Grumpy Bear

Insight is a wonderful thing me thinks. Nail struck square. If you watch the gas section they state that ultra light oils provide the lowest wear. It's not wrong, it's just not explainednor universal...period. For normal bore prep more is still better. An explanation..... Toyota Crown. Ground up design for a 0W8 oil. PTWA bores (Plasma Transferred Wire Arc). Very specific hone for the bore material and the hone specifics. More viscosity is bad. Ford uses this in some of the Mustang motors and will deny a claim for engine failure if the viscosity is not in spec upon inspection. This point is the basis on which the statement more is bad in the video. But used in the context of the entire universe of all gasoline ICE's is marketing convincing a willfully ignorant audience of a future reality now being formed in real time. You see this in the diesel section where these types of bores are not currently used to the best of my knowledge. How it works. Spray bore is stupid hard as are the DLH ring faces. A reduction in wear is hard to drive on viscosity. BUT it also, due to silly fine finishing will transport oil to the combustion chamber lickety split. Which causes detonation which increases wear and can tear ring lands out of a piston left unchecked. In a diesel soot is the wear driver. Context matters Blanket statements are always dangerous.

We are exact in our math when we understand it and when it is of benefit to us. Statistics however baffle the masses, and because they don't understand it, they don't have faith in it the way they do in math's simpler forms. Like counting their change. Problem for us is that math is ambivalent to what we think of it or about it. Math is literally not the truth but represents it faithfully. No where in the universe can you by a three. Weigh a decimal. Five will not cast a shadow. Yet 3.5 seconds is an exact measure of time. Math is useful, it is precise and it is relentless in it's perfection. Math's problem doesn't lie in what it is but in how it is used. Like any good wrench is can tighten a bolt or shear it off and the difference is in the users understanding and skill is it's use. Saying a thing isn't so because we don't understand it..... that's the tool we use to remain ignorant. Misapplied math is also a tool of marketing indifferent to the truth. Scarry? And it should be. When you hear an "Expert" use math you don't understand you are actually in the drivers seat. The math is reliable. The user is not, so the context in every way matters if you are to trust it. If the context isn't provided then skepticism is demanded.

Everyone would like an absolute when they get an answer. What they are telling you is what the data subjected to analytics told them in the simplest terms possible. The methods of stats is a college course. Now that said....context indeed matters. So..... If you trade every three years and are made from money then ignore everything you just heard. You will not benefit from the information. I disagree that viscosity is contraindicated. Data says otherwise. But we can agree to disagree. Specific. 1.8 ppm/K is 18.18% lower wear than 2.2 ppm/k. That is a statistical fact. Does that mean it is guaranteed? Not on you life. Viscosity is but one of a host of variables. But what it does say that within YOUR context wear is 18% less and how that translates to miles depends on your personal context. I do like your summary however. Nicely put together.

Baby Max owners. Diesel is last quarter of so of the video. But what all two hours. Why some very good oils don't have the DEXOS approval. Good gas discussion as well. AFTON chemical engineer breakdown of all SPEEDIAGNOSTICS data.

Took about a 15 cent drop here yesterday. I'll have to go look again today

Same situation here. There is a chain of Mobil stations all owned by Kelly Oil and everyone is priced differently. They claim they are told how to price. Make sense of that. Every station in norther Illinois gets it's E85 from the same blender. Price runs $2.19 at BP to $3.75 at Meijer's. Last night we went for a drive and I ducked into a few stations (no one billboards premium anymore). $4.98 to $5.47. I can literally drive 30 miles to Rochelle and buy E85 ($2.19) in the truck instead of buying 87 E-10 local ($4.19), give up 25% of my fuel economy and still save enough for a Dave's single meal at Wendy's.

It's the silliness in range that I find confusing. Huge spreads. Not just station to station but grade to grade like no one has any idea how much graft to grab.

Major Assembly Required I've spent the last few days looking into Hexagonal Boron Nitride as an AW additive. A few retailers sell it commercially and the best known is likely Liqui Moly Ceratec. This post isn't about the product but the information used by AI assistants in explaining it. AI pulls information from anywhere it can find it and the filtering is awful. It is confused easy and doesn't seem to differentiate between the gourmet table and the garbage pile. It defers not between a scholarly article and grade-schooler musings. If you have some knowledge to begin with it is possible to short the trash but ain't easy McGee. As an aside; I was amused after the terror subsided at how poorly the average internet user processes the written word and how little deference some give to 'rational thought'. Little example to the painfully obvious.... As used in motor oils hexagonal boron nitrate is a suspended solid whose size runs between 0.05 and 0.03 micron. There is some concern that is will fall out of suspension and deposit in the pan. One long time user went to the trouble of pulling his oil pan after a few hundred thousand miles to show it clean enough to be used as a shaving mirror. Naturally he thought that this was properly put to bed. Oh boy..... First response to his post was a fella challenging him to prove he can see particles of such small size. Fella was more patient than I. He says, "A single particle that size is indeed impossible to see but five pounds of particles that size is impossible not to see".

Premium now up almost $2 a gallon here. Pre conflict I bought local at $3.47 for Shell and today $5.37 at XOM. Cost per mile has doubled from lows and up 50% from the median. Laugh at my 55 mpg Mirage now Truck is parked.

$3.98 to $4.45 for 87 E-10 today. $4.19 seems about the most common.

Given you goal dyier2 hit it pretty much square. Use the QS 5W40 Euro and change is on a shorter schedule. Whatever your OEM recommended OCI /2. I'm going to guess that at 3,750 miles or 6K Kilometers. You want to use AMSOIL SS 0W40 go 5K and call it a day. You want to go longer? Do a few OCI's on your choice but if not then flying blind my suggestions stands.

Normalize your results. Divide PPM by K miles. Iron for example is 36 ppm / 7.5K miles = 4.8 ppm/K miles Not shabby for a Ecotec3 platform where 7 ppm/K is the universal average. Be happy, don't worry. BTW good choice IMO anyway. Try the 0W40 AZF

I can find no error in your response. Sure, anything is possible. But let me run this by you. Referring to the red bold underlined section. That implies SOPUS knows exactly what sufficient IS and can quantify it. It also says that whatever this IS and as far down the ladder of real possibility is may lie beneath what can BE it will exceed by MORE than was it required. So....ask I ask you....what level of wear, of cleanliness of corrosion protection, of thermal properties is SUFFICIENT for you and why anyone but the end user should be allowed to determine what they DESERVE? Let me be so bold as to answer that for you. API/ILSAC/ACEA and the OEM's are telling us what is sufficient protection and yet that level they have determined as sufficient is FAILING. Not to adequately service the warranty and their margins but to provide a level of protection that benefits' the end user which other than their back account they could care less about. I know this just on a cleanliness basis by the SAE test requirements and acceptable levels of deposit formation. So yes, a Group II/III blend with a robust package that will pass the SAE certifications and the OEM licensing requirements will indeed provide a level that will get the powertrain past whatever dismally low length of time and miles they warranty the product is for (their bar for Sufficient) and it will do so with a level of 'acceptable' failures that will keep the bean counters in happy land. Courts are full of oil related ring failure class action law suits. SOPUS did not error in statement. It errors in judgement and it does so willingly and at the end users expense for gain. It is a business run by the same greed as most other business. I took the same marketing classes they take. LOL. But rest assured. On base oil alone, the statement that a Group II/II+/III/III+/GTL is equivalent to or better than a PAO/POE/AN is a bold faced LIE. The statement that a well formulated Group III with and excellent add package can outperform a POA with a crap add pack is a "Strawman argument". Is it possible, yes, but...can you find me an example? I don't think so, I know so. Not in any 'recognized' brand name product. Here are a few easy examples. A Group III has a possible range of viscosity that lies between 4 and 8 cSt. GTL is even lower https://www.stle.org/files/TLTArchives/2015/11_November/Worldwide.aspx Shell sells only the 3 cSt oil to the market. So to build a *W30 some VII will be required. However blends of POA/mPOA can yield the full viscosity range without any VII for many grades and much less in the widest ranges. And it will do so with a neat VI high enough to use a fraction of the VII's. Then there is the thermal capacity and thermal transfer rates. PAO's excel in both allowing most gear boxes to run 15 F cooler. Both are non polar and require some co-base to reach an aniline point low enough to hold that 'robust' add package. For Group III's that is a Group I or Group II or both sacrificing almost all advantage the Group III's bring. OR a PAO blended with a POE or AN will yield not just a lower add pack with greater solubility but greatly enhance, by synergies, both lubricity and oxidation resistance. The addition of the Ester also dramatically enhances the film strength (HTHS) for the same grade viscosity and in nearly every case the SSI will be MUCH lower than anything one can whip up with a mineral oil derived base. Lastly a low VII product with an robust Ester or AN co-base will keep it assembly day clean for as long as you wish to run it PROVIDED a reasonable OCI. It doesn't have a 'required minimum deposit level". Now all that blather aside. I take no issue with anyone pouring Mineral based 'syn' oil into their motor and running it for whatever OEM dictated OCI's are run. Not my dog, not my fight and not my wallet. Don't be tricked by slick marketing even from the majors. I worked in Research for several Majors. They ALL lie. they don't make money by using the most expensive high performance products. They use the cheapest crap they can and tell you "It is just as good". Marketing is the business of the most profitable artful lie.

Fully Formulated I'm going to go out on a limb here and say a motor will run longer on a pure base oil that it will on a pure commercial chemical additive. But I'd also agree that additives bring allot to the party...or can. Now that said a fully formulated oil isn't a specific chemistry when viewed over time and yet can be very conforming within a specification. Confusing? Think of comparing the current SAE SQ specification the the antiquated SAE SA spec. SA is a neat mineral oil without any additives and was the stuff grandfather used if you're are old enough to be a grandfather yourself. If you think base oil doesn't matter give this chart below a gander. Licensing for certification has a lot of limits on it and yet enough to to make a performance difference. Now concentrate on that last column. Group V interchanges are not permitted without recertification. Thing is the magic happens in the Group V category. Esters and Alkylated Naphthalene are Group V materials as is whatever Valvoline is using in R&P. The SAE certification bar is set pretty low. Will it get it through warranty and EPA requirements. Period. Both most blenders and the OEM's are looking for MARGIN and will use the lowest base on this list that will pass that low bar. Problem is that it sets the limits for every other blender who has the money to blend and market but not to spend the millions to test each new specification. SO....they copy each other varying only by the degree allowed in this chart. That kids is a LOT of head space for a competent blender to play in to make a better mousetrap IF he is willing to either spend the money to have it tested OR go to market without the certifications. Nothing demands a certification but the warranty and then ONLY if the OEM can prove that exercising that latitude was the direct cause of an oil related failure. The same thing is true when it comes to the additive package. EXACT same thing is true. https://www.swri.org/markets/automotive-transportation/locomotive/large-engine-testing aka SwRI is a private lab that does certification. XOM (Exxon/Mobil) and Ashland (Valvoline) are the only two blenders in North America that have the ability to certify a licensed oil. EVERYONE else copies or pays. It isn't "All about the additives" and it's not "All about the base oils". It's about the formulation and NOT the certifications.

It's not an ether or situation. Those same people use the phrase "Fully Formulated Oil". Interesting, right? They quote the one that favors the direction the wind is blowing in that argument. Focusing on one half the formulation exclusively is a purposeful distraction. Deliberately isolating a feature is kind of the point of marketing. So...correct. They are self serving. Marketing will promote what makes the best margin not the best product. There are about a half dozen blenders that are truly bent on the excellence of the product and it's performance. Even these have products in their line that will stoop to commercial lows. Price point products rather that performance point products. Then, there are hundreds of blenders attempting to drown them in such nonsense like unwanted kittens. Cat's in the bag, bag's in the river. All they sell is margin. I don't expect anyone to agree with my views. I also don't accept views with an evil design on my kittens.

None I can think of with appropriate OCI.

Finally a long term teardown. HTHS on this oil is 3.3 cP. Impressive. It is not on the Dexos list of approved oils.

3/21/2026 Maintenance Update 192,400 miles / 309,638 km Still at Deegan's but getting closer. Lots of family stuff holding things up but thought an update would be okay, eh? Brake work. Still on the original pads with over 50% left up front and near new out back. Calipers were removed, pins/slides cleaned and greased as were the pad holders. Pads are wearing even and the rotors are minty fresh. Full system purge with at least a pint of DOT 4 passing through each position. Yes, ABS rattled. Lines, mint. Leaf springs. Drivers side front hanger bolt pulled (tank removal required), cleaned and greased. All U bolts retorqued. Pesky click on damp days. Fuel System. New high pressure pump and six new OEM Direct fit parts installed. Lifter removed and inspected. Good as new. All new hard lines. Will send injectors out for rebuilding. Valves. This motor has never had a valve service. Never employed a catch can. Does not use oil and has been on diet of Ester based oil and for the last half of her life been feed E85. Do they look new? No. They look like new parts spraypainted wet flat black as do the runners but very little build up. Like can see the original texture through the EGR caused coating. Walnut blasting would be a waste of time and money. Inlet gaskets. #4 cylinder had a gasket leak leaving a soot witness mark. Shrinkage? but trims were good and it never missed so.....hardly worth the mention. PCV Valve. Replaced. Third valve. OEM plus two since. Precautionary. Nothing I could see wrong with the last one. Oil Change. 6 Quarts Mobil 1 5W40 Euro FS and new Purolator PL22500 filter. Alky motors never show fuel in the UOA but the iron and copper were indeed elevated and base line oxidation was drawn back about 20 points. Using Mobil as a flushing oil. A few thousand miles then back to by Ester stocks. Even elevated they were still withing 'normal' limits for the Ecotec3 platform. Trans Service. I'll do this one when I get her home. A gallon of Red Line D6, a spill and fill service. Note: 1.) I saw absolutely nothing that told me that this motor would have benefited from the use of a catch can. EGR deposits will not be abated by a can. Ester based oils will minimize them. 2.) Just before taking her in I ran the tank near empty and filled with Shell V Power Nitro + 93 and a bottle of Red Line SI-1 system cleaner then ran it a few hundred miles before delivery. I'll finish this tank then go back to E85. 3.) You don't realize how long the inlet runners are in these motors until you get the manifold off. That sir, is a deep well. And it is a long way from the nose of the truck to a vantage point where one could attempt a photo. Jason is going to try, and I mean try, to get a snap with a borescope. My original instruction was to photo the all before and after cleaning. Well they don't need cleaning and they all look the same. Deactivation as well as normal ports. So...I said IF you can grab a photo, say cylinder #2 (easiest to get at) then that will be enough as they all look alike. I also found out that an old fat guy can climb back out once in. Who knew, right? But I can't get in and take a photo.

When the wife had her ankle surgery the doctor told here nearly the same thing. Switch back and forth to keep them effective.

Pepper has 192,000 on her and doesn't use between 5K changes. Recently I've shortened that OCI to 3,750 in response to new formulations of lower TBN and ever lower AW packages. I also don't run 0W20 in anything. I didn't put the link up because I agree but rather to give others a 'gauge' of what to expect from their OEM's lack of response to their inquiries.

Northern Ill rural 87 $4.00 93 $4.81 E85 ???

You be a tough ole bird. Good for you. How's the Mrs.? Any improvement?

87 has hit $4 a gallon and Premium $4.85. Wait! Am I getting premium at the same price @Atlas pays for regular?

That was a very good run on a stock converter.

I used to go up to St. Mary's Glacier when I was younger and it was awesome. Right up to the road. Last time I was there, it wasn't much of anything.