Grumpy Bear

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/is-the-world-experiencing-more-earthquakes-now-than-before/ar-AA2ahYqD

$3.73 a few places. $4.49 few others and many in between.

Breaking News! I'm going to tell you that I'm going to tell you. Then I'm going to tell you what I'm going to tell you. Then I'm going to tell you. Then I'm going to tell you what I told you. Then I'm going to tell you what I'm about to tell you on the other side of the break. Then we're going to break. Then I'm not going to tell you what I told you I was going to tell you. But I'll tell you something else that is Breaking News just coming to the desk that everyone reported on yesterday. Then I'll tease a human interest telling I'll get to on the other side of a larger break. Then I'll tell you one item in 20 seconds and go back to an even longer break. Longest break of the night. Then I'll tell you a fluff piece that takes 10 seconds and sign off into a three minute break while you wait for the next 30 minutes of rinse and repeat on the local news. In al you'll get about 12 minutes of something, 5 minutes of which is worth hearing in a 30 minute show and 18 minutes of advertising at a sound level twice as loud as the news. Of course you can switch to cable news and hear 12 different people tell the same four stories in much the same format as the Network News for 20 hours of which the majority will be advertising. And four hours of late night Specials about things you wonder why you stayed up to listen to. Half of which will be repeats..... OR you can go for a drive

Yes

He is not saying that an SAE *W20 will have more viscosity than a *W40 due to MORE VII polymers. He is saying that although multiple *W40 may post in the PDS the same or similar 100 C and 150 C viscosities that the blenders choice of modifier TYPE and AMOUNT to get his chosen base to grade will not give identical real world viscosities in shear and at temperature. All will pass the SII test but not all will pass the 100 C HTHS (unpublished value) testing the blender does and relies on to get the required by law "percentage improvement' referenced to his last great work. Tis the problem with the lie. Once told others are required to support it.

www.enginelabs.com/news/what-i-learned-today-bearing-clearances-vs-oil-viscosities/ www.enginelabs.com/news/oil-viscosity-can-the-numbers-be-misleading/ The Big Lie… Coming full circle to the reason Lake discusses the Porsche engines in particular. Based on the 2000 samples in the SPEEDiagnostix database, increasing the oil viscosity in these engines, even those run on the track, showed no significant difference in results. The smoking gun was in the oil chemistry. That is where the data shows higher instances of more wear. Molybdenum was the key; the higher the amount, the less the wear. Speed postulates that higher viscosity oils have more thickeners to artificially inflate their viscosity numbers. These thickeners lose viscosity under shear, and the result is that not all oils of the same viscosity have the same shear stability. Having enough viscosity is the most important characteristic, but according to Speed, once that required viscosity level is reached, additive chemistry matters more than additional viscosity. Speed also states, oil pressure problems on the racetrack aren’t a viscosity problem; it’s an oiling system problem. Running a thicker oil is just a band-aid for an underlying oiling system problem.

Can it still be Assembled II? Viscosity on the decline by various means. Heat on the rise making that worse. Engine RPM in the tank. Smaller motors with more boost trying to emulate an electric motor. Full torque, zero rpm. Then we will triple the OCI. Argh. But wait....there is more. LSPI has pushed a shift from Ca to Mg and as that cost more PLUS the run to lower sulfur compounds the TBN is moving in the wrong direction for the increased OCI's demanded. That not being enough to placate a demand for a parameter they can't measure the other sulfur bearing compounds are also under attack. That would be zinc and phosphorus sulfonate compounds. To some degree those are being replaced with boron esters and others, i.e. titanium ect. All of which have shorter service lives. And there there is the "Secrete Sauce" marketing for AW adds that 'Can't be detected by UOA's" but trust me because I (the blenders) never ever lie. Spoiler alert; ALL additives are sacrificial! Smaller amounts of the old blended with less robust versions of the new do not equal longer service lives. So what are the blenders recommending? Wait for it....... MOVING THE GOAL POSTS! OMG Let's declare the long standing TAN/TBN crossover irrelevant and tell people that soot is a great 'graphite' based lubricant which can aid tribo films. Wait, what? Let's declare that the standards used for oxidation and nitration were to conservative and can be expanded. Let's tell them that because GDI fuel dilution, although being a VISCOSITY KILLER and an acid generator is actually okay because we have better base oils that limit viscosity failure limits. (Said knowing this is measured in fractions of a centipoise and in bases not commonly used in shelf oils) Lying from the heart is not just the new normal but we have a public, a very young public, that is so ignorant of the facts and so sure of their "RESEARCH" into AI driven models base in regurgitated instead of scientific research based unvarnished, peer reviewed FACTS that the incoming guard is loosing their grip on reality and the OEM's are tickled pink while the blends bend the knee. You have an ever limited set of tools to work with. And sooner or later those will be taken from you as the API and the EPA strangle the last remaining fluids from the system. What you have left is your wits. If you care to use them. At some point in the very near future it will not longer be possible to do "What is best for the machine", and be replaced with "The best you have access too". You WILL be rewarded with half the life and twice the cost. That isn't that hard to predict.

The guy that owns K&P filters last I checked in with him has over 300,000 miles on his Dodge base Hemi using his own 35 micron absolute stainless mesh filter from its first oil change. The GM study I've posted a dozen times shows the relationship in engine life based in multiples of base units, not miles or years. That is the base unit is the number of miles the motor ran using the reference filter efficiency. The above two paragraphs dismantle anecdotal arguments IF one changes oil often enough to prevent particle formation and the motor is in otherwise good shape. That is not full of silica (no air filter) or suffering a metallurgical issue that is not part of the lubrication discussion. Poor heat treat in example. Data from UOA's I've reviewed from more than a few engines can show remarkably broad variations in oil cleanliness using the exact same filter over the course of an engines life. Lastly there is the common sense of it. Wear debris WILL circulate the engine BEFORE it ever sees a filter in route to that filter and WILL harm the pump which NEVER sees filtered oil. Alpha question then becomes, given the facts, how long do you believe is a reasonable service life from a vehicle you are certain you will not pass down? That is the junk yard will be it's resting place when you're done with it? (the moral issue most don't care about). Omega question is then how diligent are you prepared to be in general mechanical, air & oil maintenance? Preventing particulates and keeping them sufficiently dilute; preventing the precursors from generation, amalgamation and precipitation. If I get a good look at the engine bay of a vehicle I have a fair idea of the owners commitment to the inside of the power train. That 30 micron WIX is still more efficient than a sieve.

As Dyson used to say, like a screen door on a submarine. And how many motors have you had in continuous daily service for 15/20 years? Or are you saying of all the motors you've owned in 15/20 years, none have blown? Devil is in the details. Uncle Garry put a million miles on a Isuzu diesel delivery truck shagging parts for White Freightliner in two years without a single major repair. My mother didn't put 100K on the sum total of her lifetime of driving in 7 decades. She managed to kill every car she every drove, about a dozen. Literally. Context. It's the problem with anecdotal evidence.

Only TAN I have for the product was at 5K in service miles and it was 2.71

287,500 Mile Service 8/13/2026 Reset Fuel Trims Since the work done in the previous post there was a good improvement in response in all areas except right after a fill up where the LTFT would go -20%+ for about four miles while the STFT was near neutral. Before the work they both went very negative for a few miles after a fill up but act normal thereafter. We did a systems check of the vapor recovery system for functionality and ability to hold a vacuum. That checked out fine. But this doesn't mean the charcoal canister is dead in the water. Testing that is next up. For now the reset of the fuel trims. I intentionally shorted the fill exactly two gallons to eliminate any chance of filling the canister. On start up the trims were behaving normally until I got up and rolling where the LTFT went -10 / -11%% but the short was + 2 to 0%. Within a mile the the STFT offset the LTFT and by 2 miles they were neutral. HUGE improvement but still not hunky-dory. I'll watch them for a few days. Perhaps another tank where I will fill completely to 'first click' and compare. Meanwhile on the hunt for a new canister and I'll toss another purge value at it for good measure. Pending the outcome of the canister test that is. Progress of any kind is welcome. Fuel economy improvement with bringing hole #3 back to the living was a noticeable bump to the positive. Even on the few miles I drove after the refill I already see another bump up by the trims reset. She's purring like a kitten with a warm bowl of milk. BTW, adding 50 rpm to the idle took the majority of the negative timing out on cold start up and leaned the cold idle. No longer burbles in the cat. What a dumb way to heat a cat.

Nice result. Your filter is working well I'd have like to have seen the acid number for this sample. Curious type that I am.

@OnTheReel , What oil was used for this sample?

True Dat!

$3.77 today at several stations.

Why does Mobil Premium cost 90 cents a gallon more than Shell Premium when their regular offerings are but pennies apart?

196,585 Mile Service 8/9/2026 4,085 mile OCI 6 quarts Mobil 1 Euro 0W40 FS 1 Purolator PL22500 200K or bust.

You don't want to become predictable now, do you?

I reported it. Your welcome.

How did all that extra get added? AI bot!

10 Ford and Chevy engines proven to reach 300,000 miles You may note a common 3K OCI on this list of gas motors. I skipped over the diesels. Dh'O.

286,740 Mile Services 8/6/2026 New AC Compressor. Refrigerant oil and dye, evacuate and charge system. New exhaust system from cat back. New Iridium plugs plus replace #3 coil Repair/rewire headlamp wiring (passenger side) and replace all forward bulbs. Polish lenses of both assemblies. Pull rear rotors, clean and adjust parking assembly. Inspect, clean and grease front calipers. Check pads and shoes. 4 wheel power bleed of brake system. Dot 4 Reset idle speed 50 rpm higher New Serpentine belt. Will need new pads in the rear in about 5K more miles. Tax Title and License out the door just short of a grand. AC clutch had bitten the dust. 1 year warranty on the pick and save replacement. Thing will make a Polar Bear cry Uncle. He spent quite some time on the wiring. It was in the harness and he does nothing half. I got off cheap. I have considerable more light down the road. Sylvania Silver Star replacements. Gas seal between the porcelain and shell of plug #3 was blown, cooked the coil. That was the cold miss. Love the new exhaust. I can sneak into the neighborhood again. Nice to have a working parking brake again. Belle Tire never got it done. That was disappointing. This was one of her bigger bills and still way cheaper than a payment even given the oil consumption. This thing cost me under a hundred a month in repairs and normal routine costs. What is my incentive to replace it?

Can it still be Assembled I? Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can be before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War. That viscosity value worked out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago. Give this a look: [Anton Parr] What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days. Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon. This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units? After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt. This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad. So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr] Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?) There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F. Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cool and run it heavy. In Part II I'll work the AW package.

In the 80's 90's I'd run Honda's 7,500 miles between changes using Red Line HP 5W20 and do it for hundreds of thousands of miles with issues. Back in the day it was an SAE 20 with the HTHS of a SAE 30 and SN add load. It was also very polar. Oxidation VOA was over 120. Besides those motors were SPFI and lean burn tech. I could have likely run it longer but never did. We had a Toyota bought new I ran on Pennzoil's latest and greatest synthetic of the day with "Penthane". A made up word for a very low dose of PAO. Tried 7,500 mile OCI's in that Group III/VI chemistry and the rings tapped out at 90K. Rocker box wasn't as bad as the one Punch put up but it wasn't good either. Also a SPFI motor. I'm around 3,750 across the board on these GDI monsters and the oil it tapped out by then usually on TBN/TAN crossover and color. Red Line HP Euro. The AMSOIL SS brochures tell you to follow the OEM values for the service class but that it can be run up to 25K if monitored. I can't imagine what motor could go that distance and not tap out. I've never owned one. Yes, I know. Lot's of people do. I'm just not going to be one of them.

I knew a guy in the early 80's that bought a new Monte Carlo and ran it a 100,000 miles without ever changing the filter or the oil. Just kept adding. It looked like that inside.