Oil for WRX autocross

[harrydog]

Originally Posted By: danielLD
KL31, I'm going to venture not one of those UOA is a either a Dyson Analysis or a Lucas Dynamics, eh?

IF you have an oil that has a high viscosity index(oil's ability to stay in grade as temp rises) then you don't need to go to a thicker weight. Here's the problem, the off the shelves formulas aren't suited for the cars that are pushed more, so people go to thicker weights because it ends up where they want it to be AFTER it's diluted and sheared. Those oils don't hold up under your kind of usage so of course, going to a 40 weight works. But it's a band-aid for what is really happening.

Interesting because Terry Dyson recommended 5w40 for both my 2.0 WRX and my 3.0 H6 Outback

 

[danielLD]

Well I will say, Terry would have made that conclusion based on your data, not some blind put thicker in there mindset. There are people that need heavier oils, but not most. Without data you are guessing.

I have plenty of cars I moved down to a thinner weight and we saw big improvements. If you can maintain lubrication with a lighter weight, that will almost always be the direction you want to take. I'm sure Terry will echo those comments if you ask him.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: danielLD
I have plenty of cars I moved down to a thinner weight and we saw big improvements. If you can maintain lubrication with a lighter weight, that will almost always be the direction you want to take. I'm sure Terry will echo those comments if you ask him.

Big improvements in what, exactly?

 

[danielLD]

Big improvements in what, exactly? [/quote]

Wear values, particularly aluminum, nickel, iron, copper, lead. As well as improved ring seal, which also resulted in better fuel economy and power.

Reduction in fuels dilutions and acid formation. Blackstone isn't giving us Fuels dilution, I think many here can agree on that. I get GC readings for fuel % not open cup flash.

The copper and lead reductions were from controlling the fuels dilutions, The nickel/aluminum/iron reductions were from better lubrication in the EP area.

 

[kschachn]

All due to the change in grade? That's amazing.

Originally Posted By: danielLD
Wear values, particularly aluminum, nickel, iron, copper, lead. As well as improved ring seal, which also resulted in better fuel economy and power.

Reduction in fuels dilutions and acid formation. Blackstone isn't giving us Fuels dilution, I think many here can agree on that. I get GC readings for fuel % not open cup flash.

The copper and lead reductions were from controlling the fuels dilutions, The nickel/aluminum/iron reductions were from better lubrication in the EP area.

 

[danielLD]

Not due to just the change in grade but rather a change to an oil with a higher viscosity index which safely allowed for a drop in grade.

 

[zeng]

Originally Posted By: danielLD
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Big improvements in what, exactly?

Wear values, particularly aluminum, nickel, iron, copper, lead.....

I just don't buy your claims.
Kindly provide basis on above 'claims' that a lower viscosity grade in xW30 provides (particularly aluminum, nickel, iron, copper, lead) wear improvements over a 40 grade .
Keeping aside providence of evidence or links/papers for now.

Originally Posted By: danielLD
...Reduction in fuels dilutions and acid formation....

Kindly elaborate mechanisms of how a xW30 viscosity grade is superior in reduction of fuels dilutions and acid formation, than a 40 grade ......
hence improving wear values as claimed.

Originally Posted By: danielLD
The copper and lead reductions were from controlling the fuels dilutions,

How so an xW30 is superior to a 40 in this 'fuels dilution control' .... and how does this 'control' leads to wear values improvements ??

Originally Posted By: danielLD
The nickel/aluminum/iron reductions were from better lubrication in the EP area.

In relation to a 40 viscosity grade , how does a xW30 provide better lubrication in the EP area?
What's the mechanisms of this 'better lubrication' by a xW30 viscosity grade that can lead to nickel/aluminium/iron wear reductions in OP's case?
By EP, you mean Extreme Pressure ?

 

[KL31]

Originally Posted By: danielLD
KL31, I'm going to venture not one of those UOA is a either a Dyson Analysis or a Lucas Dynamics, eh?

IF you have an oil that has a high viscosity index(oil's ability to stay in grade as temp rises) then you don't need to go to a thicker weight. Here's the problem, the off the shelves formulas aren't suited for the cars that are pushed more, so people go to thicker weights because it ends up where they want it to be AFTER it's diluted and sheared. Those oils don't hold up under your kind of usage so of course, going to a 40 weight works. But it's a band-aid for what is really happening.


No idea about those analysis machines you talk of. Care to post some info about them comparing to usual UOA test machines and methods? You could make a new thread and educate some of us potentially. I'm always up for learning new things on this forum.

Btw I have read here that viscosity index is often increased using viscosity index improvers (VII) and that an oil with a lower VI can often resist shearing and dilution better than oils with a many VII and high VI. So mono grades might be bad for freezing starts but their lack of VII makes them more shear resistant. I didn't think VI had anything to do with the oils ability to stay in grade as temp rises. I'm either wrong or you have it quite backwards.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: danielLD
Not due to just the change in grade but rather a change to an oil with a higher viscosity index which safely allowed for a drop in grade.


LOL, more Viscosity Index means more VII polymenrs.

Which then means that your KV values (Viscosity Index) are artificially high for the thing that ACTUALLY protects your bearings, which is HTHS.

Best case in point is M1 racing 0W50...SAE50 KVs, with the HTHS of a strong 30...that's plain dumb...

 

[danielLD]

zeng, you don't have to buy my claims, they're free and not for sale! Lol.

KL31, sure I'm new here and I get 0 notifications of people replying to me, I'm very confused if someone could help me.

Shannon, I'll post data. Not everyone in the business artificially inflates their VI with VII.

 

[zeng]

Originally Posted By: danielLD
zeng, you don't have to buy my claims, they're free and not for sale! Lol.
KL31, sure I'm new here and I get 0 notifications of people replying to me, I'm very confused if someone could help me.
Shannon, I'll post data. Not everyone in the business artificially inflates their VI with VII.


Fair enough.
For the sake of learning in the community, kindly provide individual response to my comments above arising from your numerous claims.
Awaiting 48 hours since .....


Originally Posted By: zeng
Originally Posted By: danielLD
A 40 is only going to cause friction and more needless wear.

Please educate us on the bold....... vis-a-vis an xW30.

Btw, what is wear ?


Originally Posted By: zeng
Originally Posted By: danielLD
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Big improvements in what, exactly?

Wear values, particularly aluminum, nickel, iron, copper, lead.....

I just don't buy your claims.
Kindly provide basis on above 'claims' that a lower viscosity grade in xW30 provides (particularly aluminum, nickel, iron, copper, lead) wear improvements over a 40 grade .
Keeping aside providence of evidence or links/papers for now.

Originally Posted By: danielLD
...Reduction in fuels dilutions and acid formation....

Kindly elaborate mechanisms of how a xW30 viscosity grade is superior in reduction of fuels dilutions and acid formation, than a 40 grade ......
hence improving wear values as claimed.

Originally Posted By: danielLD
The copper and lead reductions were from controlling the fuels dilutions,

How so an xW30 is superior to a 40 in this 'fuels dilution control' .... and how does this 'control' leads to wear values improvements ??

Originally Posted By: danielLD
The nickel/aluminum/iron reductions were from better lubrication in the EP area.

In relation to a 40 viscosity grade , how does a xW30 provide better lubrication in the EP area?
What's the mechanisms of this 'better lubrication' by a xW30 viscosity grade that can lead to nickel/aluminium/iron wear reductions in OP's case?
By EP, you mean Extreme Pressure ?

 

[1JZ_E46]

I'm late to the party, but there's a reason why auto-makers' "severe service" recommendation is always a thicker oil... because it protects better. It's physics. HOWEVER, a thicker oil will may have more start-up wear in colder applications (not an issue the 0W 40 weights).

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: danielLD
zeng, you don't have to buy my claims, they're free and not for sale! Lol.

KL31, sure I'm new here and I get 0 notifications of people replying to me, I'm very confused if someone could help me.

Shannon, I'll post data. Not everyone in the business artificially inflates their VI with VII.


But that limits you to a VI of 130-140, largely negating the "benefits" that you were espousing...

Originally Posted By: danielLD
Not due to just the change in grade but rather a change to an oil with a higher viscosity index which safely allowed for a drop in grade.


you still haven't explained that either...how does it work ?

Here's edge 0W40 versus redline 0W30...where does the redline get better ?



The edge has a better hths...

and the redline clearly has VII

 

[DS9]

Probably I`am too late at the party.
Are the physics (and chemistry) different for some 5W-30 oil at 110 C (8.5 cSt @110 C) in comparison with some 5W-40 oil at 130 C (8.5 cSt @130 C)?

 

[danielLD]

I'm going to be sponsoring the site here soon and doing some UOA. I won't get into an argument but here are the basics, Shannow you don't grasp oil, one bit. Viscosity INDEX is NOT viscosity, is an oil's ability to stay in grade, as the temp rises if the oil can't stay in grade, no Bueno.

You can have a 20 weight and a 50 weight, if the 20 weight can stay in grade as the temp rises than the 20 weight is the way to go.

Problem is 1JZ_ LOL your physics are highly off. OEM's recommend thicker weights BECAUSE they know PEOPLE will get off the shelf oils, so in order to maintain a 30 weight from diluting into a 20, they recommend a 40 weight because they know it will dilute into a 30. IF the OEMS knew solid oils would be used, then you wouldn't have issues with going to lighter weights. How many people here run non-Autozone oils? Exactly.

If you can maintain MOFT and a few other variables, you want to go as light as you can, THAT's PHYSICS.

 

[1JZ_E46]

In general, oil film thickness and strength increases with viscosity. That's the physics I was referring to, calm down man. Also, how do you know that they recommend thicker oil because they know people buy off the shelf oil that isn't "solid"? Seems like a baseless opinion to me.

 

[Virtus_Probi]

Originally Posted By: danielLD
I'm going to be sponsoring the site here soon and doing some UOA. I won't get into an argument but here are the basics, Shannow you don't grasp oil, one bit. Viscosity INDEX is NOT viscosity, is an oil's ability to stay in grade, as the temp rises if the oil can't stay in grade, no Bueno.

You can have a 20 weight and a 50 weight, if the 20 weight can stay in grade as the temp rises than the 20 weight is the way to go.

Problem is 1JZ_ LOL your physics are highly off. OEM's recommend thicker weights BECAUSE they know PEOPLE will get off the shelf oils, so in order to maintain a 30 weight from diluting into a 20, they recommend a 40 weight because they know it will dilute into a 30. IF the OEMS knew solid oils would be used, then you wouldn't have issues with going to lighter weights. How many people here run non-Autozone oils? Exactly.

If you can maintain MOFT and a few other variables, you want to go as light as you can, THAT's PHYSICS.


Wow...

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: danielLD
I'm going to be sponsoring the site here soon and doing some UOA.o lighter weights.

Yet you posted this earlier:

Originally Posted By: danielLD
HA! you guys crack me up, this forum I don't like.

Why hang sponsor a site you don't like? Unless of course it is because you believe what you are bringing is so desperately important that despite the people on this site you will put up with them just to bring truth. Is that it?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: danielLD
I won't get into an argument but here are the basics, Shannow you don't grasp oil, one bit. Viscosity INDEX is NOT viscosity, is an oil's ability to stay in grade, as the temp rises if the oil can't stay in grade, no Bueno.

I think that's been Shannow's point for years, though.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: danielLD
I'm going to be sponsoring the site here soon and doing some UOA. I won't get into an argument but here are the basics, Shannow you don't grasp oil, one bit. Viscosity INDEX is NOT viscosity, is an oil's ability to stay in grade, as the temp rises if the oil can't stay in grade, no Bueno.


Please go back and answer each of my questions, or counter the statements that I made with facts...educate me please, if I "don't grasp oil one bit".

Now name the oils that have high VI without VII additives, like I asked.
Where does HTHS fit into the function of protection ?

You appear fixated on "grade", and Kinematic viscosity, which is pretty telling of your capabilities in the field.