The Peckish Synapse

customboss · February 14

28 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Is this what you are looking for? A RLHP 5W30 Post 2014 VOA?

Heres what was in my brain in speaking out but its from 2005 from a very good CAT lab we used to rely on.

5w20 version.

customboss · February 14

1 hour ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Let her rip tater chip

Ok:

Based on the data this is a gently driven 4.3 V6 GM in 2018 was wearing needlessly, Redline reacting with copper slightly higher than 10 ppm iron, 8 ppm tin napthenate which is a overadd for Redline, that formerly was a aluminum napthenate.

Both will add deposits to plugs especially if the engine was not in tune. In 2018 I was concerned that Grumpy had ignored the air filter and plug changes, potentially having a weak or defective coil over a plug. Wires possibly corroded at all contacts.

Calcium has been blamed for LSPI and RL here contains more than even the Cummins 10w30 CJ4 diesel oil later used many thousands of miles after Redline and grumpy correcting tune but I can't recall what he did.

Note lead alloy showing which is main bearings in this design. Note 0 with PBR CJ4.

RL ZDDP is API level add.

3 ppm Ba is dye.

Moly of RL starts at ~600 as both VOA show. It's being sacrificed as it plates out, note I never wanted Mo in the PBR. Never wanted the canned CJ4 either but note it outperforms the Redline.

Sodium used as additive and its high and deposit forming for DI engines. There are new sodium containimng addds that won't make post EGR deposits but this is overfueling so I suspect the plugs would shpw deposits?

K is a trace of sulfur adds that are over based as high as a compression engine add pack in the PBR.

TBN is high because of over based adds. They are deposit forming. RL counts on the solvency of the POE cut which is now lower than historically.

Ambient acidity is from fuels dilute and engine oil add pack reacting with the amine containing fuel.

Oxidation on both is normal.

Nitration is out of spec in the RL vs the PBR. Deposits and harmful acids.

Anti Wear of RL is within 2 orders of magnitude of PBR a HD oil. Yes some is Ca but most is what??? SUL!

Sulfation is too high on the chemistry of RL and its deposit forming for a spark engine.

Note Glycol was an attribute of RL back in 2005 VOA but now not. PAG constituent only explanation then that this test shows 0. So not used anymore.

FTIR Water should be 500 ppm or less in a normal USED oil analysis. VOA of PBR is ~500 from formulation. RL from our database is much higher sometimes nearly 2000 ppm clean. So that's additive packages at start then cooks out and wears out. Aldehydes is the term for those additives used trace that adds to PPM of " water " suffice it to say that the active additives are high in RL and water is higher from incomplete combustion. The water in the PBR is probably from ETOH.

Fuels via GC is 0 in PBR run because its not using but 10-20% or so gasoline so its burning that clean as a tracer so he retuned?

RL run is 2.4% gasoline when it ought to be 0.5% or less.

Make your own conclusion and I have never been against RL HP use but its add pack is high for a spark engine. They rely on that cut of POE to clean and remove and if your engine isn't combusting properly as in Grumpy's first test it will react.

Grumpy you are CORRECT that yours is not gross levels of wear but its higher than a HD oil in use that has so much more active " ester " base than RL it can use a canned valvoline add pack to produce better results. Albeit they are small in your eyes 80,000 miles later after you returned.

Edited February 14 by customboss

Grumpy Bear · February 14

What to you believe you've accomplished?

29 minutes ago, customboss said:

Grumpy you are CORRECT that yours is not gross levels of wear but its higher than a HD oil in use that has so much more active " ester " base than RL it can use a canned valvoline add pack to produce better results. Albeit they are small in your eyes 80,000 miles later after you returned.

Fact. It didn't produce "Better" results. It produced results inside the statistical scatter. You know and I know that the same sample run 10 times will produce a result in the parts per MILLION scale that vary. That results under 5 ppm are the same result. We don't KNOW anything but A result for each and I was good with them then and I'm good with them now.

IF it showed anything at all it showed more vis = less wear and that would be in sync with GM's wear studies. But we don't know without trends. But I think perhaps we now know what this units "normal' looks like, eh?

Tis why anyone worth is salt in this endeavor utilizes TREND results to note ABNORMAL results. NEVER on a single result. Your statistical premise is in error thus the conclusion is as well. This isn't tea reading 101. Your not an oracle.

I gave you a the gun and the ammo you DEMANDED and you haven't hit even the wall the target is hanging on.

You need a new hobby.

1 hour ago, customboss said:

Sulfation is too high on the chemistry of RL and its deposit forming for a spark engine.

Same as the CUMMINS but it's fine?

And yet it did not produce that evil result in practice, in the field, in this motor. Not to a degree that mattered over the OCI, the life of the plug or the life of the motor. Again, stating a hypothesis doesn't make a fact. I showed the picture of the plugs at 100K miles.

I don't now, nor have I ever said it wasn't true. I said IT DOESN'T MATTER as long as the power cylinder is reasonably 'tight'.

Get out more.

customboss · February 14

1 hour ago, Grumpy Bear said:

What to you believe you've accomplished?

Fact. It didn't produce "Better" results. It produced results inside the statistical scatter. You know and I know that the same sample run 10 times will produce a result in the parts per MILLION scale that vary. That results under 5 ppm are the same result. We don't KNOW anything but A result for each and I was good with them then and I'm good with them now.

IF it showed anything at all it showed more vis = less wear and that would be in sync with GM's wear studies. But we don't know without trends. But I think perhaps we now know what this units "normal' looks like, eh?

Tis why anyone worth is salt in this endeavor utilizes TREND results to note ABNORMAL results. NEVER on a single result. Your statistical premise is in error thus the conclusion is as well. This isn't tea reading 101. Your not an oracle.

I gave you a the gun and the ammo you DEMANDED and you haven't hit even the wall the target is hanging on.

You need a new hobby.

Same as the CUMMINS but it's fine?

And yet it did not produce that evil result in practice, in the field, in this motor. Not to a degree that mattered over the OCI, the life of the plug or the life of the motor. Again, stating a hypothesis doesn't make a fact. I showed the picture of the plugs at 100K miles.

I don't now, nor have I ever said it wasn't true. I said IT DOESN'T MATTER as long as the power cylinder is reasonably 'tight'.

Get out more.

Original comment I made about RL HP is that they used to use more POE, now they rely on OLD SCHOOL additives package with smaller cut POE level. RL HP is really a PAO based oil with lots of additives. That over use of additives instead of base oils is reactive. That was my point. I was not speaking to your CPBRestore. I remembered your data shared on this unit was RL comparisons. Note you ignore that your 4.3 was out of tune on RL test.

Its not my hobby or career anymore. I can barely type anymore with cognitive decline.

You didn't address item by item I shared above. I don't have the original reports or at least I can't find it in my data base that remains.

Have a nice day Grumpy.

Edited February 14 by customboss

Grumpy Bear · February 14

It not only has to be true, it has to matter.

There is a value in the rather long equation for determining the flow through a square edged orifice. The acceleration of gravity. 32 ft/sec/sec and is used almost exclusively.

Thing about that number is, it's value depends on your latitude and altitude and most importantly your place within the Milky Way. The difference in that value, if your feet on on tera-firma, is so small that in the sum of the equation is unaffected to a decimal degree that has no practical value. On the moon vs Earth, absolutely, but not in our immediate space.

Now a guy can flood the zone with a bunch of gravitational drivel and make the water so muddy you never get a USABLE conclusion OR you can say...

It not only has to be true, it has to matter.

And that is the goal toward which I row my boat. Does XYZ's upside outweigh it's downside? Just like medicine.

PAO/POE matters vs Group II/III blends. It has a measurable impact not just on specification and performance but on results. It's ONLY downside is COST.

Viscosity matters and NO ONE can produce a Bonafede study that says other. It's downside? Economy...(in some cases)

Cost, to the blender, IS the driver for the misleading statements, misinformation and down right lies told to sell sub par bases to an ignorant public at the same price or a fraction lower as a come on. Regulation the driver to PRIORITIZE Economy over wear. Lot's of papers on that topic.

Grumpy Bear · February 14

4 minutes ago, customboss said:

Original comment I made about RL HP is that they used to use more POE, now they rely on OLD SCHOOL additives package with smaller cut POE level. RL HP is really a PAO based oil with lots of additives. That over use of additives instead of base oils is reactive. That was my point. I was not speaking to your CPBRestore. I remembered your data shared on this unit was RL comparisons. Note you ignore that your 4.3 was out of tune on RL test.

Its not my hobby or career anymore. I can barely type anymore with cognitive decline.

You didn't address item by item I shared above. I don't have the original reports or at least I can't find it in my data base that remains.

Have a nice day Grumpy.

No sir it was not.

And I will not because you are crapping in the water yelling SQUIRLLE. Can't stay on point. You've forgotten yourself.

Here's an idea for ya since you like to write. START YOUR OWN THREAD and crap in that one. Maybe I'll stop by....

customboss · February 14

1 hour ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Tis why anyone worth is salt in this endeavor utilizes TREND results to note ABNORMAL results. NEVER on a single result. Your statistical premise is in error thus the conclusion is as well. This isn't tea reading 101. Your not an oracle.

Oh but I was. Not now for sure. But I have forgotten more than your internet learning on the subject. In my work life if I could not draw a proper conclusion from ONE data set from 1 oil analysis WHY USE THE OIL ANALYSIS AS A DIAGNOSTIC??

In my USN and US army training we learned how to analytically process a single result to get ACTIONABLE DATA for the unit.

This is what drives folks nuts who can't interpret the data on a single result. SURE longer trends are helpful but the variable of operating changes in time affect the results so much in automotive applications that its not statistically relevant to trend. Stationary engines in a controlled environment sure.

customboss · February 14

6 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Here's an idea for ya since you like to write. START YOUR OWN THREAD and crap in that one. Maybe I'll stop by....

Grumpy Bear · February 14

4 minutes ago, customboss said:

Oh but I was. Not now for sure. But I have forgotten more than your internet learning on the subject. In my work life if I could not draw a proper conclusion from ONE data set from 1 oil analysis WHY USE THE OIL ANALYSIS AS A DIAGNOSTIC??

In my USN and US army training we learned how to analytically process a single result to get ACTIONABLE DATA for the unit.

This is what drives folks nuts who can't interpret the data on a single result. SURE longer trends are helpful but the variable of operating changes in time affect the results so much in automotive applications that its not statistically relevant to trend. Stationary engines in a controlled environment sure.

There is an entire branch of mathematics says you're wrong on that as well.

customboss · February 14

8 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

There is an entire branch of mathematics says you're wrong on that as well.

Let me know how that works for your automotive interpretation skills. Be well Grumpy.

customboss · February 14

42 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

It not only has to be true, it has to matter.

There is a value in the rather long equation for determining the flow through a square edged orifice. The acceleration of gravity. 32 ft/sec/sec and is used almost exclusively.

Thing about that number is, it's value depends on your latitude and altitude and most importantly your place within the Milky Way. The difference in that value, if your feet on on tera-firma, is so small that in the sum of the equation is unaffected to a decimal degree that has no practical value. On the moon vs Earth, absolutely, but not in our immediate space.

Now a guy can flood the zone with a bunch of gravitational drivel and make the water so muddy you never get a USABLE conclusion OR you can say...

It not only has to be true, it has to matter.

And that is the goal toward which I row my boat. Does XYZ's upside outweigh it's downside? Just like medicine.

PAO/POE matters vs Group II/III blends. It has a measurable impact not just on specification and performance but on results. It's ONLY downside is COST.

Viscosity matters and NO ONE can produce a Bonafede study that says other. It's downside? Economy...(in some cases)

Cost, to the blender, IS the driver for the misleading statements, misinformation and down right lies told to sell sub par bases to an ignorant public at the same price or a fraction lower as a come on. Regulation the driver to PRIORITIZE Economy over wear. Lot's of papers on that topic.

[ Q = C_d \cdot A \cdot \sqrt{\frac{2 \cdot g \cdot (P_1 - P_2)}{\rho}} ]

Grumpy Bear · February 15

2 hours ago, customboss said:

But I have forgotten more than your internet learning on the subject.

You know better than that. When I took my Hydrocarbon Chemistry classes there was no internet. :idiot: There wasn't any calculators. Used a slide rule.

You continue to ignore and now lie about my education and my field of work. I assume the strategy is to repeat it until someone believes it? Or could it be attack the person when you fail on the facts? Tell ya what. You don't talk about what you don't know about my education and I won't talk about what I don't know about your family tree. :crackup: Just as ridiculous and childish. What kind of third grade crap is that? :mad:

But you are right, You have forgotten more than I know. Did you actually give the statement any thought at all before penning it? :rollin:

I'll give you this much you have more tools in that belt than a ten dollar plumber. Flood the zone. Squirrel calls, Attack the person. Attempt badly to humiliate same. Change the subject or horse mid stream. Lie from the heart. Flag wave credentials. Cause my S-perience says so. Cry and stomp your feet. Demand action without authority (bully) . PM physical threats. (actionable) My personal favorite.

You are missing but a few.

FACTS & DATA.

You have offered ZERO data to prove ANY claim.

Just bluster and noise.

Can you be this thick. I'm NOT TAKING YOUR WORD FOR ZIP!! I'm NOT impressed.

Grumpy Bear · February 15

Reality Check

To convince me or any rational person that RLI's Stabilized HOBS Group III blend or any other blend for that matter, is superior to Red Line HP PAO/POE blend in "wear" abatement would require an independent third party study done in real time over hundreds of thousand of miles that was peer reviewed and published. That is to say, not lab rat work ups of accelerated studies done by the blenders making those products. Actual road miles. Not roof top studies.

Here's the reality check. Those types of studies are not done much less peer reviewed or published.

Reality check round II. I pull 200 to 250K motors down using RLHP which are still measure in the tolerances of "new" spec and clean as the day there were assembled. (car otherwise trashed by rust or wreckage). So 'cleaner' is impossible and less wear as a matter of relevance, not relevant. Thus....

It not only has to be true, it has to matter.

These 200 to 250 K motors have outlived the warranty by 3X and outlived the 'legal definition' of "Lifetime" by 50 to 100K and in the condition I just stated. Low in new spec wear and clean.

Within the last decade I have finally learned to extend the life of the body and frame so going further than 250K is becoming a part of uncharted waters. But as the first 250 produced little negative result then as we are starting at 250K in like new power train wise then I have every confidence the first 150 K is in the bag. So 400K a cake walk and I'm on the road to repeating the family legends. Perhaps too old to complete it but.....does it matter? I think not.

What I have provided is DATA over very long periods of time that guys like Stan get nervous over. That is to say, taking a 200K mile drive line cross country it a no brain even for me and he....yea...not sure and yet sure enough to make fun of what I take for granted.

What I have from Terry is...well....bluster without pertinent facts and blender only testimony. Point, set and match.

He's sees Peppers wear as high but not horrid and yet at even at this point she is leak tight, not an oil burner and more frugal on E85 that most get on E10 running like NEW, looking like NEW and yet my over added OLD SCHOOL added OUT of date BASES have still managed 3X the warranty and well over the legal lifetime. And zero documentation ANY oil would produce a statistically superior result. Just statements without PROOF.

I'll add I've spent a total of under $100, labor inclusive on 'abnormal' maintenance. Starter shield replacement and a pinion seal. Neither oil related. New tires and battery and she ready to go where ever I point her pretty red nose. How much data does one need?

Terry, you keep telling me it can't and it won't and yet...IT ALREADY HAS.

How's them apples? :crackup:

Edited February 15 by Grumpy Bear

KARNUT · February 15

8 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Reality Check

To convince me or any rational person that RLI's Stabilized HOBS Group III blend or any other blend for that matter, is superior to Red Line HP PAO/POE blend in "wear" abatement would require an independent third party study done in real time over hundreds of thousand of miles that was peer reviewed and published. That is to say, not lab rat work ups of accelerated studies done by the blenders making those products. Actual road miles. Not roof top studies.

Here's the reality check. Those types of studies are not done much less peer reviewed or published.

Reality check round II. I pull 200 to 250K motors down using RLHP which are still measure in the tolerances of "new" spec and clean as the day there were assembled. (car otherwise trashed by rust or wreckage). So 'cleaner' is impossible and less wear as a matter of relevance, not relevant. Thus....

It not only has to be true, it has to matter.

These 200 to 250 K motors have outlived the warranty by 3X and outlived the 'legal definition' of "Lifetime" by 50 to 100K and in the condition I just stated. Low in new spec wear and clean.

Within the last decade I have finally learned to extend the life of the body and frame so going further than 250K is becoming a part of uncharted waters. But as the first 250 produced little negative result then as we are starting at 250K in like new power train wise then I have every confidence the first 150 K is in the bag. So 400K a cake walk and I'm on the road to repeating the family legends. Perhaps too old to complete it but.....does it matter? I think not.

What I have provided is DATA over very long periods of time that guys like Stan get nervous over. That is to say, taking a 200K mile drive line cross country it a no brain even for me and he....yea...not sure and yet sure enough to make fun of what I take for granted.

What I have from Terry is...well....bluster without pertinent facts and blender only testimony. Point, set and match.

He's sees Peppers wear as high but not horrid and yet at even at this point she is leak tight, not an oil burner and more frugal on E85 that most get on E10 running like NEW, looking like NEW and yet my over added OLD SCHOOL added OUT of date BASES have still managed 3X the warranty and well over the legal lifetime. And zero documentation ANY oil would produce a statistically superior result. Just statements without PROOF.

I'll add I've spent a total of under $100, labor inclusive on 'abnormal' maintenance. Starter shield replacement and a pinion seal. Neither oil related. New tires and battery and she ready to go where ever I point her pretty red nose. How much data does one need?

Terry, you keep telling me it can't and it won't and yet...IT ALREADY HAS.

How's them apples?

I have a little more confidence in going past 200K miles with the 2010 Ridgeline. I know the original owner and where he did his maintenance. My Odyssey, originally my daughter’s was roughly used and maintenance was sparse. Even though it was according to the minder. The Ridgeline was maintained according to the dealer recommendations. But not as diligent as the owners manual. But according to the manufacturer used of the minder. I think they confuse on purpose, yes even Honda. I was surprised to see transfer case and rear end fluid set for 30K miles. The fluid look new. They’re not really forthcoming when it comes to the transmission. Drain and fill. That’s fine but they don’t say more than one time. If you go with the regular schedule. He was old school with oil changes under 5K miles. The oil looked dirty. Could be a Honda thing. Honda switched to all synthetic now. They put in 0-20 when it calls for 5-20. It will get changed before it gets hot. This feels tighter more planted. It fits me better than the Odyssey. Arm rests, things like that. You notice this stuff more when you get older. Now with its total cost. It needs to give me trouble free miles for about a year. That’s my measure VS a new CPO vehicle. Being an added to the other vehicles I own. That should be easy. I wouldn’t drive it every day. My cost are way under a new one. And there’s choices.

customboss · February 15

13 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Reality Check

To convince me or any rational person that RLI's Stabilized HOBS Group III blend or any other blend for that matter, is superior to Red Line HP PAO/POE blend in "wear" abatement would require an independent third party study done in real time over hundreds of thousand of miles that was peer reviewed and published. That is to say, not lab rat work ups of accelerated studies done by the blenders making those products. Actual road miles. Not roof top studies.

Here's the reality check. Those types of studies are not done much less peer reviewed or published.

Reality check round II. I pull 200 to 250K motors down using RLHP which are still measure in the tolerances of "new" spec and clean as the day there were assembled. (car otherwise trashed by rust or wreckage). So 'cleaner' is impossible and less wear as a matter of relevance, not relevant. Thus....

It not only has to be true, it has to matter.

These 200 to 250 K motors have outlived the warranty by 3X and outlived the 'legal definition' of "Lifetime" by 50 to 100K and in the condition I just stated. Low in new spec wear and clean.

Within the last decade I have finally learned to extend the life of the body and frame so going further than 250K is becoming a part of uncharted waters. But as the first 250 produced little negative result then as we are starting at 250K in like new power train wise then I have every confidence the first 150 K is in the bag. So 400K a cake walk and I'm on the road to repeating the family legends. Perhaps too old to complete it but.....does it matter? I think not.

What I have provided is DATA over very long periods of time that guys like Stan get nervous over. That is to say, taking a 200K mile drive line cross country it a no brain even for me and he....yea...not sure and yet sure enough to make fun of what I take for granted.

What I have from Terry is...well....bluster without pertinent facts and blender only testimony. Point, set and match.

He's sees Peppers wear as high but not horrid and yet at even at this point she is leak tight, not an oil burner and more frugal on E85 that most get on E10 running like NEW, looking like NEW and yet my over added OLD SCHOOL added OUT of date BASES have still managed 3X the warranty and well over the legal lifetime. And zero documentation ANY oil would produce a statistically superior result. Just statements without PROOF.

I'll add I've spent a total of under $100, labor inclusive on 'abnormal' maintenance. Starter shield replacement and a pinion seal. Neither oil related. New tires and battery and she ready to go where ever I point her pretty red nose. How much data does one need?

Terry, you keep telling me it can't and it won't and yet...IT ALREADY HAS.

How's them apples?