Another oil thread

Grumpy Bear · May 26, 2025

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?

customboss · May 26, 2025

4 hours ago, customboss said:

@Grumpy Bear check out this at the science part of the GM-TRUCKS site.....I am gonna stroke ya brother.

OnTheReel · May 26, 2025

12 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

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.

End of the video, Mobil 1’s response to his question on lower viscosity oils. “In modern engines wear is not a limiting factor”. Tacit admission that reduced viscosity WILL increase wear, but not enough to matter when the rest of the car gets thrown away first.

All of the arguments in favor of lower viscosity oils come from that frame of mind. It’s not about what’s actually best. It’s for that $60 per vehicle he estimates GM saves. Sorry for my pessimistic, defeatist attitude toward the entire auto industry but that’s what I’m going with.

KARNUT · May 26, 2025

It’s simple math. The average miles driven is under 13K miles a year. The average person keeps a vehicle is 5-7 years. About the length of payments. Most dealers want to see your car every 5K miles even if they change your oil every other time. I just saw a video where an Acura came in for transmission service at 180K. The dealer had refused to change the life time fluid during ownership. The fluid was dark and nasty. They wouldn’t change it because it’s too late. It probably would have ended its life. I’ve actually seen that happen when my brother had an automobile repair shop. Most dealers don’t do a complete fluid drain with transmission service. It would be expensive and time consuming. My two Hondas took three. My avalanche took two spread over two weeks. The back and forth about the weight of oil. Going by the manufacturer’s instructions or not. Leads me back to numbers. Heavy weight oil affects mileage as does friction. So considering reputation for longevity. Cost per mile. Fuel economy. The average person is comfortable going by the minder set by the manufacturer. Considering the length of time with ownership. And miles during ownership. That turns out to be five to seven years. Under 200K miles the average life of a well made vehicle. With minimal maintenance. My wife is one of those average drivers. She asked her service provider how to get 200K out of her 2011 Genesis when bought new. Half the maintenance schedule was the answer. The first 60K miles it amounted to one extra service yearly. Then a transmission service. Today it’s going strong with one battery replacement, starter and one brake job. She’s a lead foot. Average fuel economy sits around 19 mpg. I have 3 other vehicles with more mileage with a little better than normal maintenance. Three others given to family members with the same or worse maintenance still going strong. All 7 years old or older with high mileage. I wouldn’t bring in the work fleet hundreds. Only that regular maintenance seems to be enough for the average driver.

diyer2 · May 26, 2025

Short Story to me "Oils cheap compared to engines"

KARNUT · May 26, 2025

14 minutes ago, diyer2 said:

Short Story to me "Oils cheap compared to engines"

For the average person it’s time. Most people live in subdivisions. I’ve even heard of fines for working on your vehicle in the driveway. Then there’s disposals. And if you stain the concrete, another fine. It’s just easier to follow the minder and go to Valvoline quick lube going to the grocery store. Then running kids around to wherever sport scheduled they have that day. That’s the normal life of most people these days. Once the car is right side up they buy a new one. Just like the guy next door. Yup oil is cheap, time isn’t or opportunity. Is it necessary not really for most.

diyer2 · May 26, 2025

I worked a full time job and a part time job for a while. Maintained 2 houses, 3 vehicles, a boat and yard equipment. It comes down to preference.

KARNUT · May 26, 2025

1 hour ago, diyer2 said:

I worked a full time job and a part time job for a while. Maintained 2 houses, 3 vehicles, a boat and yard equipment. It comes down to preference.

Yea me too, plus a business and working out of town. There’s more subdivision people. Than people like us. I’ve also been married almost 51 years. That’s not normal today. We’re outliers.

Grumpy Bear · May 26, 2025

9 hours ago, OnTheReel said:

End of the video, Mobil 1’s response to his question on lower viscosity oils. “In modern engines wear is not a limiting factor”. Tacit admission that reduced viscosity WILL increase wear, but not enough to matter when the rest of the car gets thrown away first.

All of the arguments in favor of lower viscosity oils come from that frame of mind. It’s not about what’s actually best. It’s for that $60 per vehicle he estimates GM saves. Sorry for my pessimistic, defeatist attitude toward the entire auto industry but that’s what I’m going with.

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.

Edited May 26, 2025 by Grumpy Bear

customboss · May 26, 2025

5 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

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.

Ever seen a dog watching TV? Dog sees movement but doesn't understand the pretty pics. Same thing Grumpy does here beating the dead dog of lubricant viscosity cures all.

UGH

customboss · May 26, 2025

On 5/25/2025 at 8:55 PM, customboss said:

Now here's something interesting and I know you are excited to engage this Grumpy and accolytes. FACTS WITHOUT PRETTY PICS.

2/25 Phillips 66 discloses finally more about Redline HPMO than we previously knew.

No more than 14.8% SOLVENT low smoke KEROSENE SOLVENT THANKS FOR CORRECTING ME @Grumpy Bear we don't know the source as Grumpy proclaims at least from this SDS.

UP TO ZINC @ ~2.49% minimum usually 1%

PAO, PAG YES PAG!!!! present, POE must be very small now. So CLEANLINESS is made by PAG! !!!! LIKE. !!!!

Applies to every SAE vis from 0w-16 to 20w-50

Edited May 30, 2025 by customboss
Correct my error

customboss · May 26, 2025

Grumpy Bear · May 30, 2025

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.

customboss · May 30, 2025

33 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

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.

You are welcome.

customboss · May 30, 2025

1 hour ago, Grumpy Bear said:

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.

It's a SOLVENT fluid we used in ICP machines.

Its not a lubricant for sure but that's lots of solvent in a fluid........< 14.9% !!

CAS # does not show its from XOM, where did you come up with that???

Solvent.

Highly refined kerosene my friend so sorry for saying it was group II fluid, I was wrong. But you are once again drawing conclusions. Source? Reciepts? LOL