Grumpy Bear

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)

277,000 Mile Service 445,788 km 10/23/2025 1,000 OCI nominal 8 ounces of makeup oil (no oil in the breather this go) 5 Quarts Mobil 1 Euro FS 5W40, 1 FRAM CH9018 filter

Another Wear Study There is little difference in wear absolute between 170/180 F and 212 F. There is zero difference in heat up times between the two thermostats to 170/180 F. Colder thermostats do not significantly increase wear. They do lower oil oxidation rates. What is the viscosity of an SAE 0W20 at 40 C/104F? And an SAE 5W40? Contemplate the difference in wear between that caused by running at 100F vs the few centistokes difference in viscosity at 212 F or a single centipoise at 150 F (ring area) and tell me with a straight face running a 5W40 increases bore or bearing wear based on it's viscosity. Corrosive wear at 60 F isn't a function of viscosity. https://rotella.shell.com/en_us/info-hub/4-ways-engine-wear-tear-occurs.html

Mine has used a bit a year since new. Now 191,300 miles. Never see a leak. It isn't much and if it is leaking I'll not find it at this rate of loss. Holds a standard pressure test with ease. I'm not randomly swapping parts to chase it. I read from a supplier of silicon radiator hoses that all hoses are 'permeable'. Silicon more so than factory but all are permeable.

$3.09 most stations today. Up 37 cents, 13.6% from the short lows. Lows went up and highs came down.

Some stations are inching off their lows. $2.72 A few never did drop a single cent. $3.39 Pretty wide spread locally.

If a person judges a powertrain as good if it is still moving then Dizzy at 300K then one would say whatever I've done was a success and no need to do better. But the truth is this motor is junk and has been junk since before 100K if success is judged by oil consumption and usable power and 'trust' $$$$ spent keeping it no better than 'functional'. Both ways are but 10% to 30% of an OTR's MINIMUM expected life span. Making it sound as if they are the same is dishonest. Arguments otherwise are not arguments of the physical facts but rather arguments of personal viewpoints and limits of personally acceptable standards. There isn't a method I know of that will allow comparing the two. If I require flawless paint that means nothing is set on the car period. If you are good with using your hood as a workbench then we can't argue one method is better than the other. And yet, we are both happy with the result. Pepper is now 2.4X further down the road than Dizzy's failure point. Failure being the milage she started to use an unacceptable amount of oil. I've spent nothing on Pepper in non-routine motor maintenance. I've spent thousands on Dizzy. I'd drive Pepper to wherever the mood strikes me and Dizzy to under a 50 miles one way. But hey, that's my standard.

I'm considering block heater. Not practical in the pickup as it has a minimum low temperature where it will even turn on without coding the EUC but the Mitsubishi has a place cast into the block for one. We have what we 'know'. What were are accustom to. That is if we drive a certain way and sample we get used to seeing a certain pattern of wear. We relate that to being "normal' and it is for that set of conditions. But how low can it go with attention to the broader view of operations? This tiny motor, big boost thing going on is hammering the "LOAD" part of the equation. In those papers I gave numbers for there is a graph that shows that there is considerable wear difference between low load down the road BMEP and WOT or sustained 4K operations under same, as in towing. There is absolutely a trade made between wear and thermal efficiency and the consumer is not winning that trade.

Beat a new Drum I rarely start Pepper for a drive under 100 miles. Rarely, not never... Why? How much time and how many threads I've I spent talking about the reduction of wear? Yea...a lot. News flash. Those discussions fall into the 25% of the engines total wear you have the most control over. After it's heated up. 75% of engine wear happens between ambient, cold start, and 160 F+. Not just water temperature but bulk oil temperature as well. Oil takes a much longer time to bring to fully warmed up than does the water. SAE Tech Paper 2006-01-3413 (One of the GM studies) SAE Tech Paper #600190 Standard Oil wear during cold start Ring/bore life is the limiting factor in overall engine life, not bearing life. Ring and bore life hinge on the oil, oil condition and in its operating environment, the number of miles PER COLD START, and load. Yes there are more factors but these are the heavy hitters. OTR engines get a cold start or two a day and then are run for 400-600 miles. Soccer mom's van almost never attains 160 F oil temperature between starts. One goes a million miles the other ??????? Go figure