Grumpy Bear

I found my home to be Model A garage in an ally in the middle of a midwestern winter. The kind that is tipping to one side and holes in it large enough to toss a cat through. I was working. Day work out of a "Man Power" facility earning a few dollars here and there but not enough to hold on to an apartment. A week or two I saved enough for an $8 a week 8 X 10 room on a second floor flop with one communal bathroom. A bed, a small counter top fridge and a hot plate. Bologna on white and Kool-Aid without sugar was breakfast, lunch and dinner. Often skipping breakfast, sometimes the Kool-Aid. About a month I had enough to get a bus ticket and a shared room with another fella and went to work welding, something I have training in, in a sweat shop setting. 14 hours a day for a $1.50 an hour with an hour lunch and two 15 minute unpaid breaks. Lasted about 2 months. Anyway....street living is not always a matter of lazy, I'm not, unmotivated, I was. Mental, jury is out. I bootstrapped out and yes, I could have gone home....that was it's own problem... Sometimes it just is what it is. Some of us swim out of the sewer and some drown in it. A few are held underwater. There is no blanket statement that can be made about living on the street. Some do choose it. It can be a lifestyle, rail tramps and the like but the ones that can't swim out, can't swim out. Circumstances, health, who knows. I don't and will not condemn others living like that without KNOWING for a certainty THAT PERSONS story and circumstance. I won't know those things because I don't spend any time there since I got above water. So just what do judges of people in forums on the sidelines know? Nothin....

It ain't an "either or" thing. Polite and honest can be mutually exclusive. I just haven's master it yet. Perhaps another 70 years or so and I get the hang of it.

Once in a Lifetime Sitting in the Chiropractors office today I met a gentlemen who like me was a life long Refinery, Gas/Oil/Chemical worker and a fellow refinery Fireman/EMT. He spent his career at the Exxon/Mobil unit in Baytown, Texas. Forty years. Mostly we chatted about fire training and responses but dipped into the processes as well. He was in a unit large enough to be dedicated to the department. I was in a smaller unit where we wore all hats. Fire, medical and unit operations. We talked at length about our training and strangely it was like taking to a fellow you trained along side of. We went to the same schools, knew some of the same trainers. Worked the same 'props' took finals at the same facility and got our qualifications from the same coordinating department just a few years apart. He younger than I by just a few years. His wife was aghast. She thought his ramblings were embellishments, actually fictional. I believe that ended today for her. It did for me as well. When your experience is so far removed from your present time and after a thousand people telling you 'your high, that didn't happen'; you start to doubt your own experience. I may never interact with this fellow again and yet he holds a place marker in my life. What are the chances you run into a guy with identical experience down the field you took your finals on 50 years after the fact? Once in a lifetime. I know what I know. Did what I did and said what I said. It was a good day......it was a GREAT day.....

Outstanding!! Thanks for the snap.

Everyone want's to GET old. No one want's to BE old.

Nice find. Price swing from vendor to vendor is huge. Shop around.

Accurate would be nice too.

Red Line HP Oil SDS Review The latest version of Red Line HP line of SAE viscosity grades was released 2/13/2025 under SDS #828863. Under section #3 (Composition) CAS number 64742-47-8 is listed. As some have MISS-stated, THIS IS NOT GROUP II. It IS Exxon/Mobil Isopar M It is a catalyzed heavily branched SYNTHETIC Isoparaffinic fluid. https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Isoparaffinic Hydrocarbon TR.pdf https://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/en/chemicals/webapi/dps/v1/datasheets/130000000289/1/en Note the Aniline Point of this Synthesized Isoparaffinic Fluid. Note the amount used. <14.9%. Note the viscosity. New carrier oil? Cleaner? Maybe. Aniline point suppressant? Absolutely! But it isn't a Mineral Group II. Oxidation levels are a pretty good indicator of POE content and my current batch produced AFTER this SDS still show SIGNIFICANT levels. Over 80. Consistent with historical batches. This SDS 'hints' at some Os-PAG content in section 12 under Ecological Information. That would not be unwelcome either. Both of these products ADD SOLVENCY and BOTH are more expensive than Group II carrier fluids.

I've been running E-85 for several years. I've learned it's cost it is a point of reference issue. 1.) First off, E-85 at 77%, our local usual delivers about 30% less miles per gallon. Which means the E-85 has to be 30% cheaper to buy to cost the same per mile. If you are comparing the cost of E-85 to E-10 regular 87 octane that is a margin you will not often win. If however you are comparing to a top tier premium fuel then you win hands down every day in every way. Locally I buy BP E-85 today at $2.599 / gallon. Shell V Power Nitro + 93 sells for $4.009 per gallon. I save 20 cents per gallon after the milage offset. 2.) It does make more power, just. 4% according the GM. Does make about 25 lbs./ft. more torque. Will you notice? 3.) E-85 burns very clean and cool. So clean you will absolutely notice it in the color of your oil vs miles/time. 4.) This one I've measured. My motor takes (OEM book suggested) 87 octane fuel and the Knock Sensor is pulling timing often and hard. On even 95 octane Premium it still pulls timing. Just not as hard. On alcohol at anything over 50% I can't force it to remove timing. 5.) Bore wear is equivalent to most top tier fuels. Those are the pluses. The negatives are: 1.) It can be finicky to start is sub zero weather UNLESS you reduce the alcohol content to about 50%. It will start, just spins the starter longer. Cost wise that is a wash. Very predictable sliding scale of fuel blend cost vs milage. I've worked the horse and it pays the same. 2.) Can be hard to find in some markets nation wide. Keep the flex fuel option if you can. Shop price and use a trusted supplier. True of any fuel. 3.) More fuel stops. At my age that is moved to the plus column. Final notes. 1.) A dedicated E85 tune will get even better mileage than the OEM Flex-Fuel mapping. 2.) Bore wear can be less on Shell V Power Nitro + and Mobil/Exxon Synergy Supreme + due to some friction/anti-wear modifiers used in those two fuels. Shell comes out a wash on fuel cost. Mobil requires selling children to run. KR timing pull will be in play again. Oil gets dirtier earlier. So some trades to consider.

Raven 22,000 Mile Service 4/3/2025 2024 Mitsubishi Mirage G4 Sedan 1.2 liter triple MPFI Solid roller. JATCO JF015E CVT transmission. 22,008 actual 2,053 mile OCI CVT 2 quart drop and fill. Red Line Non-Slip CVT Fluid. Now 97.8% PAO.

Stopped at an XOM station advertising regular 87 for $3.14 and Premium at $4.80. Move on. Shell station regular was $3.17 for regular or 3 cents more but Premium was $4.00 or 20% cheaper. Mobil is in love with themselves. This is pretty universal in my area and senseless. 80 cents a gallon?

Bingo! Exactly what I meant by [quote] They also both suffer the dreaded double speak and endless, If, And, But, Maybe, syndrome. [Close quote]. This was shown in this graph. If the industry benchmark is 5ppm/K miles total wear metals then all three SAE grades will get you to the warranty line and beyond. I've never argued otherwise. Thing is the OEM tries to walk as close to the edge as possible. Me....I prefer to see how far away I can get. The part that lights my fire with the Stooges, especially Moe, is this insistence the there is NO difference. When what they are actually saying is not difference that MATTERS TO THEM and since the speak for the world the world doesn't need nor should they even be allowed to know the difference. When Moe argues against Stribeck, his credibility is shot with me.

Lubrication with additives. Molybdenum dithiocarbonate friction modifiers. Lets do some fact checking. [Q] Does Grumpy Bear ALWAYS pitch higher viscosity oils? [A] No. Grumpy owns two Harley Davidson Motorcycles that the OEM specifies 20W50. Grumpy uses 10W40 in both and has for DECADES and even under teardown inspections is successful doing so. Runs two coolers and thermostats plus high volume oil pumps. Runs bulk oil temperatures 60- 100 F lower than the OEM. Stribeck on viscosity. [Q] Does Grumpy Bear ALWAYS advise and/or use high viscosity oils in ALL car/truck motors? [A]. Nope. He runs 5W20 in every Honda and or Toyota car he has ever owned. Stribeck/Hersey speed and journal sizes pass muster. [Q] Does Grumpy Bear do these things blindly? [A] Again, no. Grumpy likes testing and he likes to do what his testing indicates is appropriate. He also uses his top knot for more than a hat rack. [Q] Does Grumpy Bear ever pitch high viscosity oils? [A] Absolutely, when testing indicates it is appropriate. [Q] Will Grumpy Bear EVER use 0W8/0W16 oils? [A] Maybe, when every other choice I have is exhausted. I lubricate with OILS VISCOISTY and not chemical soups. [Q] Can Grumpy be bullied, shamed, or out volumed into moving off his LAB TESTED positions?

I didn't want to blow up the L87 failure thread so I drug the video over here. Comments below. This guy links Lake Speed Jr's video to his and both of these guys have more than half a clue. They also both suffer the dreaded double speak and endless, If, And, But, Maybe, syndrome. That is the area I made my money in working with intelligent well educated guys. Why? Because it is there blind spot and they refuse to believe they have a blind spot. This fella is a bit more self aware and yet knows he's lazy. To lazy to test. TEST. TEST! While the three Stooges were laughing to hard to pay attention they missed something pretty significant. Something this fella makes quite a note of in this video. YOU CAN FIND STUDIES TO SUPPORT EVERY POSSITION. What does that mean? Not what the conspiracy theory crowd imagines. Doesn't mean adulterated studies. IT means EXAMPLE SPECIFIC STUDIES. That thing I've been showing you where I bring the receipts! Did you note his references to Iron and Aluminum? Pretty basic. IF more viscosity reduces either or both then more isn't a Band-Aid...it's a requirement.

Syphilis and Motor Oil https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3109405/ [Rustam I Aminov ] Did you just spit your coffee on the screen? It's a history on Antibiotics. History that is unadulterated and unpruned. Our history is littered with examples of uneducated, simple people who make fools of those with a dozen Doctorates. Sometimes by happenstance. Sometimes by keen observation and in intense desire to know a thing completely. Autodidacts. There are also dozens of cases where in such knowledge is refined by those educated types in ways and with means the commoner hasn't access to and yet, the common man, his stupid little wanderings are the bedrock of knowledge. Accurate to the degree required for ample results even unrefined. One of my favorites in this paper is the Red Earth of the Jordan River area where simple people rubbed the clay on their skins to cure certain dermal infections. Reminded me of my mother peeing in the dirt (ammonia) to make a paste for bee stings when we were camping to draw the venom as the clay dried. Pulls the stinger too. Damn Arkansas Hillbilly. One method is of itself not the story, not the process and not superior over another. The next time you scoff at some beggar rubbing red Jordan clay on his skin while you are taking actinomycin C3 as a cancer treatment, might want to check that distain at the door and thank that beggar for his contribution. Then laugh at the PhD who acts like he discovered it and is all knowing. Then thank him too after slapping down that kind of arrogance. What is the tie to motor oil? Even a beggar can figure that out.

What do you call it when you don't want anyone to have Something? You three could just not read what I write but feel an obsessive compulsion to do so. You could use the ignore button to defeat your obsession, but you won't. You three feel some need to "Save the world" from little old me. You feel empowered by your numbers to stalk and attack.... You yell that you won't because "I have a right to do so....." What am I describing? Well ya do have a right and I gave you a chance. Multiple chances. You too are now talking to the wall.

Back up to $3.19

Viscosity REALLY Matters Since my thread on this topic got hijacked..... I'll keep this really simple. If increasing HTHS viscosity decreases total wear metals then its use is not a Band-Aid. It's a requirement. This is a well broken in motor which I experimented on. Right column is 0W20 in a motor whose call out is 5W30. Note the lead/tin. Bearing materials. Then note the left column which is 10W30 and the total absence of those materials. Little changed in Iron (bore/ring) or aluminum (piston). If Iron is the only thing you are looking at, you're not looking at the entire picture. Enough viscosity to keep the rotating assembly in the hydrodynamic regime. In this motor each increase in viscosity results in a lower total wear metals and a drastically lower aluminum count

You are correct...for small engines. Especially 2 stroke motors but anything with a diaphragm in the carburetor. They are not designed for it. Your truck motor is.

I've cracked a few million gallons of gasoline. Literally, in an FCC. Made as much Aviation fuel components. Isomerization Unit. Everyone has there preferences. I won't impose mine you you. Me, I run those fuels for the anti-wear and detergent packages. Runs very clean. Less KR even in those motors that don't require it. I love alcohol fuels. Pepper lives on E-85 at 100+ octane and yet only requires 87. That motor is really clean. Octane rating and cleanliness are not related. That much is not opinion. Enjoy your evening.

@Pryme... I think @Antny use of Shell V Power Nitro + has to do with the Anti-wear additive used in this fuel. It will burn as complete as the 87. This Shell fuel and Exxon/Mobil Synergy Supreme + both have an Anti-wear additive other fuels do not. Not even their own lower octane fuels. They both also have multiples of even the Top Tier fuels detergents. Deposits due to fuel....not an issue. IMO of course.

Wear RATE Rate of wear. Wear verses unit of time. I think most people look at their wear metals and see them as isolated points. There is some value in that if you are using the proper mental filters but in general it is far more useful to look at them as trends. Even more so is to look at trends that have been isolated from induced interference. Noise verses signal. And there are two types of noise. Natural system variations and as I just said, noise that is induced. We have more influence over the later. Use the same lab. Use the same sample collection method. A big one, use the same oil lot and get a VOA so you can subtract what is in the oil from what the motor produced. If you use random lots that have varying backgrounds then you will get varying results that make the trends harder to see and take longer to define. Illustration: The red dot is an isolated data point and as such no trend is possible and all that can be said is that this point is below the average acceptable OEM average of 5ppm/1K miles. Even then, unless I told you this is this motors universal average you wouldn't know what part of the motors life curve you were looking at. White dots and orange trend line was generated using a different lot and even a different recipe from the same vendor in the same SAE grade. Both Mobil 1 products of 5W30 but differing bases and add packages. The dots are the noise. Green are all the same product from the same batch in consecutive samples of the same length. Change of the abnormal type will be easier to see and seen sooner. A few things to keep in mind which go to some other points earlier made. Wear metal testing, regardless of the exact method used, are a 'slice' of the spectrum. These test do not cover the entire field of size but use of the same lab which insures the use of the same method will insure the minimum in induced noise. So what does this have to do with OCI length? The fact that it is found by testing and not assigned by some need that is outside your machines best interest. That does not mean that those competing interest will not provide a personally acceptable result. They will. They will not however provide the best results. As you can see from the chart all three viscosities will provide protection that limits wear RATE to under 5ppm/1K miles once break-in is complete. But there is quite a difference in absolute rate and in the methods or circumstances used to generate your confidence in the data. Common sense will tell you that the faster you eat a cookie the quicker it is gone. Higher rate of wear = fewer miles to wear out. It is that simple. In the end, that is what scientific method is about. CONFIDENCE in the data.

Dizzy 271,000 Miles 2015 GMC Terrain 2.4 Ecotec 5/21/2025 1,000 mile OCI 5 quarts Mobil 1 5W40 Euro Spec (Walmart was out of Castrol)

271,000 Mile Services 5/21/2025 1K mile OCI About 14 ounces of makeup oil 5 Quarts Mobil 1 5W40 Euro Spec This will be the third pass on this filter Walmart was out of Castrol

Iron Curve for above Information. (That is...same motor, same data. No cherry picking going on.) Declining slope of zone #1 of the wear curve. That is, the last graph of post above. Normalized in ppm/K miles Declining wear rate with an increasing TBN residual = improved power cylinder sealing. ALL motors need running in. Fact is, you can't avoid running in. You can work with it or against its best possible outcome but wear in or wear out it will. This curve is different for every unit and would be different for the same unit under different supervision and/or other lubrication choices in same supervision.