagree with you here. "This thread is turning into an HDEO vs OCI. There are other reasons to run one besides OCI. HTHS comes to mind. More anti-wear additives are another."
What the heck good is "more anti-wear additives" if you don't use them all??? Why have "more" of anything if you never intend use it? At this point, you are admitting to paying for well more than you will consume. If you use HDEO because it has "more" of any characteristic, but you only use it to a level that can be satisfied by PCMO, then where in the world is the logic of doing that??????? It simply confounds me; there is no "logic" to this decision. You are operating soley on emotion; you "feel" that it's "better" even though there is no proof of it being so. Your comment about this being "HDEO vs OCI" is EXACTLY what this is about. You may have completely missed the boat in my previous post. There are mounds upon mounds of UOA evidence that show premium products do not do their job "better" (as defined by some level of "more at a single point in time"). They do the jobs LONGER. Show me any UOA where the wear-protection is 3x less by using a synthetic over a PCMO, that equates to the 3x higher cost, at some short or moderate OCI duration. Premium products, be they HDEO or syns, don't retard wear any "better" than a PCMO, UNTIL that PCMO is used up, thereby surpassing the PCMO.
That same concept goes for contamination control. If we assume the equipment is in good mechanical condition, then soot/dirt is going to be the major issue. I'm going to pick arbitrary numbers for the debate, so don't nit-pick. Let's say an engine produces 10ppm of soot for every 1k miles it travels. After 10k miles, it will have produced 100ppm of soot. If you use a PCMO that can safely handle 70ppm of soot, your oil will be capable up to 7k miles. If you use an HDEO that can handle 100ppm of soot, it's OK for 10k miles. If you use a syn that can handle 120ppm of soot, it's good for 12k miles. So, the premium products can last longer. But if you measure the soot load at 5k miles, it would have 50ppm of soot, REGARDLESS OF WHAT PRODUCCT IS IN THE SUMP! That is well within the capablility of all three products. The HDEO or syn CANNOT do a "better" job of controlling soot, because the presentation rate of the soot is constant. The premium products cannot control soot to a "better" level because even though they have "more" additive package, they cannot absorb the soot any faster than it is presented! The premium products cannot hasten the production of soot; they only can do the job longer! Get it?
OCI duration should be completely driven by one of two means.
1) arbitrary duration based upon some "guess" of ultra-conservative safety margin
2) data and planning.
Take your pick.
Last edited:
d you must get soar fingers man....
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
There are many PCMOs that are available for less money, and do a great job. Why spend more $ on a product when the PCMO will do a fine job for many applications? OTOH, I'd love to see a dino HDEO in 5w-30; it would likely be a very servicable product.
I believe 5W-30 Esso XD-3 Extra is a CG-4/SH dino HDEO.
There are many PCMOs that are available for less money, and do a great job. Why spend more $ on a product when the PCMO will do a fine job for many applications? OTOH, I'd love to see a dino HDEO in 5w-30; it would likely be a very servicable product.
I believe 5W-30 Esso XD-3 Extra is a CG-4/SH dino HDEO.
Originally Posted By: vxcalais
The limiting factor we have here is that most on the shelf mixed fleet HDEO are only SL/CI-4/4+ rated. SM rated ones are hard to come by
I posted a somewhat related Q here (last post) re SM rated HDEO oils:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1854839
i.e. Does an oil with the CJ-4 rating (in this case Esso XD 0W30) necessarily possess the SM designation as well?
The limiting factor we have here is that most on the shelf mixed fleet HDEO are only SL/CI-4/4+ rated. SM rated ones are hard to come by
I posted a somewhat related Q here (last post) re SM rated HDEO oils:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1854839
i.e. Does an oil with the CJ-4 rating (in this case Esso XD 0W30) necessarily possess the SM designation as well?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
BuickGN - I see the point you are trying to make, but I disagree on some level.
The "contaminants" can range widely in form and function. Coolant, fuel, dirt and soot are the main culprits. We'd probably agree on this.
No oil can really do much with fuel and coolant; once they get into the oil, they simply exist. Let's not confuse "coolant" with "moisture". Some amount of moisture is always present. The longer use cycles of an engine can help boil this out (technically, it's an evaporation process). But coolant and it's negative effects cannot be "handled" for too long by the host oil. Fuel does not really harm the oil, but it does dilute the oil, thereby reducing the oil's abilities. Further, moisture can be handled by the TBN of the oil add-pack; this is a direct relationship (the more TBN, the longer the oil can last in service to control the sulphuric acid, etc.).
Also, I take exception your to comment that the only way to get rid of contaminants is to dump the oil. Bypass filtration can help control the dirt and soot for quite a long time. They cannot help with coolant and fuel. But again, this all comes down to how good of shape your equipment is in.
So, coming back full circle to the OPs post, "why not use HDEO in everything" if they are a "better" product over PCMOs? You certainly can. Though the question really is: "are you going to get your full value from it?"
You seem to infer that there are other reasons to use oil or change oil other than OCI, but I completely disagree with you here. "This thread is turning into an HDEO vs OCI. There are other reasons to run one besides OCI. HTHS comes to mind. More anti-wear additives are another."
What the heck good is "more anti-wear additives" if you don't use them all??? Why have "more" of anything if you never intend use it? At this point, you are admitting to paying for well more than you will consume. If you use HDEO because it has "more" of any characteristic, but you only use it to a level that can be satisfied by PCMO, then where in the world is the logic of doing that??????? It simply confounds me; there is no "logic" to this decision. You are operating soley on emotion; you "feel" that it's "better" even though there is no proof of it being so.
I disagree with most of this, agree with some of it.
Do you think Redline uses extra moly so you can run an extended interval?
How about ZDDP and flat tappet cams. Going by your logic, we could run a very low dose of ZDDP in an engine that requires a high dose and just change it more often to get the same level of protection.
How about detergents?? Are you saying a higher dose will not clean better and quicker?
I agree that a stronger add pack is essential in a long OCI but I whole heartedly disagree that OCI is the only reason for the better add packs.
You make the point of dispersants being all you need to deal with contaminate load (other than coolant). Sure, keep the stuff suspended, I'm sure it's a lot better than it clumping together. But the point is, it's still in your engine and it's still being circulated through your engine. The vast majority of the people here do not have bypass filtration.
I'm slowly upping my interval since I'm running Redline and a RP filter and quite honestly I'm basing some of it on the color of the oil. I know I need my flame suit for that comment but the first couple changes resulted in the Redline turning dark very quickly. Now it stays almost like new for the entire 5,000 miles.
I have a lot more to say but that will have to wait until I get home.
BuickGN - I see the point you are trying to make, but I disagree on some level.
The "contaminants" can range widely in form and function. Coolant, fuel, dirt and soot are the main culprits. We'd probably agree on this.
No oil can really do much with fuel and coolant; once they get into the oil, they simply exist. Let's not confuse "coolant" with "moisture". Some amount of moisture is always present. The longer use cycles of an engine can help boil this out (technically, it's an evaporation process). But coolant and it's negative effects cannot be "handled" for too long by the host oil. Fuel does not really harm the oil, but it does dilute the oil, thereby reducing the oil's abilities. Further, moisture can be handled by the TBN of the oil add-pack; this is a direct relationship (the more TBN, the longer the oil can last in service to control the sulphuric acid, etc.).
Also, I take exception your to comment that the only way to get rid of contaminants is to dump the oil. Bypass filtration can help control the dirt and soot for quite a long time. They cannot help with coolant and fuel. But again, this all comes down to how good of shape your equipment is in.
So, coming back full circle to the OPs post, "why not use HDEO in everything" if they are a "better" product over PCMOs? You certainly can. Though the question really is: "are you going to get your full value from it?"
You seem to infer that there are other reasons to use oil or change oil other than OCI, but I completely disagree with you here. "This thread is turning into an HDEO vs OCI. There are other reasons to run one besides OCI. HTHS comes to mind. More anti-wear additives are another."
What the heck good is "more anti-wear additives" if you don't use them all??? Why have "more" of anything if you never intend use it? At this point, you are admitting to paying for well more than you will consume. If you use HDEO because it has "more" of any characteristic, but you only use it to a level that can be satisfied by PCMO, then where in the world is the logic of doing that??????? It simply confounds me; there is no "logic" to this decision. You are operating soley on emotion; you "feel" that it's "better" even though there is no proof of it being so.
I disagree with most of this, agree with some of it.
Do you think Redline uses extra moly so you can run an extended interval?
How about ZDDP and flat tappet cams. Going by your logic, we could run a very low dose of ZDDP in an engine that requires a high dose and just change it more often to get the same level of protection.
How about detergents?? Are you saying a higher dose will not clean better and quicker?
I agree that a stronger add pack is essential in a long OCI but I whole heartedly disagree that OCI is the only reason for the better add packs.
You make the point of dispersants being all you need to deal with contaminate load (other than coolant). Sure, keep the stuff suspended, I'm sure it's a lot better than it clumping together. But the point is, it's still in your engine and it's still being circulated through your engine. The vast majority of the people here do not have bypass filtration.
I'm slowly upping my interval since I'm running Redline and a RP filter and quite honestly I'm basing some of it on the color of the oil. I know I need my flame suit for that comment but the first couple changes resulted in the Redline turning dark very quickly. Now it stays almost like new for the entire 5,000 miles.
I have a lot more to say but that will have to wait until I get home.
good points, it also depends on how expensive the car is. for BuickGN that's some bucks. for me not so much
as in the comfort margin is smaller
as in the comfort margin is smaller
dnewton3
Staff member
I think we likely agree on a few things, but I'd like to clarify so I don't misstate the position I have.
Detergents clean what already exists.
Dispersants keep insolubles from agglomerating (co-joining).
"How about detergents?? Are you saying a higher dose will not clean better and quicker? "
Yes, I am saying exactly that. If we presume that an engine has been well cared for, there really should not be a lot of (let's call it) "gunk" laying inside the engine. Perhaps if an engine were poorly cared for, there would be an excess of stuff inside. But for a reasonably well maintained engine, there really isn't much to "clean up". So, detergents cannot clean "better" if there isn't much to get to. It is a function of how dirty something is to begin with, and also it is affected greatly by the RATE of contamination.
Let me reuse an analogy I put forth some time ago.
Consider two families. One is an older couple, the other a full family of eight. They both have a maid service. Which one do you think will need "more" cleaning? The older couple likely "contaminates" at a lower rate; they can get away with one maid. The family, OTOH, contaminates at a hard and fast rate; they likely will need one of two things:
1) more cleaning visits per week, or
2) more maids on the same day once per week
But, if you put the "extra cleaning" into the old couples home, would "more" cleaning take place? NO! You cannot "clean" what does not exist! You can put ten maids in that home, but only one is needed. The other nine just sit around waiting on something to do!
As long as you have an engine that is well cared for, in good mechanical shape, and not a known "sludger", there is no reason to think that "more" cleaning agents will have any real affect on the cleaning cycle WITH RESPECT TO TWO OILS JUDGED AT SOME SHORT INTERVAL. Again, over a long time, more cleaning agents will do a "better" job because they have not been overcome yet. But in the short duration, there is ZERO advantage for "extra" cleaners in a healthy engine.
"You make the point of dispersants being all you need to deal with contaminate load (other than coolant). Sure, keep the stuff suspended, I'm sure it's a lot better than it clumping together. But the point is, it's still in your engine and it's still being circulated through your engine. The vast majority of the people here do not have bypass filtration."
I never said they were all you need, nor did I infer that lots of people have bypass filtration. My point is that they (dispersants) are the part of your add-pack that deals with the soot/dirt as it enters the system at the infancy of its existence. Insolubles, (most specifically narrowed for this conversation to soot and dirt), start out as sub-micron in size. There are two things to worry about with soot. One is quantity, the other is size. We really can't stop the production of soot, but we CAN control the size of soot, by having a viable add-pack. Until soot gets to around 5um in size, it really does not matter much to the engine. Most experts agree, and you can see this data supported at other sites, that most engine damage happens from particles that are 5-15um in size. According to a GM wear study, as particle size moves just from 8.5um to 7um, the engine life gains by significantly! In fact, by the time you get down below 5um, the engine life is nearly infinite!!!!!! Soot that is a few um in size does no realative harm at all! They float and circulate around your lube system and don't really affect the equipment life span! Since soot starts out way smaller than 5um (again, sub-micron in size typically), it is not hurting anything. So, if your dispersent package is viable, the soot is moot. Soot is there; it wants to do damage. But it cannot until it gets an opportunity to co-join and become much larger.
I would much rather have ten particles that are 2um in size, than one particle that is 10 um in size. In the first example, there is a total mass of 20 "units" of soot. In the second, there are only 10 "units" of soot mass. There is twice as must soot in the first example. But the first scenario does no damage, and the second can wreak havoc. It's not always about quantity; size does matter. As long as the soot/insolubles stay small, they can continue to circulate indefinitely in your system without inflicting damage. Only after the TOTAL mass quantity of soot overcomes the ability of the dispersant package, does the SIZE start to become of concern. So, your OCI duration has everything to do with soot size. The more robust the dispersant package, the longer it will keep soot small. Again, the OCI is in a (near) direct relationship to the add-pack.
Detergents clean what already exists.
Dispersants keep insolubles from agglomerating (co-joining).
"How about detergents?? Are you saying a higher dose will not clean better and quicker? "
Yes, I am saying exactly that. If we presume that an engine has been well cared for, there really should not be a lot of (let's call it) "gunk" laying inside the engine. Perhaps if an engine were poorly cared for, there would be an excess of stuff inside. But for a reasonably well maintained engine, there really isn't much to "clean up". So, detergents cannot clean "better" if there isn't much to get to. It is a function of how dirty something is to begin with, and also it is affected greatly by the RATE of contamination.
Let me reuse an analogy I put forth some time ago.
Consider two families. One is an older couple, the other a full family of eight. They both have a maid service. Which one do you think will need "more" cleaning? The older couple likely "contaminates" at a lower rate; they can get away with one maid. The family, OTOH, contaminates at a hard and fast rate; they likely will need one of two things:
1) more cleaning visits per week, or
2) more maids on the same day once per week
But, if you put the "extra cleaning" into the old couples home, would "more" cleaning take place? NO! You cannot "clean" what does not exist! You can put ten maids in that home, but only one is needed. The other nine just sit around waiting on something to do!
As long as you have an engine that is well cared for, in good mechanical shape, and not a known "sludger", there is no reason to think that "more" cleaning agents will have any real affect on the cleaning cycle WITH RESPECT TO TWO OILS JUDGED AT SOME SHORT INTERVAL. Again, over a long time, more cleaning agents will do a "better" job because they have not been overcome yet. But in the short duration, there is ZERO advantage for "extra" cleaners in a healthy engine.
"You make the point of dispersants being all you need to deal with contaminate load (other than coolant). Sure, keep the stuff suspended, I'm sure it's a lot better than it clumping together. But the point is, it's still in your engine and it's still being circulated through your engine. The vast majority of the people here do not have bypass filtration."
I never said they were all you need, nor did I infer that lots of people have bypass filtration. My point is that they (dispersants) are the part of your add-pack that deals with the soot/dirt as it enters the system at the infancy of its existence. Insolubles, (most specifically narrowed for this conversation to soot and dirt), start out as sub-micron in size. There are two things to worry about with soot. One is quantity, the other is size. We really can't stop the production of soot, but we CAN control the size of soot, by having a viable add-pack. Until soot gets to around 5um in size, it really does not matter much to the engine. Most experts agree, and you can see this data supported at other sites, that most engine damage happens from particles that are 5-15um in size. According to a GM wear study, as particle size moves just from 8.5um to 7um, the engine life gains by significantly! In fact, by the time you get down below 5um, the engine life is nearly infinite!!!!!! Soot that is a few um in size does no realative harm at all! They float and circulate around your lube system and don't really affect the equipment life span! Since soot starts out way smaller than 5um (again, sub-micron in size typically), it is not hurting anything. So, if your dispersent package is viable, the soot is moot. Soot is there; it wants to do damage. But it cannot until it gets an opportunity to co-join and become much larger.
I would much rather have ten particles that are 2um in size, than one particle that is 10 um in size. In the first example, there is a total mass of 20 "units" of soot. In the second, there are only 10 "units" of soot mass. There is twice as must soot in the first example. But the first scenario does no damage, and the second can wreak havoc. It's not always about quantity; size does matter. As long as the soot/insolubles stay small, they can continue to circulate indefinitely in your system without inflicting damage. Only after the TOTAL mass quantity of soot overcomes the ability of the dispersant package, does the SIZE start to become of concern. So, your OCI duration has everything to do with soot size. The more robust the dispersant package, the longer it will keep soot small. Again, the OCI is in a (near) direct relationship to the add-pack.
Last edited:
I find conventional HDEO is cheaper than all but the "no-name" PCMO, and HDEO synthetic on sale is the same price as the name brand PCMO conventional oils.
So its Rotella T 15W40 in everything for the summer and either Rotella T 0W40 or 5W40 synthetic for the winter... I just do a spring and fall change on my cars and atv too.
Both cars get run hard, Neon does autocross, and the Tracker tows a little more that it should sometimes, and the atv pushes a plow or pulls firewood around so HDEO makes sense to me.
So its Rotella T 15W40 in everything for the summer and either Rotella T 0W40 or 5W40 synthetic for the winter... I just do a spring and fall change on my cars and atv too.
Both cars get run hard, Neon does autocross, and the Tracker tows a little more that it should sometimes, and the atv pushes a plow or pulls firewood around so HDEO makes sense to me.
when i said good points i was referring to dnewton also. i'm reading these Rotella threads w/ interest since i just put 5qts of basic Rotella T 15W-40 w/a PureOne in my 10W-30 LT1. never tried a 40 before, noticed a slight sluggishness at the top end, was using PP 5W-30 before. wanted to try it after reading all the good things here and the stout add pack.
i know this thing can prob go longer than PP but i'm doing so many short trips i'll prob drop it at 6 months like i always do, but i do believe it could go much longer than 5K. noticed it takes longer to get to operating temp by the idle pressure around 20 psi. PP could reach 19 psi idle in 13-15 min here 70F ambient. this takes at least 20 min. 118 cst at 40C vs. 57 PP
i know this thing can prob go longer than PP but i'm doing so many short trips i'll prob drop it at 6 months like i always do, but i do believe it could go much longer than 5K. noticed it takes longer to get to operating temp by the idle pressure around 20 psi. PP could reach 19 psi idle in 13-15 min here 70F ambient. this takes at least 20 min. 118 cst at 40C vs. 57 PP
I think you make the best case for using HDEOs in everything.
They are without question good quality oils, and they are consistently priced at reasonable levels, so there is no need to wait for sales or MIRs.
Even so, I did score some Tection 15W-40 for $3.74/gallon this year, and there was last year's MIR on Delvac 15W-40, which made it even less expensive than the Tection.
I have nothing for which these are actually recommended grades.
I also have nothing in which they won't do just fine in warm weather. There is no law saying you can't use a heavier grade during the warmer months.
They are without question good quality oils, and they are consistently priced at reasonable levels, so there is no need to wait for sales or MIRs.
Even so, I did score some Tection 15W-40 for $3.74/gallon this year, and there was last year's MIR on Delvac 15W-40, which made it even less expensive than the Tection.
I have nothing for which these are actually recommended grades.
I also have nothing in which they won't do just fine in warm weather. There is no law saying you can't use a heavier grade during the warmer months.
Dave, you are on a roll, buddy!
The only serious downside to HDEOs is the dearth of viscosity choices. If only there was a conventional 5W30 HDEO? I be on it like stink on.... well, you know.
At the end of this cycle in my '05 F-150, I'm considering trying some of my beloved 10W30 Rotella-T in the 5.4L 3V (VCT). I have been tracking camshaft operation and oil pressure in various situations with 5W20. I will likely datalog the stuff too once I get a compatible laptop. Then, I'll install the 10W30 and see what happens. TR 10W30 is a thick 30, so it would give me some indication of how a 40 grade would work.
The only serious downside to HDEOs is the dearth of viscosity choices. If only there was a conventional 5W30 HDEO? I be on it like stink on.... well, you know.
At the end of this cycle in my '05 F-150, I'm considering trying some of my beloved 10W30 Rotella-T in the 5.4L 3V (VCT). I have been tracking camshaft operation and oil pressure in various situations with 5W20. I will likely datalog the stuff too once I get a compatible laptop. Then, I'll install the 10W30 and see what happens. TR 10W30 is a thick 30, so it would give me some indication of how a 40 grade would work.
Yeah, I once thought about one, but didn't see anything on the shelf but 15W.
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
The only serious downside to HDEOs is the dearth of viscosity choices.
Sorry I am coming into theis discussion late. Up here
our XD 0W30/40 HDEO can be used in so many applications.
The only serious downside to HDEOs is the dearth of viscosity choices.
Sorry I am coming into theis discussion late. Up here
Last edited:
Perhaps the reality of the Canadian winter overcomes the instinct for thick oil.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: labman
Perhaps the reality of the Canadian winter overcomes the instinct for thick oil.
0w40 works fine
Perhaps the reality of the Canadian winter overcomes the instinct for thick oil.
0w40 works fine
- Status
Similar threads
