Grumpy Bear

Cheapest I saw today, $4.06

I think this is going to be a big lift for the petitioner. Can't say a thing true in court and proof of claim is a much louder voice than the reality as they will find out.

Roughly seven inches of rain in the last say 60 hours or so and now back in the 40's. We are supposed to have a few days of clear then another four day rain wave. It's a bit more than spring showers. Pretty sure we are no longer in drought mode. Standing water in fields. Rivers out of bank. My sump system is running.....allot.

Do ya remember me saying you could use anything you like if the OCI is appropriate to the oil and the service? Or remember my telling the group that dad put many a Ford over the half million mark on Group II oils of his day by simply changing it ever 1 to 1.5K? Hand in Glove and you sir are the posterboard for that. ^^^^^^ This Let me show ya something. Look at the middle three. Temp curves at the same conditions using three different oil of different base oil composition. Arrhenius Rule (Physics) Cooler oil last longer. Longer lasting oil is a real world benefit. Aniline Point Aniline point determines not just the oils ability to hold additives in suspension or solution but is a big factor in the engines cleanliness. Example below the chart Real world difference While this is between conventional and a Group III/Bio-ester the same thing happens as you climb the aniline scale. Lastly This one is the difference between a PAO and a Group III SYNTHETIC Clearly a real word difference. Motors like oil always but wont always get it in colder environments Believe it or Not Mr. Ripley

Interesting word "Real", isn't it? "Difference" is almost as much fun. Before any bandwidth was spent on "something so simple as engine oil" a guy would have to know what is real to you; how much of that real it takes to make a difference to you. But you kind of let that cat out of the bag. "Go blindly pick any decent synthetic. Dexos or otherwise..." It's that word otherwise... You lumped all lubricants suitable for an engine into a single bracket like we do the word metals in the periodic table. Nearly 75% of all the elements in the Periodic Table are classified as metals. is there no difference? Perhaps you would like to rewire your home with lead and remove the copper. Use uranium instead of gold in your teeth. There all metals, right? No difference? The problem here is that you know the difference in metals but not in oils and believe that because you are versed in one you are master of all and enough so to disparage those who actually do and enjoy the exchange. Wonder how you will receive a reply in kind?

I have a friend in Germany that today paid $12 US per US gallon.

Yea, there is that. Oil won't fix that problem.

Well written and received. I have been slowing down a bit as I age but I still enjoy driving just for the sake of the drive. Due to that I tend to put on allot of miles in a very short time. 18 months on Raven and already at 41K. Pepper is a decade old right under 200K and even Dizzy, same age as Pepper is now nearing 300K. We drive allot. I bring this up because I think context matters to all of us. I a world where I drove 10K or less a year I'm certain my maintenance would be different than when I drive 20 to 30 K a year. I know this is factual because we own two Buicks, a 2009 with 50K on it and her 2014 sitting at 20K. Rarely leave the garage and when they do, it is cross country. Terry used to say something that was a nail struck square. "Hand in Glove". Practical example. On my 20-30K a year vehicles I reach for the top shelf, Continental, Pirelli for tires and I'll get speedy doing it. On the garage queens they get Mastercraft. Tires data out before their down to 8/32". Pretty much just holding the car up and still a good enough tire to run cross country on. Raven gets Falken. LRR tire suitable for her 50 mph life and more local service. Few good choices in the 165/65R14 line LOL So I agreed with Customboss in this regard. Hand in glove. It has to work for you. That said, I favor the machines best practice and I think I've shown that it can pay off, at least in the context of my personal service universe.

And I'd expect nothing less. Your questions are probing and on point. I have no issue with that. Fact is you make a very salient point that one variable doesn't a result make. Boy oh boy is that true. Like humans, machines are the SUM of our experience, not a single experience. But even a single experience can have a harmful and irreversible consequence. Like running it out of oil or being shot in the head. But on a whole, it is the entire experience that matters. There are folks, and I'm not guessing your one of them, that trade often enough that nothing outside routine maintenance will matter. Why maintain for a half million miles if you trade every 60K? You, personally, receive no more miles, smiles or cookies. Be about your business. And I'd expect this is true as well for the leasing crowd. But for the fellow that buys and holds until moth and rust consume, every part of the puzzle is in consideration if the picture is to be completed. With that in mind then 18% lower wear = 18% longer life. Based on that single lever. But these are indeed stackable. Maintenance points that is. Much of humanity has a toilet paper view of the worlds natural resources and each other. They are self serving and unloving and seek only their own advantage. The point? I get it. But I don't agree with it. I care what the second owners experience is. I've been that guy and most of us have. During the video the point is made in a statement that says level A "Has no statistical significance". And they say this right after proving it has a mathematical significance. Shows it right in the chart. Their statement is in pointing to the relative significance of the usual short term ownership. Less is less but if you don't hold on long enough it doesn't matter. So question, Do I need to preface every comment on maintenance with the a statement of "to those who care"? Or will I have to ride the horse of those who believe the entire Universe of humanity is represented by only their experiences.

Insight is a wonderful thing me thinks. Nail struck square. If you watch the gas section they state that ultra light oils provide the lowest wear. It's not wrong, it's just not explainednor universal...period. For normal bore prep more is still better. An explanation..... Toyota Crown. Ground up design for a 0W8 oil. PTWA bores (Plasma Transferred Wire Arc). Very specific hone for the bore material and the hone specifics. More viscosity is bad. Ford uses this in some of the Mustang motors and will deny a claim for engine failure if the viscosity is not in spec upon inspection. This point is the basis on which the statement more is bad in the video. But used in the context of the entire universe of all gasoline ICE's is marketing convincing a willfully ignorant audience of a future reality now being formed in real time. You see this in the diesel section where these types of bores are not currently used to the best of my knowledge. How it works. Spray bore is stupid hard as are the DLH ring faces. A reduction in wear is hard to drive on viscosity. BUT it also, due to silly fine finishing will transport oil to the combustion chamber lickety split. Which causes detonation which increases wear and can tear ring lands out of a piston left unchecked. In a diesel soot is the wear driver. Context matters Blanket statements are always dangerous.

We are exact in our math when we understand it and when it is of benefit to us. Statistics however baffle the masses, and because they don't understand it, they don't have faith in it the way they do in math's simpler forms. Like counting their change. Problem for us is that math is ambivalent to what we think of it or about it. Math is literally not the truth but represents it faithfully. No where in the universe can you by a three. Weigh a decimal. Five will not cast a shadow. Yet 3.5 seconds is an exact measure of time. Math is useful, it is precise and it is relentless in it's perfection. Math's problem doesn't lie in what it is but in how it is used. Like any good wrench is can tighten a bolt or shear it off and the difference is in the users understanding and skill is it's use. Saying a thing isn't so because we don't understand it..... that's the tool we use to remain ignorant. Misapplied math is also a tool of marketing indifferent to the truth. Scarry? And it should be. When you hear an "Expert" use math you don't understand you are actually in the drivers seat. The math is reliable. The user is not, so the context in every way matters if you are to trust it. If the context isn't provided then skepticism is demanded.

Everyone would like an absolute when they get an answer. What they are telling you is what the data subjected to analytics told them in the simplest terms possible. The methods of stats is a college course. Now that said....context indeed matters. So..... If you trade every three years and are made from money then ignore everything you just heard. You will not benefit from the information. I disagree that viscosity is contraindicated. Data says otherwise. But we can agree to disagree. Specific. 1.8 ppm/K is 18.18% lower wear than 2.2 ppm/k. That is a statistical fact. Does that mean it is guaranteed? Not on you life. Viscosity is but one of a host of variables. But what it does say that within YOUR context wear is 18% less and how that translates to miles depends on your personal context. I do like your summary however. Nicely put together.

Baby Max owners. Diesel is last quarter of so of the video. But what all two hours. Why some very good oils don't have the DEXOS approval. Good gas discussion as well. AFTON chemical engineer breakdown of all SPEEDIAGNOSTICS data.

Took about a 15 cent drop here yesterday. I'll have to go look again today

Same situation here. There is a chain of Mobil stations all owned by Kelly Oil and everyone is priced differently. They claim they are told how to price. Make sense of that. Every station in norther Illinois gets it's E85 from the same blender. Price runs $2.19 at BP to $3.75 at Meijer's. Last night we went for a drive and I ducked into a few stations (no one billboards premium anymore). $4.98 to $5.47. I can literally drive 30 miles to Rochelle and buy E85 ($2.19) in the truck instead of buying 87 E-10 local ($4.19), give up 25% of my fuel economy and still save enough for a Dave's single meal at Wendy's.

It's the silliness in range that I find confusing. Huge spreads. Not just station to station but grade to grade like no one has any idea how much graft to grab.

Major Assembly Required I've spent the last few days looking into Hexagonal Boron Nitride as an AW additive. A few retailers sell it commercially and the best known is likely Liqui Moly Ceratec. This post isn't about the product but the information used by AI assistants in explaining it. AI pulls information from anywhere it can find it and the filtering is awful. It is confused easy and doesn't seem to differentiate between the gourmet table and the garbage pile. It defers not between a scholarly article and grade-schooler musings. If you have some knowledge to begin with it is possible to short the trash but ain't easy McGee. As an aside; I was amused after the terror subsided at how poorly the average internet user processes the written word and how little deference some give to 'rational thought'. Little example to the painfully obvious.... As used in motor oils hexagonal boron nitrate is a suspended solid whose size runs between 0.05 and 0.03 micron. There is some concern that is will fall out of suspension and deposit in the pan. One long time user went to the trouble of pulling his oil pan after a few hundred thousand miles to show it clean enough to be used as a shaving mirror. Naturally he thought that this was properly put to bed. Oh boy..... First response to his post was a fella challenging him to prove he can see particles of such small size. Fella was more patient than I. He says, "A single particle that size is indeed impossible to see but five pounds of particles that size is impossible not to see".

Premium now up almost $2 a gallon here. Pre conflict I bought local at $3.47 for Shell and today $5.37 at XOM. Cost per mile has doubled from lows and up 50% from the median. Laugh at my 55 mpg Mirage now Truck is parked.

$3.98 to $4.45 for 87 E-10 today. $4.19 seems about the most common.

Given you goal dyier2 hit it pretty much square. Use the QS 5W40 Euro and change is on a shorter schedule. Whatever your OEM recommended OCI /2. I'm going to guess that at 3,750 miles or 6K Kilometers. You want to use AMSOIL SS 0W40 go 5K and call it a day. You want to go longer? Do a few OCI's on your choice but if not then flying blind my suggestions stands.

Normalize your results. Divide PPM by K miles. Iron for example is 36 ppm / 7.5K miles = 4.8 ppm/K miles Not shabby for a Ecotec3 platform where 7 ppm/K is the universal average. Be happy, don't worry. BTW good choice IMO anyway. Try the 0W40 AZF

I can find no error in your response. Sure, anything is possible. But let me run this by you. Referring to the red bold underlined section. That implies SOPUS knows exactly what sufficient IS and can quantify it. It also says that whatever this IS and as far down the ladder of real possibility is may lie beneath what can BE it will exceed by MORE than was it required. So....ask I ask you....what level of wear, of cleanliness of corrosion protection, of thermal properties is SUFFICIENT for you and why anyone but the end user should be allowed to determine what they DESERVE? Let me be so bold as to answer that for you. API/ILSAC/ACEA and the OEM's are telling us what is sufficient protection and yet that level they have determined as sufficient is FAILING. Not to adequately service the warranty and their margins but to provide a level of protection that benefits' the end user which other than their back account they could care less about. I know this just on a cleanliness basis by the SAE test requirements and acceptable levels of deposit formation. So yes, a Group II/III blend with a robust package that will pass the SAE certifications and the OEM licensing requirements will indeed provide a level that will get the powertrain past whatever dismally low length of time and miles they warranty the product is for (their bar for Sufficient) and it will do so with a level of 'acceptable' failures that will keep the bean counters in happy land. Courts are full of oil related ring failure class action law suits. SOPUS did not error in statement. It errors in judgement and it does so willingly and at the end users expense for gain. It is a business run by the same greed as most other business. I took the same marketing classes they take. LOL. But rest assured. On base oil alone, the statement that a Group II/II+/III/III+/GTL is equivalent to or better than a PAO/POE/AN is a bold faced LIE. The statement that a well formulated Group III with and excellent add package can outperform a POA with a crap add pack is a "Strawman argument". Is it possible, yes, but...can you find me an example? I don't think so, I know so. Not in any 'recognized' brand name product. Here are a few easy examples. A Group III has a possible range of viscosity that lies between 4 and 8 cSt. GTL is even lower https://www.stle.org/files/TLTArchives/2015/11_November/Worldwide.aspx Shell sells only the 3 cSt oil to the market. So to build a *W30 some VII will be required. However blends of POA/mPOA can yield the full viscosity range without any VII for many grades and much less in the widest ranges. And it will do so with a neat VI high enough to use a fraction of the VII's. Then there is the thermal capacity and thermal transfer rates. PAO's excel in both allowing most gear boxes to run 15 F cooler. Both are non polar and require some co-base to reach an aniline point low enough to hold that 'robust' add package. For Group III's that is a Group I or Group II or both sacrificing almost all advantage the Group III's bring. OR a PAO blended with a POE or AN will yield not just a lower add pack with greater solubility but greatly enhance, by synergies, both lubricity and oxidation resistance. The addition of the Ester also dramatically enhances the film strength (HTHS) for the same grade viscosity and in nearly every case the SSI will be MUCH lower than anything one can whip up with a mineral oil derived base. Lastly a low VII product with an robust Ester or AN co-base will keep it assembly day clean for as long as you wish to run it PROVIDED a reasonable OCI. It doesn't have a 'required minimum deposit level". Now all that blather aside. I take no issue with anyone pouring Mineral based 'syn' oil into their motor and running it for whatever OEM dictated OCI's are run. Not my dog, not my fight and not my wallet. Don't be tricked by slick marketing even from the majors. I worked in Research for several Majors. They ALL lie. they don't make money by using the most expensive high performance products. They use the cheapest crap they can and tell you "It is just as good". Marketing is the business of the most profitable artful lie.

Fully Formulated I'm going to go out on a limb here and say a motor will run longer on a pure base oil that it will on a pure commercial chemical additive. But I'd also agree that additives bring allot to the party...or can. Now that said a fully formulated oil isn't a specific chemistry when viewed over time and yet can be very conforming within a specification. Confusing? Think of comparing the current SAE SQ specification the the antiquated SAE SA spec. SA is a neat mineral oil without any additives and was the stuff grandfather used if you're are old enough to be a grandfather yourself. If you think base oil doesn't matter give this chart below a gander. Licensing for certification has a lot of limits on it and yet enough to to make a performance difference. Now concentrate on that last column. Group V interchanges are not permitted without recertification. Thing is the magic happens in the Group V category. Esters and Alkylated Naphthalene are Group V materials as is whatever Valvoline is using in R&P. The SAE certification bar is set pretty low. Will it get it through warranty and EPA requirements. Period. Both most blenders and the OEM's are looking for MARGIN and will use the lowest base on this list that will pass that low bar. Problem is that it sets the limits for every other blender who has the money to blend and market but not to spend the millions to test each new specification. SO....they copy each other varying only by the degree allowed in this chart. That kids is a LOT of head space for a competent blender to play in to make a better mousetrap IF he is willing to either spend the money to have it tested OR go to market without the certifications. Nothing demands a certification but the warranty and then ONLY if the OEM can prove that exercising that latitude was the direct cause of an oil related failure. The same thing is true when it comes to the additive package. EXACT same thing is true. https://www.swri.org/markets/automotive-transportation/locomotive/large-engine-testing aka SwRI is a private lab that does certification. XOM (Exxon/Mobil) and Ashland (Valvoline) are the only two blenders in North America that have the ability to certify a licensed oil. EVERYONE else copies or pays. It isn't "All about the additives" and it's not "All about the base oils". It's about the formulation and NOT the certifications.

It's not an ether or situation. Those same people use the phrase "Fully Formulated Oil". Interesting, right? They quote the one that favors the direction the wind is blowing in that argument. Focusing on one half the formulation exclusively is a purposeful distraction. Deliberately isolating a feature is kind of the point of marketing. So...correct. They are self serving. Marketing will promote what makes the best margin not the best product. There are about a half dozen blenders that are truly bent on the excellence of the product and it's performance. Even these have products in their line that will stoop to commercial lows. Price point products rather that performance point products. Then, there are hundreds of blenders attempting to drown them in such nonsense like unwanted kittens. Cat's in the bag, bag's in the river. All they sell is margin. I don't expect anyone to agree with my views. I also don't accept views with an evil design on my kittens.