Everything posted by Grumpy Bear
There are millions of topics I know absolutely nothing about. Hydrocarbons, however, are not among them. Made it my life's work. Tell what you know that supports that statement above in red FACTUALLY. Nothing! Probably was sort of a spoiler alert. I don't sell anything and I certainly don't promote any brand of oil. I have a preference and have never insisted that mine should be anyone else's. Making your statement in green above a lie. Is it your habit to lie about people you don't know? I do promote however. I promote knowledge and knowledge used wisely. I promote facts over opinions. I promote rational lucid discussion over hateful self promoting rants. Empirical over the subjective or anecdotal. I supplied my references for each statement from published scholarly journals. Not from advertising. Not from marketing. Not an opinion. I didn't guess. So what exactly is your problem?
https://www.ilma.org/PDF/ILMANews/2017/AAAreport.pdf Strong glasses and strong coffee required. Pay special attention to page 8 section 2.1 and 2.1.1 continued on page 9. When your done reading all 59 pages (and please do) you may consider it less than actually useful as the synthetics they choose to exclude are those that are truly synthetics. As proof the last paragraph of section 2.1 gives a definition of semi synthetic that precludes testing of any oil containing ANY Group IV or Group V base stocks. (Note the difference between the terms base stocks and base oils) Ergo this highly public AAA test sequence is concerned only with Group II (conventional) and Group III (synthetic). 99.9% of passive readers ASSUMED synthetic meant Group IV (PAO). In failing to identify the exact brands in consideration of the LARGE overlaps in performance the water is just as muddy as it ever was. Shadowy generalizations are only marginally useful and to this extent: Esters POA's Group III Group II Is still the pecking order among base stocks.
Asking which Group V is like asking which Group IV. The point would be pointless as the only ones that know are those that make it and those that for whatever reason have done ion chromatograms. There are a few published if you go looking for them. Shell Advance Ultra, 10W-40 for example is primarily Tetratriacontane C34H70. A highly refined Group III. Long chain Alkane. Yea...fully synthetic...LOL Source? Okay: Characterization of Thermal Stability of Synthetic and Semi-Synthetic Engine Oils Anand Kumar Tripathi 1 and Ravikrishnan Vinu Department of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Solubility is about polarity and as stated straight up POA's are highly unipolar. ALL of them. One could use any number of Diesters, Polyol-Esters or PAG's and yes Group III mineral oils and ALL of them have been used successfully and commercially. TX stated he spoke with AMSOIL direct and was told Group IV and Group V. He wasn't and won't be told exactly which ones. Badgering him won't produce a result you would believe anyway. Do you know which Group's Schiefer is made from? Do you have the ion chromatograms? He asked, they answered. Done deal. Could they have lied? Sure. Marketing is the business of lies artfully told. So now what shall will we argue about?
Unless you're taking the entire pit crew four doors is ridiculous. What is the second seat for in a race truck. Harvey?
The larger the number the more laid back the inclination is. That is the upper ball joint is further behind the lower ball joint. Both values are positive but the +2.0 is less so. With +2.3 drivers side and + 2.0 passenger side the truck would be inclined to drift to the right IF it were not for the roads crown which is trying to get the truck to 'climb' the higher center of the road. Done in the proper proportion and the truck goes straight as an arrow. Guess I didn't understand the question. Sorry. Is that better or do I still not understand?
I don't hate white. White lacquer on my 70's Vette looked killer. Ditto the heavily cleared white on my 2010 Buick Lacrosse. Summit White on the wife's 14 Terrain has got to be the cheapest paint ever made and precious little of it is on this vehicle. What was put on it won't stay on it. Most of it is under 3.5 mills thick and as far as I can tell the clear is IN the color IF there is any clear whatsoever. More like a single stage. You could clay this thing twice a day and it would feel like 5K paper 10 minutes after you finish. No wonder it's cheaper.
If off road racing a Silverado is racing a school bus then this is racing the short bus. Did John Q Public do something wrong?
Oh boy. Off road racing in a school bus. What joy.
I still collect every gallon and mile and note aberrations and events, cause and effect for obvious events. It's a lot of data and visually it becomes busy. Intermediate and long term averages tell a more complete story. I've chosen to plot multiples of 9 then add life time and the cumulative averages to paint a more complete picture. I also cut the chart in half. That is we are looking at the data for the 18 and 27 period trends starting 1/1/2018. A continuation of the 9 period plus life average and cumulative are from the beginning of the record (8/2016). The center of that would be the current central tendency or average. A look at the 9 tank average if full of information. Seasonal swing primary and it is huge. The line shows that I drive allot more miles in the warmer months than the winter. It shows current trending and impact of single tank aberrations. Such as major services where the shop lets idle for an hour during a transmission service or unusual service like becoming the daily driver when the shuttle car is down for an extended period. It smooths out tank to tank filling station pumping deviations. Equipment failures such as the multiple water thermostat failures (Jet Equipment). Error bar of the 9 tank average shows current central tendency. The center of that would be the current average. 18 period average of the tank over tank smooths that data more dampening single events to show a more general seasonal trend. 27 period average of the 18 period average. Ever fingerprint a camshaft? Such a line shows rates of change. For a cam this would be not the lift per degree but the difference in lift per degree per degree. Hope that makes sense. A momentum line if you will. LIfe time Average is what it means. All miles / all gallons. Running Average is the addition of the current tank to all previous tanks. Interesting line. Shows the progress or lack of over time. However without looking at the shorter trends one may believe something was wrong, for example, at mid line where it took a dip when if fact that dip was the result of a major seasonal swing shown in the 9 and 18 period averages. So no problem. I'm going to add more thoughts to this post soon. ******************************************************************************************************** Winter Fuel: EPA sources say there is a 1.5% difference between winter and summer fuels BTU content. So...a few tenths of a mpg. Not a major player. Fuel Source: Gasoline is a chemically defined and Federally controlled chemical that must conform to the ASTM D-86 distillation curve and meet the Reid Vapor Pressure standard by season and region. Regardless of the refinery it is distilled at it is the same range of hydrocarbons and has the same heating value. Not a major player. Any difference comes in the additive package but must meet the Federal minimums. Sort of like 2% milk is 2% milk regardless of the cow it is milked from. Ethanol Percentage: Now this does have an impact. E-10 will net roughly a 3-4% lower fuel economy. E-15 nets 4 to 5% less. So a 17 mpg truck could get around 0.5 mpg better mileage on E-0 v E10 but a 30 mpg truck might get 1.5 mpg better on E-0 V E-15. It takes several tanks after a switch to realize the full impact of a ethanol percentage change. More so if you do as I do and fill at half a tank. Charting that impact might take a summers worth of data. As can be seen from years worth of data mileage is affected but much bigger hammers and over time changes with wear and condition to a point that until a time and season have passed you have no idea what your looking at until it is long in the rear view mirror. This chart shows a 27% swing from first winter to this summer but only a 6% change in Running average while year over year it has averaged a 3% increase for every 10,000 mile driven. Conclusion: When I hear people say I got 2 mpg better mileage switching from Shell to COSTCO or my mileage tanked because of winter blend or any other such non-data driven hot air I am humored. When they want to argue about it......well......
I'm on the fence over wires. I replaced mine at 100K but the ones I took off metered like new. I also noted that there was a life time warranty on them! I've never seen that before on a factory wire. Get me off the fence Dukedkt442!! When I found out that NKG was the manufacture of AC-Delco plugs...… I will be changing at 50 K from here on out. (easy number to remember but 100K was too long).
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gEMTa3YOBIYBTYiaEhQLfooPohN_l645z1DaWRuFzC0/edit#gid=1618148264 Lots of Blackstone Lab reports on virgin oils. Ran across this a few days ago. Interesting reading. Nothing like data to cut through the mire, eh?
Last post I considered 'wear' rates and normal wear rate related end of service life. This post 'stress' related failure is the subject. First question you have to ask is what is stress? Webster defines it as: 1 : constraining force or influence: such as: a : a force exerted when one body or body part presses on, pulls on, pushes against, or tends to compress or twist another body or body part. In a motor some stress is good. Stress or 'a force exerted on one body' like gas expansion on a piston top 'pushes against, (and) twist another body...crankshaft, to convert chemical energy into mechanical energy. Problems occur when 'stress' on a object is greater than the mechanical strength of that object. When that occurs we have a component failure. A stress related failure. This type of failure has nothing to do with quality...it has to do with physics. Simply more load (stress) than the object can bear. How much load an object can bear or stress it can suffer has a great deal to do with more than it's specifications: that is, material, dimensions, geometry, fit and finish, it's design elements and expected loads. Simple example. Combustion pressures reach several thousand pounds per square inch and the piston alloy and thickness and heat treat are designed to handle it....unless....the part is over heated as during detonation, forced induction past the design or deprived of cooling either by loss of water in the jacket or loss of oil or the oils properties. All heat functions that lower the strength of the alloy to a point of failure. In a DOD system that uses timed hydraulic events the lost of oil 'pressure' interrupts these precisely timed events and creates loads far beyond the design of the lifters normal load bearing parameters. Sometimes it's just a bad batch and is quality related BUT as one can see from the chart a design related failure happens very early on in the devices life cycle. Those that happen randomly during the useful life portion and not quality related failures and one must look elsewhere for the root cause. More often than not this is a lubrication maintenance issue. It can also be from actual over loading such as over spinning the motor or the result of another component failure such as a broken valve spring, failed keeper etc. Why am I even writing this? To remind my self that I control the loads and the maintenance that assure a normal life cycle once I'm past the first period in the products life cycle. I must remind myself. The barrage of 'the sky is falling' post will challenge the resolve of the most dedicated at times.
SO...you think that was my point? Reading comprehension issues? I made no statement whatsoever about the length of motor life. Hum....well.....nothing I can do about that except invite you read it again. You're not even warm. Maybe you will understand I was in agreement with your statement as referenced. Here, I'll reference again. You read with blood in your eyes. Chill.
I think the word your looking for is 'clearance' not 'tolerance'. The only tighter clearances in a modern motor are piston fit up and even than isn't really new. Hypereutectic materials and heat management allowed this and aided in ring stability. The other are parts of the motor that operate 'hydraulically' such as the AFM system and cam phasing are sensitive to cleanliness and viscosity (perhaps although I'm not completely convinced that this last part has as much bearing as manufactures would want you to believe). Neither of those two depend on chemistry for functionally. I know sir, and I wasn't picking on your thoughts. I was actually holding them up in esteem. Your comments were honest and well spoken. Something that gave the following thoughts traction that could be honored. You offered an example of the "real world" that can not and should not be ignored. If fact you spoke precisely of my first experience with synthetic oil. I bought a 98 Civic HX that was bottle feed a high end synthetic on a relatively short OCI. It went to it's grave with a perfect driveline but nothing in-between. Rusted away. That didn't back me down from my oil maintenance program. Instead it redoubled my efforts to extend the life of the rest of the vehicle past the driveline. So far, so good. Regrets? Yep, I didn't notice my influence on every aspect until I'm now too old to reap the rewards of that acquired wisdom. It's why I try passing it along to fellas that are young enough to use it. Understand?
If is a big word in this context. I've seen million mile gas flatheads that ran their lives on oils from as early as the 30"s. That's 1930's if you change it responsibly. I've also seen motors done in 50 miles on the best oils available at the time. Both those things true the definition of responsibly is "fluid". Are there not as many heated debates over OCI than brand? For most this is absolutely true but for others..... We would have zero antiques if it were true 100% of the time. Not all of them are low mile 'barn finds'. Uncle Bob's million mile 36 Ford was a working farm truck and family transportation for 60 years. Rare? Oh yea BUT it's possibility lays in the hands of the owner making blanket statements no quite so useful. Insisting ones own experience is the universal paradigm? Hardly worth the effort to make that argument....don't you think? That's a question boys not a statement.
I see no one tackled this. My 2015 4.3 just turned over 100,000 miles recently. Over that time it has improved by an average 3% for every 10,000 miles driven. That's the short answer. Could be long time. Maybe over in 50 miles. (Green bars are winter) Break-in a funny word we use to describe a very specific duration of accelerated wear any mechanical device sees over it's useful lifespan. Even with modern machining methods wear happens rapidly over a specific duration whose length in miles or time has many factors. Then the device enters a 'steady rate' (not state) condition until nearly used up and finally a second period of accelerated wear and end of useful life. Joe Average sees wear as something 'baked into the cake' when the OEM designs and builds the device and in part only is that true. They have control over fit and finish, material selection specifics such as hardness and composition. However, Joe Average has more influence over the device life than the actual design does. For a few quick examples. 1.) The largest impact on wear is: "load" which you have 100% control over past the parasitic loads of the design which are minimal. 2.)The second is: "lubrication maintenance". 3.) The third largest contributor is "state of tune". There are others but these three shape the curve to the greatest degree. How this influences MPG: In a word, Friction. Not only a reduction in it but the effects that reduction has on the modern operating systems built into your device such as "AFM" or "DFM" time on both of which are load based and directly tied to the fuel rate. TCM learning maps and so on. What usually happens: Guys concentrate on the second and third points, ignore the first then blame the manufacture. Just say' n.
Raw Virgin Oil Data (Blackstone Labs) RED LINE HIGH PERFORMANCE AMSOIL SIGNATURE SERIES MOBIL 1 ANNUAL PROTECTION UNIVERSAL AVERAGES Phosphorus, Zinc and Boron are the EP additives. First two we call affectionately ZZDP. Molybdenum and Boron are lubricity agents. Makes oil more slippery. Sodium & Boron are also detergents. Boron is seeing triple duty. Silicon is anti-foam. Potassium a corrosion inhibitor. Calcium and Magnesium the acid neutralization package. Maybe you already knew all of this but there it is for those that did not. I like raw data. Especially when it comes from not only the same source but a trusted one as well. Data doesn't have an opinion. It just is. I pulled data from several sources that offered photo's of Blackstone reports and pooled that data in an Excel spread sheet for ease of comparison. All three were tested with in the last year. Use it, don't use it, I don't care. As there is nothing to debate, I will not do so.
Head Up Raw Data from Blackstone Labs Virgin Samples plus virgin oils universal averages AMSOIL Signature Series Red Line High Performance Mobil 1 Annual Protection I'm not even going to comment on the results...for now.
Most OnlineNewest Member
Who's Online 146 Members, 0 Anonymous, 2,221 Guests (See full list)
- bert wise
- east side san jose
- Texas Sandman
- Ken Reagan
- Mike Dorton
- Shawn O'Leary
- GMC Sierra 34
- Steven York
- Phil Anderson
- f8l vnm
- B R A D
- Penguin VII
- Shane T.