Grumpy Bear

It is Dexos oils of any spec will not have enough anti-wear for old flat tappet iron which makes viscosity mut. You have entered the world of boutique products as the majority of the common market has left that segment in a ditch somewhere. Red Line HP, AMSOIL, Joe Gibbs Racing, TORCO, Penrite and Lucus Oil I believe have products for those applications. None of them will carry a Dexos license. Is there a product on a store shelf with an ACEA A3/B4 certification? Ravenol? But it still wont carry a Dexos approval.

Yes. Two things can be true at the same time but yes, thinner and yet some chemistries are indeed 'slicker'. A bit of POE in a PAO adds lubricity. Whale oil, now outlawed, did the same. Castor Bean oils had their time. But other things too. Moly. Borated esters and so on. Clutch issues were more likely caused by Moly, graphite and the like. 0W8 to 0W20 is less shear prone. Whaaaaat? Because the bases used to make them are naturally or nearly so already in grade and as such need zero to very little VII polymers and when they do, ones of very small molecular weight. That is, not much chain length to shear down. When you are making a *W20 from a Group III, i.e., those bases generally range in viscosity between 4 and 8 cSt naturally covering the SAE *W8 to *W20 range. Thus can be formulated neat or nearly so. When you are making an SAE 30 it needs some help and if you are making an SAE 40 or SAE 50 it needs allot of help. Sometimes that help comes from VM's and sometimes it comes from blending other base types that have higher viscosity ceilings. A Group II will cover 4 to 30 cSt. m-POA hundreds and esters are built to suit. There are *W30's that stay 30's. Just not ILSAC G6 or Dexos1Gen* oils. Those that are have designations like Dexos2, ACEA C3 or A3/B4 (depending on ash and ZDP load). No-VII oils, Naturally straight grades. High end oils made of Group's IV and V ONLY. (m-POA, Di-Ester, Polyol Esters, AN's) Find and look at some Pennzoil GTL based or Shell Helix 0W40 VOA v UOA's and see how far they will shear down. GTL has a very narrow range. Something like 2 to 4 cSt. Terry is right about there being more to oil that its viscosity but it is the most important aspect of a lubricant. We could talk about those other things if one would stop shouting "Don't look at that". LOL

There is an published JASO MA/MA1 spec that concerns itself with shear stability (SSI). A minimum viscosity that in every case is lower than the SAE standard for the grade, new, in bottle. JASO also conducts the test requirement for a PCMO HTHS standard AFTER a 30 cycle Kurt Orbahn shear test. ILSAC, SAE and ACEA don't have this inclusion or at least none I can find. Be a bit cautious rooting around in these pages as there are some typo's not easy to spot. Nothing nefarious just sloppy editing. https://www.lubrizol.com/company/specifications/jaso/jaso-ma1 The SSI test is also post Orbahn cycle as it is to reflects ONLY the permanent part of the VII polymers shear down. In each case the JASO SSI value is one grade lower that the SAE/ACEA/ILSAC requirements for new PCMO per grade. This is referred to as "Energy Conserving" It's how an SAE *W30 meets the fuel economy standards equating a SAE 20. IF an OEM has a 'stay in grade' requirement it becomes the minimum. The JASO only points to the direction formulators use to pass energy conserving standards and the method used to acquire it. BUT stay in grade is again, only the permanent shear value (SSI) Why is this of note? Because the temporary shear is even lower that the SSI index would indicate. I've posted Warren Oils in house lab sheet on this many times. I'll just post the highlight here... SAE 5W30 COSTCO Signature SAE requirement 9.3 to 12.5 cSt ( Data from SAE J300) 100 C viscosity result 10.91 cSt (Data from Warren Oil) 100 C viscosity SSI value is 9.4 cSt (Data from Warren Oil) 100 C viscosity HTHS value is 6.9 cp / .799 = 8.64 cSt or the lower end of a SAE *W20 (Data from Warren Oil) (density reference for the above calculation from https://wiki.anton-paar.com/vn-vi/engine-oil/) All of the above is the monkey motion of VM polymers. A really REALLY good idea to give us multigrade oils has been highjacked for another purpose. Fuel economy. I've run 10W40 in Big Twin Harleys for decades and in part because I use HUGE coolers to limit oil temps thus viscosity loss. I showed one of my setups to a Harley Engineer who told me that what I was doing was something they would like to do BUT no self respecting Harley rider would even consider running anything but 20W50, 20W60. SAE 50 or 60. In other words if they tell the truth it hurts the bottom line. So how do you get car guys to use a SAE 20? Make a *W30 that under shear IS an SAE 20.

Right around $3 here. Saw a Mobil yesterday at $3.50 and a few miles away Love's at $2.98. Down around Grand Detour Illinois yesterday and stopped in a Shell that had Regular at $2.99. Within a penny of us locally (50 miles to Detour) but the V Power was $4.05!! I left without filling up. Local Shell is at $2.99 regular and $3.61 for V Power. Explain that. 45 cent difference in premium but only a penny on regular. These two stations use the same carrier BTW. Yea, I filled local. I can when I consider half a tank time to fill. Keeps me from getting gouged.

Late 90's Bonneville 3800 (photo from Google) My stepsister and her husband translated sign language and were on the road constantly all over North America. So pretty much a long haul over the road example. This was the closest photo I could find to show the year and the condition of their car. Dad did most of the services on this car. It was sold a few years back when they got an assignment in Croatia fetching $5K on a very clean example with 400,000 miles on it. It sat at dads a few months awaiting their return but the assignment turned temp into long term. My brother-in-law is not a car guy but a good driver of moderate driving habit. As the length of road trips varied so did the service intervals and greatly. Dad used Warren Oil Synthetics in this car. SuperTECH, Mag 1, Costco and middle of the road Walmart filters. Motor used very little oil. Always on the top half of the stick no matter how long they were on the road. I expect had they stayed in the Americas they would still be driving it. Service 'type' is a big factor in the equation.

One two four were fine. But five feared six. Because seven eight nine.

Noted and corrected. But not Sponge Bob's net, right?...RIGHT??

Let er rip.

Tell me True Anyone else have a personal ride (non-fleet) a decade or more old and/or 200K plus miles that you still have full confidence in? Something you would or do drive cross country without a serious concern. Photo? It story?

Ole Reliable She's 16 years old and our primary trip vehicle to ANYWHERE. Took her this spring to Denver. 2,000 miles round trip. 30 mpg on that trip. Zero oil usage. Flawless operation and comfortable beyond compare. She still looks new. I expect an additional 16 years from her in this shape. If I live that long. 192,000 and anywhere, anytime. 10 years old. 19 mpg on E-85, 28 on gasoline. Original brakes with years left on them. Uses no oil. Looks new, runs new. Quite as a mouse. I run things until the "Pick and Save" gives me a check somewhere over 200K, a few over 300K, or someone makes me an offer I can't refuse. I've owned fewer new cars that one has fingers on one hand and not many more than that used. I've traded exactly one to a dealer for a new one. Reliability isn't about years or miles. It's about care and condition. And that...you have a say in.

I got a neighbor that's good with that! Some people can't be shamed.

Is there an explanation that can convince Joe Average that 2 + 2 = 71? Yep Even some college educated CLS's Look at note 1.5 at SAVANT's web site. @customboss has recommended this lab as the 'go to' for top drawer work. Impossible to read in this cut and paste but that note reads of FTIR method D7624: 1.5 This test method is for petroleum and hydrocarbon-based lubricants and is not applicable for ester-based oils, including polyol esters or phosphate esters. https://www.savantlab.com/astm-methods/astm-d7624-standard-test-method-for-condition-monitoring-of-nitration-in-in-service-petroleum-and-hydrocarbon-based-lubricants-by-trend-analysis-using-fourier-transform-infrared-ft-ir-spectrometry/ Wrong on the math, wrong on the application...just wrong

Two really weird interceptions or the beat down would have been much worse. IMHO.

We will see Sunday

See how that works? I didn't lie and I didn't guess and I have no egg on my face.

Yes, mine was running fine too. Haven't seen it in this motor that last two plug changes however.

My first set looked like that on Dizzy, a 2015. Seal between porcelain and steel leaking.

I haven't even seen one in person sir. Sorry. I can say that a few places that supply their own filters will recommend the Endurance when they cannot, for whatever reason, supply one of their own. Seems like an endorsement of sorts. Grain of salt required perhaps. Here's the business end of the ones Nick sent me.

1 Order of magnitude (Nitration) The Boss claims that each integer is one order of magnitude greater than the last. i.e. 11 is one order greater than 10 and 12 is one order greater than 11. Thus 12 is two orders more than 10. Each 10 times greater than the preceding value. Problem. An order of magnitude isn't defined like that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude So if I start with a base background of 8 abs/0.1mm one order of magnitude is any number between 0.8 and 80 abs. The range of two orders of magnitude for a value of 8 is from 0.8 to 800. This means that 8 is within a factor of 10 from both 0.8 (10^0) and 800 (10^2). Ergo 20 isn't an order greater, its a value within one order as is 80. 2 orders would fall between 81 and 800 before a distinction could even be made between 1 and 2 orders. Background matters. Oil type matters and they differ. https://precisionlubrication.com/articles/detecting-oxidation-and-nitration/

191,802 Service 10/27/2025 Tire rotation. 6,327 miles since last service. Belle Tire has had a massive turnover and it took awhile for the smoke to clear.

Can you imagine the beginning of time? Perhaps the end of time is easier? No? That's an exercise in logic. Referee tosses a coin, a quarter, you've never seen. It comes up tails. Does it have a date on the obverse side? That's an exercise in reason. Science is a process that leads to a conclusion that at best proclaims our best CURRENT understanding. Some of those have lasted for seconds. Some have lasted for hundreds of years. Science is NOT the conclusion. Just the process. Facts are the conclusions of science, logic and reason we can not seem to poke a hole in. Everything else is in a state of flux. Theory. It's called the Theory of Evolution, for a reason and yet taught as a FACT. And example of how theory gets used to promote an idea the facts do not support. So I'm a bit stunned that a guy who prides himself in the practice of science finds it odd that at times we can reject what the process points to but has not yet lasted long enough to be considered a fact. Or has proven to be in flux over decades so as to not have reached a conclusion we may rightly call a fact. I'm amused that a fellow such as this does not seem to understand the methods of marketing for twisting facts to suit an end to which he has been a partner to himself. Eagerly or unwittingly it makes no difference. It is a yardstick he chooses to condemn others with. Only perfection can judge imperfection. Imagine for a moment being confronted with a job that demands a conclusion the facts do not support for whatever reason there may be. Greed, politics, notoriety...whatever that case may be some fabrication of facts, twisting, cherry picking while posing as science will be demanded of that fellow if his end is to be met. Knowing I have him "Ignored" and am unlikely to see those words, he is emboldened to speak as if he knows me. There is some character. Some first rate moral backbone. Coward. Reason, logic and yes science that is unadulterated are my tools and yes, that means I will reject things that are pretending to be science that are not or that are that have not reached a reasonably mature conclusion. Science has been studying ZDP for about 100 years. Late 1930's and in the 1950's it became prevalent in commercial use. To this day science is unsure of how it works, why it works and all the factors influencing its effectiveness. Initially it wasn't even used as an anti-wear additive. That was OBSERVED and not a part of the scientific study. Most of what we know that makes it useful is by applied observation much like poking a frog in the butt with a stick and watching it jump and reaching the conclusion that a poke in the butt makes frogs jump. Science has provided useful relationships that permit manipulation of it without actually knowing it. I don't need to know the deepest innerworkings of a landmine to appreciate someone telling me where they are in the field so that I may benefit from that knowledge. I am not bitter with former bosses. I am beholding to them. That they recognized my ability provided me with opportunities in my field denied those with higher paper credentials and less ability to execute what they knew. One of many lies told about me.

I bought a handful of AMSOIL filters to try from @Black02Silverado for the Mitsubishi. Yes they were a bit over a dollar a piece more than the Purolator Pure One I've been running and on paper have equal 99% at 20 micron ratings. BUT, the difference even in external construction is HUGE. In fact, not another filter on my preferred list is built like that. I didn't put pencil to paper but the inlet area is vastly larger and the endcap is tank like in construction. Grippy coating, unlike the FRAM XG still allows the proper cup filter wrench to be used. Center tube is crush proof. I got my dollars worth. My cost is in consideration of my AMSOIL membership discount. I buy enough to make that membership cost disappear. I'm not selling for Nick nor endorsing AMSOIL. I'm stating facts based on my experience.

Valvoline Daily Protection Mineral SAE 30 100 C viscosity, 10.3 cSt. 100 C HS viscosity 10.3 cSt (ASTM D6616) Warren Oil (COSTCO) Full Synthetic 5W30 100 C viscosity 10.9 cSt 100 C HS viscosity 8.1 cSt @ .84 SG or 6.9 cP Multigrade exhibits a 27% viscosity loss. Temporary shear down to SAE 20. I've shown the receipts before. Entire data sheets for both oils. Not posting them again. A shelf Synthetic 5W40 under ASTM D6616 conditions would, for most shelf oils, act as an SAE 30 at temperature and imposed shear levels of towing. Your brother skins the cat to the same end as I, just a different way. Bully for him!

10/24/2025 Mitsubishi Mirage G4 (Raven) 3A92 engine. 1.2 liter triple. MPFI JATCO JFO15E CVT transmission 35,000 miles on unit 5,000 miles on the engine oil 2,685 miles on since last trans partial drop and fill Fuel Shell V Power Nitro + 93 3.125 quarts Red Line HP Euro Spec 5W40 + 2 oz RLZDP AMSOIL EA15K13 oil filter UOA sample pulled. 2 quarts Red Line Non-Slip CVT fluid (J4)