02 jeep 2.5/5k Bruceblend 0w-10 5100

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Onmo'Eegusee
Didnt he project it as 2.6 or was that the old stuff?


It was more of a "sure >2.6 (easy)" type comment. It was more "open ended" to more or less say that it qualified at least in the SAE20 range for HTHS.
 
Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Dogs always love the one that feeds them.



That's so not true with (my) cat. This animal paws at my face every [censored] morning at 5:00 am for food and still he would rather sleep on my son's bed.


When you feed a cat you're paying tribute to it.
 
My cats can discern the wifes car v. mine. They get up for her BC she feeds them. Even if she comes home at an odd time. Only took a couple days with her new car for them to adjust.
 
Last edited:
http://www.trackmysample.com/HORIZON_3_0...&n89=7898235213

Oil Analyzers pretty much tracks with Analyst and Blackstone

Analyst appears to mostly agree with Blackstone's numbers. TBN is still strong here.

Aluminum 3.......5......2
Chromium 1.......1......0
Iron 16.........18.....15
Copper 7.........8......6
Lead 2...........2......1
Tin 0............1......0
Moly 10.........11.....10
Nickel 1.........1......0
Manganse 0.......NT.....0
Silver 0......... Titanium 0....... Potassium 2...... Boron 29.........32....26
Silicon 14.......17....15
Sodium 4.........7......3
Caclium 2734...2776..2549
Magnesium 11.....11....10
Zinc 1151......1297..1153
Phos 1042......????..1008
Barium 136.......32 (132?)

Vis 100-5.18.....5.5...5.3
VI NT............170
TBN-D2896 NT.....7.3...4.6
Oxidation 29 Flagged 2 for severity
Nitration 20

severity_num_2.png
 
Nice to see similarity in the results. TBN will easily take you to 10k miles, will we see results then?

BTW, what did Bruce recommend as an OCI on this and other oils he blended for you? Did he blend them as 'long life' oils, or is this a guesswork approach on both of your parts?
 
Bruce would like to look at it again in 2000 more miles. The TBN is still strong and everything else appears in decent control. I intend to take it to 10k.

I'll be down 24-32oz in just samples. I don't want to skew the test with make up, nor do I want to prematurely fatigue the sump due to lower capacity. I'm wrestling with how to do this.

There was no preplanned OCI's. Just testing at 3k+/-, 5k+/-. The former tests were littered with leaching moly, so it was a double dose Auto-Rx treatment to see if it could purge it. It apparently worked out. I probably would have changed it anyway. Silicon appeared higher than it should and there was some noise that appears to have gone away.

Now there's not much of a reason not to go to 10k.
 
I'd do the top-off, just with the same oil, and right after sampling. The closer to the UOA you do the testing, the more skewed it is.

If I had intended to do this from the start, I would have overfilled the initial fill by .5 quart to give me that room.
 
That's what I did last time. There were even more samples taken out of that one. Spacebears ran into this issue.


Here's what I'll do. I'll top up now with enough overfill to cover the 7.5k testing. That will only take another 12oz overfill. That should carry me to 10k.

Either way someone would be factoring it good and bad in the same thread ..so what's the difference?
lol.gif
 
Gary -- As follow-up to our conversation -- we can get one sample analyzed for $250.00 at an associate lab. If we were to get a series of samples to do in house (20 or more) our cost would be $220.00.



The following proposal should answer any questions you may have; but feel free to contact me personally, if any should arise.



[PLEASE NOTE WE ARE AN INDEPENDENT LABORATORY – NOT A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY or APPROVAL AGENCY]



ASTM TEST


DESCRIPTION


COST*

PER TEST

ASTM D4683


Measuring Viscosity at High Shear Rate and High Temperature by Tapered Bearing Simulator


See above
 
No, I don't have an oil temp gauge on this vehicle. I have a sandwich heat exchanger that surely keeps it around coolant temp.

The VI is about 130

23.9/4.9 VOA.
 
Gary, thanks for conducting this low vis experiment.
I would estimate that the HTHS vis design requirement for the Jeep is around 3.0 cP. With oil temps well contained at under 210F a 5.0 cSt oil provides adequate film strength.
In racing applications, a vis of 4 cSt is considered the low limit before risking bearing wiping in under 500 hp "tight" engines.

Since this is not a high VI oil, it will start to loose it's low vis advantage at sub zero F temps where high VI 20wts will outperform.
 
Quote:
Since this is not a high VI oil, it will start to loose it's low vis advantage at sub zero F temps where high VI 20wts will outperform.


I dunno.
54.gif
I thought of it as more of being slammed against the floor with the low 100C visc. That is, the VI was compressed due to the low ceiling. It was a challenge to keep it under 5.3 cSt to be a true sub-20 grade. The carrier oil for the additives (or so I believe) was a significant contributor to the end visc. This was the lowest basestock he could use since the next lower one would have 30% volatility.

Quote:
I would estimate that the HTHS vis design requirement for the Jeep is around 3.0 cP. With oil temps well contained at under 210F a 5.0 cSt oil provides adequate film strength.


Probably 2.9 ..but 3.0 is just as good. 5w-30 is the minimum recommended visc for this model year (and quite a few years forward and backward) with 10w-30 being preferred. It has no rollerized valve train components and has average spring rates (220lbf+/- iirc). I hope that I'm not grinding my cam into graphite like paste
frown.gif
Now that I've cleaned up some leeching deposits the UOA appears to be favorable. I know it doesn't count too much in the wear end of things, but it's all I have to work with at the moment.

Quote:
Gary, thanks for conducting this low vis experiment.


You're welcome. I went into this in scoffing ignorance. What's that catchy statement about your sphere (or was it a circle) of knowledge? It's sorta how when you're young you need to make your fortune while you still know it all? As you age your sphere/circle expands and you can no longer cope with all the complications of the expanding unknown.

This whole thing was born out of the fear factor of 20 weight oils. I found it irrational. Not that it couldn't be true, but rather that it was blind fear. This experiment (with without Bruce's most generous material support would not be possible) was to go beyond current boundaries to validate them.

I think the consensus of opinion migrated before the experiment progressed enough to make a statement.
lol.gif
 
Thank you Gary and Bruce-this was a great undertaking and was a most interesting experiment.

Gary in another 100k post some pics of your cam so we can see all is well!

REDDOG
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Gary, thanks for conducting this low vis experiment.
I would estimate that the HTHS vis design requirement for the Jeep is around 3.0 cP. With oil temps well contained at under 210F a 5.0 cSt oil provides adequate film strength.
In racing applications, a vis of 4 cSt is considered the low limit before risking bearing wiping in under 500 hp "tight" engines.

Since this is not a high VI oil, it will start to loose it's low vis advantage at sub zero F temps where high VI 20wts will outperform.


Are you talking about 4 cSt being limit for kinematic viscosity or HTHS viscosity?
 
Kinematic viscosity. On this side of the Atlantic no one seems to bother with HTHS vis and therefore most race oil formulators like RL don't provide the spec' for their race oils.
Nevertheless, HTHS min vis is a useful design spec if you know it.
If the spec' is 3.0 cP I'd roughly equate that to 4 cSt. 3.5 cP to 4.5 cSt etc.
Theses are minimum viscosities which assumes no filtration issues, both oil and air, or other mechanical issues.
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Kinematic viscosity. On this side of the Atlantic no one seems to bother with HTHS vis and therefore most race oil formulators like RL don't provide the spec' for their race oils.
Nevertheless, HTHS min vis is a useful design spec if you know it.
If the spec' is 3.0 cP I'd roughly equate that to 4 cSt. 3.5 cP to 4.5 cSt etc.
Theses are minimum viscosities which assumes no filtration issues, both oil and air, or other mechanical issues.


wonder what is GC viscosity at 280F. that is the oil temp I had while tracking my S4
 
I think it would be around 6.2 cSt +/-

Castrol doesn't give you the 40C visc, so I plugged in a 175 VI ..which brought about a 68cSt 40C visc. That puts the 137C visc at 6.25cSt.

That should be close. widman's calculator
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I think it would be around 6.2 cSt +/-

Castrol doesn't give you the 40C visc, so I plugged in a 175 VI ..which brought about a 68cSt 40C visc. That puts the 137C visc at 6.25cSt.

That should be close. widman's calculator



I'd agree with 6.3 cSt for fresh GC.
It could drop below 6.0 once it's sheared.
It's useful if the UOA provides both 40C vis and 100C vis so you know how much of a safety margin your dealing with at the end of the OCI.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
Mobil1 Euro FS 0w-40 SP, 5100 miles, 02 C5
Replies
4
Views
2K
jetman
OVERKILL
2019 RAM 1500 Sport 5.7L - HPL "overkill" 0W-20 10,876km
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
4WD
J
M1 FS Euro 0w-40, Val PB "Restore" 10w-30, 5.1K OCI, 07 GMC 6.2L
2 3
Replies
54
Views
2K
Plawan
P
2000 Jeep 4.0L 107k mi; coolant intrusion after rebuild
Replies
12
Views
862
himemsys
M
Mobil 1 FS 10W-30 Jeep 4.0L 3000mi OCI
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
wlk
Back
Top