Grumpy Bear

Man am I STUPID! I don't have to be just right. I have to be someone else saying it. https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/518/motor-oils Motor Oils - Fuel Economy vs. Wear Blaine Ballentine, Central Petroleum Company Conventional wisdom states that engine oils that increase fuel economy allow less friction and prolong engine life. The purpose of this article is to challenge conventional wisdom, particularly concerning modern (GF-3 ILSAC/API Starburst) engine oils. Fuel Economy: Does Anyone Really Care? First, we should face the fact that the American consumer does not typically care about fuel economy except during difficult economic times. The No. 1 selling passenger vehicle is the Ford F-Series Pickup. Five of the top 10 best-selling vehicles are trucks, and trucks outsell cars. Some of the trucks are called sport-utility vehicles, otherwise known as SUVs, because their owners don’t want to admit they are trucks. The mass (size, weight) of these vehicles is not conducive to great fuel economy. Figure 1. Bearing Wear Additionally, consider how most vehicles are driven. Anyone accelerating slowly or driving at the speed limit to conserve energy is a danger to himself and other drivers who are in a much bigger hurry. Auto manufacturers, on the other hand, are concerned about fuel economy. The manufacturer faces big fines if the fleet of cars it produces falls short of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements imposed upon them by the federal government. The March to Thinner Oils Thinner oils are being used these days for three reasons: They save fuel in test engines, the viscosity rules have changed, and manufacturers are recommending thinner grades. The Sequence VI-B is the test used to evaluate fuel economy for the GF-3 specification. The VI-B test engine is fitted with a roller cam where the old Sequence VI test used a slider cam. The old Sequence VI test responded well to friction modifiers, but the Sequence VI-B responds to thinner oils. The test oil’s fuel efficiency is compared to the fuel efficiency of a reference oil in the Sequence VI-B test. To pass, the test oil must improve fuel economy one to two percent, depending on viscosity grade. SAE 5W-20 must produce higher relative fuel efficiency than SAE 5W-30. It is interesting to note that the reference oil is fully PAO synthetic SAE 5W-30. To qualify for the GF-3 Starburst, ordinary mineral oils had to beat the fuel economy of the full synthetic reference oil. (It seems there is more to fuel economy than a magic base oil.) Another factor in fuel economy is temporary polymer shear. These polymers are additives known as viscosity index improvers (or modifiers). Polymers are plastics dissolved in oil to provide multi-viscosity characteristics. Just as some plastics are tougher, more brittle or more heat-resistant than others, different polymers have different characteristics. Polymers are huge molecules with many branches. As they are heated, they uncoil and spread out. The branches entangle with those of other polymer molecules and trap and control many tiny oil molecules. Therefore, a relatively small amount of polymer can have a huge effect on oil viscosity. As oil is forced between a bearing and journal, many polymers have a tendency to align with each other, somewhat like nesting spoons. When this happens, viscosity drops. Then when the oil progresses through the bearing, the polymer molecules entangle again and viscosity returns to normal. This phenomenon is referred to as temporary shear. Because the Sequence VI-B test responds to reductions in viscosity, oil formulators rely on polymer shear to pass the test. A shear stable polymer makes passing the GF-3 fuel economy test much more challenging. New rules defining the cold-flow requirements of SAE viscosity grades (SAE J300) became effective in June 2001. The auto manufacturers were afraid that modern injection systems might allow the engine to start at temperatures lower than the oil could flow into the oil pump. Consequently, the new rules had a thinning effect on oil. The auto manufacturers now recommend thinner oils for their vehicles than in the past. Years ago, SAE 10W-40 was the most commonly recommended viscosity grade, later migrating to SAE 10W-30. SAE 5W-30 is most popular now, but Ford and Honda recommend SAE 5W-20. It is likely that more widespread adoption of SAE 5W-20 and other thin oils may occur to help comply with CAFE requirements. Because of the change in cold-flow requirements and the fuel economy test pushing formulators toward the bottom of the viscosity grade, today’s SAE 10W-30 oils are more like yesterday’s (GF-1 spec) SAE 5W-30 oils. On top of that, there is a trend toward auto manufacturers recommending thinner grades. This seems ridiculous. SUVs and trucks, with their inherently less-efficient four-wheel drive and brick-wall aerodynamics, need powerful, gas-guzzling engines to move their mass around in a hurry. In response, auto manufacturers recommend using thin oils to save fuel. Incredible! Viscosity and Wear Thinner oils have less drag, and therefore less friction and wear. Right? Perhaps in the test engine or engines that experience normal operation. But somewhat thicker oils may offer more protection for more severe operations such as driving through mountains, pulling a boat, dusty conditions, short trips, high rpm, overloading, overheating and overcooling. Figure 2. Ring Wear Any abrasive particles equal to or larger than the oil film thickness will cause wear. Filters are necessary to keep contaminants small. The other side of the equation is oil film thickness. Thicker oil films can accommodate larger contaminants. Temperature has a big effect on viscosity and film thickness. As a point of reference, one SAE grade increase in viscosity is necessary to overcome the influence of a 20°F increase in engine temperature. At a given reference point, there is approximately a 20°F. difference between viscosity grades SAE 30, 40 and 50. SAE 20 is somewhat closer to 30 than the other jumps, because SAE 30 must be 30°F higher than SAE 20 to be roughly the equivalent viscosity. In other words, an SAE 20 at 190°F is about the same kinematic viscosity as an SAE 30 at 220°F, which is about the same viscosity as an SAE 40 at 240°F. This approximation works well in the 190°F to 260°F temperature range. One might be surprised at the slight amount of difference between straight viscosity vs. multiviscosity oils with the same back number (for example, SAE 30, SAE 5W-30, and SAE 10W-30). If an SAE 50 oil at 260°F is as thin as an SAE 20 oil at 190°F, imagine how thin the oil film becomes when you are using an SAE 5W-20 and your engine overheats. When an engine overheats, the oil film becomes dangerously thin and can rupture. Ford is bumping up against its CAFE requirements and recommends SAE 5W-20 oil for most of its engines in the United States. It claims SAE 5W-20 is optimal for fuel efficiency and wear. To determine if SAE 5W-20 oils provide the same level of protection as SAE 5W-30 oils, Dagenham Motors in England, one of the largest Ford dealers in Europe, was consulted. SAE 5W-30 is required for warranty purposes in England, and SAE 5W-20 is not even available. If SAE 5W-20 were better for both fuel economy and wear, why would Ford not recommend it for its same engines in Europe? Antiwear Property Changes Another change that occurred in passenger car motor oils with GF-2 and GF-3 is a more stringent limit on phosphorus, which is part of the zinc phosphate (ZDDP) antiwear additive. The auto manufacturers are concerned that phosphorus will deposit on surfaces of the catalytic converter and shorten its life. This is a complicated issue, and the deposits depend on the specific ZDDP chemistry and the finished oil formulation. The industry was unsuccessful in designing an engine test for an oil’s catalytic converter deposit forming tendencies. Therefore, the auto manufacturers set an arbitrary limit for motor oil of 0.1 percent phosphorus. Anti-wear additives are important in the absence of a hydrodynamic film, such as in the valve train. The anti-wear additives are activated by frictional heat, which causes them to react with the hot surface and form a chemical barrier to wear. The mechanism by which phosphorus deposits form on catalytic converter surfaces is not fully understood. It does not correlate directly with oil volatility or oil consumption. On the other hand, if engine wear causes oil consumption to increase, the risk of forming phosphorus deposits in the converter would increase dramatically. It seems that preventing wear and oil consumption should be a priority. In the past, oil formulators could make a premium product by simply adding more ZDDP. A similar move today would result in an oil formulation that would not support new car warranties. Short-term Thinking As wear increases, the efficiency of an engine declines. Valve train wear slightly changes valve timing and movement. Ring and liner wear affect compression. The wear hurts fuel efficiency and power output by an imperceptible amount at first, but then the difference in fuel economy between an SAE 10W-30 and SAE 5W-20 is hardly noticeable. Efficiency continues to decline as wear progresses. Perhaps optimizing wear protection is the way to reduce fuel consumption over the life of the engine. Certainly engines that have experienced significant ring and liner wear benefit from thicker oils. Thicker oil use results in compression increases, performance improvements and reduced oil consumption. High-mileage oils are a relatively new category of passenger car motor oils. These products typically contain more detergent/ dispersant and anti-wear additives than new car oils. They typically contain a seal swell agent and are available in thicker viscosity grades than most new cars recommend. “High mileage” seems to be defined by “as soon as your car is out of warranty.” What To Use Although thinner oils with less antiwear additive outperform more robust products in the 96-hour fuel economy test, it is not clear that such products save fuel over the useful life of the engine. Every fluid is a compromise. Oils recommended by the auto manufacturers seem to compromise protection from wear under severe conditions to gain fuel economy and catalyst durability. It is important to recognize that to use a product that offers more protection from wear will most likely compromise your warranty. Thicker oils also compromise cold temperature flow, which may be of concern depending upon climate and season. The best protection against wear is probably a product that is a little thicker (such as SAE 10W-30 or 15W-40) and has more antiwear additives than the oils that support the warranty. The best oil for your vehicle depends on your driving habits, the age of your engine and the climate you drive in, but it is not necessarily the type of oil specified in the owner’s manual or stamped on the dipstick.

Psst! I don't care! I made my case. I provided ALL receipts. Said everything I have to say. I've shared every failure and every triumph and there have been far more wins than losses. I've hidden nothing. Iied to no one. Mislead no one. Demanded nothing from anyone. Fact is, anyone who has read my scribblings for any length of time would have seen some fairly systemic shifts in what I write as my knowledge morphs. I'm not ashamed to be wrong nor to learn from others. Helped those I could. Learned from those kind enough to teach. I don't sell anything. I don't profit from sharing. I profit from the research I use to share here and I don't have to publish to profit. So when I get flack from some self promoting "hand wavers" I just don't care. Not a single word said, not a lie told, will impact the service life of my equipment. Put a single dollar in my bank account nor take one from it. Keep me from dying or put me to death. Be my spiritual salvation nor judge me in any meaningful way. Place food on my table or heap famine on me or take a single thing from me I care about I won't get back a hundred fold. Honest hearted people will understand that and know I'm but a PM away. I left your 'club' and will no longer contribute there. I'm going back to journaling.

Going up a nickel a fill for a few weeks now.

I think your hearing/eyes is/are going @customboss. I answered your questions. The vent system is good. The rings are done. End of discussion. Ask ten more times and the answer will be he same. Damage is done. Damage that had I known when she was new what I know now....would have never happened to begin with. I can't fix what happened yesterday but I'm a idiot if allow the same snake to bite me twice. To your other question which has also be 'asked and answered' repeatedly. The motor is TOAST. I'm not dropping expensive oil in a dead motor to watch it go out the tail pipe. I'm very aware the fuels in oil reaches an equilibrium and that number reported on the UOA in your lab on my report with that viscosity is that value that has the effect on viscosity in the sump and what is below the second ring. What happens above the top ring is what it is. Regardless of the oil being used. To the statement that one base oil resist better than another.....Yes....BUT not in any meaningful way. Makes a 2 point drop a 1.95 point drop. Number games. Marketing but not useful and I'm trying very hard, perhaps to hard to be USEFUL.

OR...the OEM call out IS THE ROOT CAUSE. What was GM's first cure for the issue in the Ecotec I-4? SHORTEN the OCI 30%. What was the second cure? Replacing pistons and rings with zero bore prep. Third cure? Ignore/pay the lawsuits until the platform was retired. This idea that the factory is infallible is silly. It's not just wrong, it's wrong with a purpose! C.A.F.E and EPA. Right isn't even on the radar.

When we can't agree that water is wet,........... Reality will not allow anyone to avoid the consequence of their choices.

Sometimes true but not always. If the bore is polished, i.e., then sometimes a higher SAE grade will accelerate oil consumption at worst or have no effect in least. Depends on the "IF". Meaning, what is the root cause. Bore polish? Stuck rings? (Hot) Plugged oil ring drains? High volatility oil? PCV issues? Fuel dilution? (GDI pump/injectors). Second ring land worn out? Bore ovoid? Valve seals dried out? Guides worn? I think something that gets past many is that "Prevention" is a more apt response than "Reaction". People seem to like to protect the warranty instead of the machine. With throughfall choices you can avoid many "IF's". GM's response should give everyone a huge hint. They replace pistons and rings in motors that consumption test show failure as long as the bore still has a crosshatch. Seals are not even addressed in the TSB. A second large hint comes from the aftermarket. Jasper Engines rebuilds with pistons with additional oil drain back area. 300% more! Its been effective. What that says is cleanliness is important. Hugely important. So is tune integrity. Watching like a Hawk fuel dilution percentages.

185,250 Mile Service 3/29/2025 Wakey wakey. Gave her a spring bath and filled the tank with E-85 (77% test) then off for a wake up run. Get the oil circulating and hot. Battery likes warm weather so I'm putting off a new one for a bit. Tires first. Which I bought a few months ago. Soon. Last November, the 6th to be exact, was the last fill. Oil and filters were changed just before putting her to bed. Lowden State park was todays destination. Zero rust on this old girl now 10 years old a bit earlier this month.

I have a motor that the OEM tells me to use 0W20 in AND I do UOA's, study UOA's and hoard UOA's sifting them for data. The designer specifies an oil SAE grade based on multiple factors and wear is not the first factor in consideration these days. It is A factor not just the first. But as it goes the idea is that a total wear metals value of 5 ppm per thousand miles in service use is a number to be at or below to get said machine past the warranty and long enough thereafter to keep the most fragile portion of any companies portfolio in tact...its Reputation. Graph of such information with a few lines of explanation below. Horizontal axis is the total number of miles on the engine. Each dot an oil change along that path. The vertical axis the 'total wear metals' divided by the number of miles for the oil change multiplied by 1,000 to normalize results of varying intervals. The black line is the OEM target value. 5 ppm/1K The white line is the Universal Average Results of this motor using 0W20 oils across all units tested. So the first thing you notice is, Yes, 0W20 at specific OEM intervals will indeed meet the engineering standard and company goals. The yellow/orange line is the result of a fellow that owns this motor that has used 5W30 Mobil 1 from day one. Early high results are NORMAL break in and every motor goes through this process. But by about 18,000 miles, break-in completing he matches the standard. By 20,000 miles he matches the 0W20 Universal Averages and by 30K has cut wear 28% which is about in line with some published scientific papers that show there is about a 30% improvement in wear abatement by using 5W30 over *W20. That red dot is my first sample using 5W40. No idea how that is going to work out but first blush is promising. This isn't my opinion. These are results. YMMV and as always, you do you.

Trending up a few cents a day. Easter coming I expect. No more stations under $3.

Is it ironic to be hit by a Dodge?

There is. AN fittings.

Cheek meat is first!

Long time user of Red Line SI-1 myself. https://www.redlineoil.com/Content/files/tech/SI-1_Tech_6.20_.pdf Still use of Shell V Power Nitro + seems to do the trick plus keep KI at bay.

269,193 Miles 3/21/2025 Exhaust pipe between muffler and resonator broke. Wired it up for now. Has a lifetime Walker on it. We'll see how good that warranty is.

I have an acquaintance in Germany that tells me the word Premium there means not octane but treat rate. So for example they have Regular lets say 87 and Premium 87. Not actual numbers they use a different system so just for the purpose of explaining. Hope that was clear

185,000 on my 2015 with AFM active from day one. Spend as much time as I can in V4 mode. Ole girl sings like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. I have spent literally less than $20 in non-routine maintenance parts. Then again I don't use 0W20 non-polar oil and I never let the bulk oil temperature exceed 210 F. Rarely 200 F. And I don't see what records I can set for longest oil change interval, loosest filter or dirtiest fuels.

To be a Top Tier Fuel it must pass a set of cleanliness tests. To pass those test most of these Top Tier fuels contain 2X to 3X the LAC (Lowest Additive Content). Shell V Power Nitro + Premium contains not only 6X the LAC but a friction modifier as well. Exxon/Mobil Synergy Supreme + Premium also contains a friction modifier that claims a 30% reduction in ring/bore wear. No claim as to the detergent multiplication I can find in print. These friction and multiples of Top Tier detergent add packs are only available in there Premium fuels. The 87 and 89 octane fuel follow the regular pattern of 2 to 3X the detergents of LAC but do not contain the friction package. I guess the question one needs to ask themselves is if a 30% reduction in wear is worth the near a dollar a gallon expense. For me, the answer is yes. YMMV. Locally my choice has been Shell. Exxon/Mobil, in my area, is about 50 cents a gallon more. That said, on the road and absent a Shell Station I will use XOM fuel. Absent both any Top Tier Premium. Chevron my first alternate. (PEA based detergent). Then Marathon.

Again and again. Yesterday, upper 40's and raining with hail and tornado warnings. Over night 30's and snowing. I'd like to thank DOG-e for laying off half the NOAA workforce slowing down the weather radio severe weather reports from soon enough to act and be prepared to 12-15 minutes after the fact. Great work!

Dizzy 3/16/2025 2015 GMC Terrain Ecotec 2.4 I-4 269,015 miles. 1,058 OCI 5 Quarts Castrol Euro 5W40. No filter. Added a pint over these miles.

269,000 Mile Service 269,015 Actual 1,058 OCI Pint of makeup 5 Quarts Castrol Euro 5W40 No filter.

We went from 80 F and tornado warnings to the 20's and two inches of snow all in 36 hours. That there is some climate change.

America's cut Pork Chop (New York Chop) Redux Okay I did this just up the page a bit. But I'm always playing with my technique. When I started a pair for this evening they were a bit on the thick side so I fired up the oven to convection 325 F. Then started the two minute drill as above for about 16 minutes or just over 100 F internal but well seared. Then stabbed with a cabled probe and tossed them in the oven for eight minutes (140 F) the pulled to a cutting board to tent and rest while the veggie was being prepared. Moist and fork tender and a very pleasing mouth feel, and yet still Yorkshire...meh. A bit of Dijon fixed that right up. Still a crutch. Spring is right around the corner and I can't wait to head down to Kilgus Farms and find me some Berkshire perfection. The new technique presented a more evenly cooked and more moist version that I found to be worth the effort.

Or you can just do it. Your lips won't fall off or anything