Grumpy Bear

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.

$3.05 last night.

Thoughts about OCI by Data I bought this unit new. I had the dealership change the oil before it left the lot; 24 miles. Then again at 1,000 miles, 2,982 miles then 7,463 miles and upon the next interval at 11,250 miles, a number divisible by 3,750 miles, the severe schedule, I pulled the first UOA sample. The first data point in the graph. Since that first sample I have held the interval and the oil, down to the batch number, a constant. The blue line is the percentage of the VOA value and that number is one of my condemnation points. I'm not going to argue the validity of using TBN as a guide but I will explain the idea. There is a correlation between TBN v TAN v Wear metals. It's been studied to death. In this graph above wear metals are not normalized, they are cumulative. This is an important distinction as one can see that early on the increase in iron is LINEAR as acid value increases and base number decreases. At about the 60% retention rate (July) the rate of wear starts to increase, non-linear. And the rate per unit/time/hours/miles CONTINUES to increase until the TBN reaches about 1 mg/KOH/g. At which point the rate is nearly vertical. That value is what the labs like Blackstone use as a condemnation point. Yea...that horse left the barn a few months ago. What they are saying is that keeping wear in check and linear is not important and it's okay to wear at an accelerated rate. Why I'm not going to argue that stupidity. What I am going to say is the for my equipment this is not acceptable. Okay, walked that dog long enough. Back to Graph 1. Wear metals (Iron) in the example motor is falling along a Power Curve with an R of 1, while TBN residual is rising quite along a linear path, also R near 1. (That graph is not shown). An impatient me would start increasing the OCI now seeing two equal and linear increased in residual and a perfect rate drop in iron as I have a definable pattern at this point. Problem with doing that right now is that it would uncouple wear rate from residual increase so the patient me will wait until one or the other flattens and decouples naturally. I hate missing an opportunity to learn something useful. This unit is now setting at 21,000 miles and still in the first box of the above studies to death wear pattern graph and this graph tells me that wear and TBN residual WILL decouple and when it does I will start lengthen the OCI and continue to monitor for the next two phases of wear. In box #1, the wear in, the OCI was short, very short and stayed short until wear RATE peaked, first 500 - 1,000 miles. The next few were short but increasingly longer settling on the OEM severe schedule as a base line. Have to start somewhere, an now riding the declining portion of that first phase. So couple of points. OCI isn't constant through a motors life, or shouldn't be. It isn't defined by normalization or statistical sets of data generated by the OEM or some University study trying to find Joe Average or some EPA requirement for waste. It isn't found by trail and ERROR. Lean from others mistakes, don't repeat them. I've said often. OCI is FOUND. *************************************************** You can not find your marks by trading oils or even batches of oils and you can't find them without points of reference. Yet EXPERTS with allot of letters behind their names have suggested to me that I should try oil XYZ and maybe ABC. That the OCI is to short and the TBN/TAN relationship is 'out dated' and "irrelevant" due to vast improvements in blah, blah, blah. Data says Otherwise There is a reason I'm Grumpy

Groomer texts today and says I'd missed an appointment that morning for Rex. I begged forgiveness and told her that I was distracted with loosing a pet the previous day and wasn't quite myself. Actually this exchanged happened while driving and I had the Mrs. text her back with that response. She offered condolences and said if I got there right away she would fit him in OR she would schedule him in for this Wednesday at 9 A.M. This text I let the car read to us. I ask the wife to text her back asking for the Wednesday appointment. Wifey says, "What time?" "9 A.M." I reply. She asks, " How do you know she has a opening at that time, shouldn't you ask first?" "Oh I don't know dear...perhaps because she said 9 A.M.?" "No she didn't. Never mentioned a time" and shot the death stare at me. Puzzled I ask her to read the text chain back to me. She does and gets quite. I continue, "Not only did you just hear her when the car read the text, you read it to me just a few minutes ago.....".....I let that trail off into silence. We had just had this argument the night before about our cats medical condition. I heard the doctor say XYZ and she didn't and because she didn't....it didn't happen. I'm not telling this story to pick on my wife. She got the point right away and I had the text and the voice over to stand as witness. Everyone does this. I have the tapes and the emails. I'm not guessing about what I did or didn't hear or read. I'm not getting baited into having a conversation with a person I have ignored so I can be told what I have on tape wasn't said or implied. End of exchange....

Information is only useful if you get all of it. I got the 'what' was happening. Never go the 'WHY' it was happening. Then got sent down a dozen rabbit holes that had nothing to do with WHY. Prolonged the issue to failure and never, until today, get the WHY from another source. Rains coming? When? Where?