shell 10w30 noack 12%

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nyogtha instead of doing a selective cut n paste of my other posts you should provide a link. Not that anyone cares
smile.gif


You can persuade by citations re lack of correlation between noack and oil consumption rather than wikipedia critical thinking and qoutes.
 
See, if you didn't care, you wouldn't have mentioned a link - that's critical thinking. Clearly you care. Why I have no idea, they are verbatim; that's a fact anyone including you can verify. So why do you want them so badly?

It's clearly in direct opposition to your system though and you obviously have no interest in even clicking on a Wikipedia link to learn about it.

You of course could post said links associated with such quotes yourself using the "My Posts" tool - so if it's important to you, why haven't you?
 
Originally Posted By: merconvvv
I dont care if you have 50 years of experience in industry. I have about one year of trying to figure out which oil is best for my ford.
Maybe my 1 year > 2 decades of fancy language and quotes.

Sorry but that's just whack. Such statements are made by individuals here when they really don't understand, or refuse to try.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: merconvvv
I dont care if you have 50 years of experience in industry. I have about one year of trying to figure out which oil is best for my ford.
Maybe my 1 year > 2 decades of fancy language and quotes.

Sorry but that's just whack. Such statements are made by individuals here when they really don't understand, or refuse to try.


By that token maybe there is a reason you were a tester and not involved in decisions to get rid of noack.
 
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Why does any presentation of facts that don't match the flavor of your kool-ade trigger a keyboard White Night event from you Rev?

It's not new to BITOG, but whether it is always the same recycled poster I don't know.
 
Maybe it would help to clarify something I said earlier...

On certain industry standard engine tests, you can show that oil loss is crudely proportional to Noack. Now these tests are run on brand new engines with the engine running flat out and with the oil kept at an artificially high temperature. Unsurprisingly most of the oil loss is via the PCV/intake system and should be considered as evaporative loss. These engines, which might run for just over four days continuous before being junked, do not suffer from problems with worn valve seals or old leaky gaskets. Also, even when a relative large amount of oil is routed back to the cylinders to be burnt, it is rare that you will stick an oil control ring. As with most sticking situations, you need quiet time for the glue to set solid. You just don't get that on a four day continuous thrash test.

In reality engines run at far lower oil temperatures so evaporative loss is a much slower process but it should still be crudely proportional to Noack.

However, older engines can develop problems with worn valve stem seals and oil can get sucked directly into cylinders and burnt. This type of oil loss will NOT be proportional to Noack.

If you have a lot of cumulative evaporative oil loss or valve seal oil loss, the sticky deposits you get from attempting to burn oil can work their way down the sides of the cylinder. The compression ring and scraper ring are both, to a degree, self-cleaning as they both splay, invert and rotate. Unfortunately, the oil control ring is not self-cleaning. Excessive oil loss can lead to a stuck oil ring and when this happens, oil consumption tends to skyrocket. Once it starts, this form of oil loss is again NOT proportional to Noack.

My advice is always look for a low Noack oil, or in the absence of a Noack result, choose an oil grade that is likely to have a low Noack. This will minimise evaporative oil loss, which is important but the bigger and far more important reason is that it minimises the risk of developing a stuck oil control ring late in the life of the engine.

Hope this helps...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: merconvvv
Yes noack is correlated with oil consumption until there is some other factor that is being overlooked.
My ford consumes much less qsud 10w30 than m1 0w40.


Ow40 is compromised for cold crank, I'm surprised it has the certs it does!
Not really a Valid comparo and not surprising in the least. Compare 10w30 to 10w30.

We used to have great luck with T3 Rotella triple protect 10w30 in "loose" and/or A/C engines, IIRC that doesn't have a low NOACK. Cant find the stuff.

What did the Subaru eat?

Will-I-am Penn's Oil Ultra,

What was great? Valvoline 0w20. It also didn't eat the dealer installed Peak 0w20 - though that oil rattled the engine when hot.

I cant recall how it did on M1 EP 0W20 for usage. The EP provided no fuel mileage benefit or engine clatter improvement.

NORE: For fairness to all parties, The engine s/n was under a class action for oil burning.
 
"Ow40 is compromised for cold crank, I'm surprised it has the certs it does!
Not really a Valid comparo and not surprising in the least. Compare 10w30 to 10w30."

0W40 is thicker than 10w30 at operating temp.
Noack comparison on the two oils might be the clue why my expedition burns more 0w40 on the highway at operating temps than it does a 10w30 with low noack.
 
NOACK is definitely one of the primary attributes I look for in an oil. Tells you so much.

SonofJoe, can you give some explanation on how fuel dilution occurs?
 
Originally Posted By: FlyPenFly
NOACK is definitely one of the primary attributes I look for in an oil. Tells you so much.

SonofJoe, can you give some explanation on how fuel dilution occurs?


Hi,

There was a long, involved thread on fuel dilution back in March that I posted several times on. Here's the link...

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4351538/Re:_Fuel_Dilution_"Bu#Post4351538

Have a trawl through it and it should tell you all you could possibly want to know.
 
I just finished a six hundred mile highway run with pp 10w30 in my expedition.
Oil consumption close to zero !
Oils with noack around 9 percent such as m1 0w40 have consumed close to 1 quart in 600 highway miles in my ford.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top