Grumpy Bear

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.

Local news tells me today that while this year has been twice as snowy it is still 1-1/2" below seasonal average. It was pretty light last year.

If I had a L8T that used nothing for 25K then just starts using a quart in 4,500 I'd be thinking either PCV system has got an issue or the oil control ring drains in the piston are starting to plug. Valvoline Restore and Protect will bring it around if it's rings and it just might be. It could take another 20K to clear them. 4 changes at 5K each. But should see results within the first two.

https://engineoiljournal.com/engine-oil-consumption-chart/

VI index as an indicator or base oil type Some values were given in the video above to use as a guide in determining base oil type. That was not well researched. Problem: The numbers he gave are indicative of 'neat base' oils. Here is the SAE values Group I 95 - 105 Group II 95 - 118 Group III 123 - 150 Group IV > 135 Group V has no range Pull the data sheet for Kirkland's Signature 5W30 and you will see the value of 169 and yet that oil is straight up a Group III So what's the what-what with that? The numbers you read on these PDS sheets are after formulation into finished products and not the neat values he gives in the video. His values are: Group III 120 - 135 Group IV 140 - 180 Fully formulated oils have the VI determined on the base AND the Viscosity Modifier together. PPD is not part of this as the VI is a measurement of the viscosity delta between 40C and 100C. His values don't hold. Let's compare Kirkland's Group III value with AMSOIL SS in the same weight, 5W30 and Red Line HP 5W30, both PAO/Ester blends Kirkland 169 AMSOIL 162 Red Line 166 Compare the pour points and CCS values and they still look the same. Then look a volitility and you see something. Red Line 6 NOACK AMSOIL 6.7 Kirkland 12% or about double. Kirkland starts with a very light Group III base to give low pour point and a small CCS value that also gives it a very high NOACK and then stuffs a bunch of very high molecular weight viscosity modifier in it to reach the high VI value they can thus display. Ya can't rely on a single piece of information to find out anything about pretty much anything. Just because someone is making money on clickbait doesn't mean the information is grounded. This one even passed a few rounds of scrutiny.

Over $3 in Texas is a warning sign.

Take notes on the last four oils in this video and the EXACT wording used.

ZDDP isn't going anywhere https://www.stle.org/files/TLTArchives/2022/01_January/Cover_Story.aspx [quote from link above] STLE member Vince Gatto of Vanderbilt Chemicals LLC says, “In engine oils, ZDDP functions by forming various glassy polyphosphate films, which are very effective at reducing wear but not very good at reducing friction. Molybdenum dithiocarbamates function in a way that synergizes with ZDDP by producing more durable friction reducing MoS2 tribofilms.10 Replenishment of the MoS2 tribofims is enhanced by ligand exchange between ZDDP and MoDTC.” [close quote] I found this STLE article while going down the low ash rabbit hole and was but one of many very interesting items I ran across.

We have one more cold day and a bit more lake effect tonight. It's 18F right now with a windchill of -10F. Wind has died a bit after the sun when down. That was some real wet snow. My back is trashed. LOL Going to get down to 5F tonight with tomorrows high as around what it is right now. May break freezing Wednesday.

We got a bit over 7 inches over the last 24 hours. Freezing rain under it and it cold and very windy yet today. But windchill is still above zero for now. Plow just came by and filled me in I'd bet @OnTheReel & @CamGTP got it worse! It's shovel'n time LOL

Because it will met the requirements of either; along with a few manufactures requirements. This might sound silly but it works a bit like; "Not all eggs are chicken eggs but all chicken eggs are eggs". In the oil universe this formulation is both chicken egg and egg in a universe where all eggs are chicken. Many SAE and API requirements are 'one directional'. That is they may have a minimum but no maximum or visa-versa allowing a single formulation to meet the requirements of many standards. Sometimes Lake makes a conclusion based on a test where the statistical variability is wider than the point he is concluding. It's like trying to assess two pitchers based on one throw of he ball for each and then saying short pitchers are better that tall ones. Few things are as precise in practice as the median would suggest standing on its own.

So today it was near 60F and rained. Quite the winds. 35-45 mph. Then tonight it dropped to a bit below freezing in about 30 minutes and the wind is now driving blizzard rate snow sideways which is predicted to continue for about 12 more hours. Ain't we having fun Ma?

The real reason millions of engines are being recalled (link) None of these articles are fully on point. The writers still don't know the difference between 'tolerance' and "clearance". The MAIN CLEARANCE to be tightened was piston clearance. Use of hypereutectic pistons fit under .015" on a 4" bore and newer ultrahigh silicon content forging alloys. Bearing clearances are still about a thou per inch of journal diameter. This motor, the 3A92, mine, calls for a 0W20 oil. The chart here shows three different viscosities used in this motor. 0W20 line if from Blackstone's library. The 5W30 from an acquaintances motor who is as annal as I, and the last, 5W40 my personal motor. The "Total Wear Metals" chart I posted earlier in this thread. Chart I haven't posted is the Iron level chart. What it showed was that bore wear was reduced by using 5W30 over 0W20 but little more was gained in the use of 5W40. Almost all of the Total Wear Metals reduction comes from the huge reduction in piston skirt wear....aluminum. Bearing wear is reduced with each increase in HTHS viscosity so a smaller portion of the total wear improvement comes from that. Piston cleanliness has next to nothing to do with an oils viscosity. Cleanliness or lack thereof is a ring killer, a VVT-AFM-DOD solenoid killer and a cam chain eater. The posted link hints at manufacturing putting the viscosity cart before the ability to keep it clean enough to support that weight horse. That has absolutely zero to do with piston wear. But skirt and land wear have EVERYTHING to do with ring stability and longevity and control therefore of blowby. Dirty assembly will kill any engine on any weight oil. If the culprit is surface finish then viscosity is a card to be played. Use the information as you see fit.