Jump to content

Another oil thread

Bob2C
 Share

Recommended Posts

Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted

Lubrication with additives. Molybdenum dithiocarbonate friction modifiers. 😱

 

image.png.0bd60f3f827092318939ae2b8f214f88.png

 

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?

 

image.jpeg.13c03883c6c3ce9fdaed45e17416d61b.jpeg

 

 

  • Replies 315
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

customboss
customboss

Well, I answered your question.   I made a living analyzing automotive materials. When someone asks a question I give an answer based on lab work, engine test cells data, teardown of those t

Grumpy Bear
Grumpy Bear

Since Dizzy uses so much oil a 3K mineral oil cleaning was still beyond her ability so I broke it into two 1,500-mile segments. Yea, cost twice as much. I'm good with that.    At the end of

KARNUT
KARNUT

Until tomorrow. You two are over my head. I can only go by experience. Sometimes without explanation. I’ll try to keep up.🥵

Posted Images

OnTheReel Senior Enthusiast

OnTheReel

Posted
Posted
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 Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted

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 Senior Enthusiast

diyer2

Posted
Posted

Short Story to me "Oils cheap compared to engines"

  • Like 2
KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted
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.

  • Sad 1
diyer2 Senior Enthusiast

diyer2

Posted
Posted

 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 Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted
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 Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted (edited)
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.

 

 

 image.jpeg.88958b47c1d0572cc54ef8992ce76828.jpeg

 

 

 

Edited by Grumpy Bear
  • Like 1
customboss Senior Enthusiast

customboss

Posted
Posted
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.

 

 

 image.jpeg.88958b47c1d0572cc54ef8992ce76828.jpeg

 

 

 

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 Senior Enthusiast

customboss

Posted
Posted (edited)
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 by customboss
Correct my error
Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted

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. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
customboss Senior Enthusiast

customboss

Posted
Posted
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 Senior Enthusiast

customboss

Posted
Posted
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  

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Jake87
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jake87 · Posted

      I hope to high heaven this is wrong. My Chevy farm trucks frame is lasting way longer than a newer Nissan Titan XD I got for a steal, and it only pulls trailers. A decade younger and it's frame is already way rustier than the waxed Chevy I drive across longs and ditches. Also, hasn't Ford been having tones of troubles with rusted frames? 
    • Coastie05
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Coastie05 · Posted

      Batteries don’t always show signs of a few years ago my vehicle started fine in the morning and took me to work. After work the battery was completely dead and I needed a jump. No, I didn’t leave anything on and the battery was only a couple months old. It was replaced under warranty. 
    • Jake87
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jake87 · Posted

      AFM is confirmed in the Corvette engine, so I'm assuming the higher volume trucks will get it as well
    • NDKoze
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By NDKoze · Posted

      If his battery was that bad I would think it would have been showing signs before this that were ignored. Stinks that it happened the way it did in rush hour traffic, but this seems like a pretty fringe scenario. I don't mind it that bad and never turn it off. The only slight annoyance for me is the slight delay between brake to gas, but I have gotten used to it and figure if it can save a little gas why not.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That is a good correction. I think “severity” was probably the wrong word for what I meant. What I really mean is closer to event priority, relevance, and actionability — not “this code is severe” or “replace this part.” I agree that a truck can have a lot of trivial or historical communication codes, and if the product starts pushing alerts for every stored or low-value event, people will ignore it very quickly. So the alert logic would need to be filtered. For example, I would not want a random old communication code to generate a push notification by itself. A useful alert would probably need to be based on things like: - new vs historical - active vs stored - repeated vs one-time - duration of the event - whether it happened near the driver-marked symptom - whether it happened together with voltage drop, reset, bus-off, misfire, oil-pressure change, etc. - whether the same pattern repeats under similar conditions So instead of saying “severity,” maybe the product should organize events by affected system and priority. For example: Misfire event: Show misfire counts / roughness first, then fuel trims, RPM/load, DFM/AFM state if available, coolant/oil temp, voltage, and related DTCs. Oil-pressure event: Show oil pressure first, but only in context — RPM, load, oil temperature, coolant temperature, DFM/AFM state if available, voltage, and baseline comparison. Communication event: Show which module/network/message dropped, whether voltage dropped, whether the recorder reset, whether it was active or historical, and whether it repeated. Voltage/reset event: Show battery voltage, crank/wake/sleep state, module reset, communication dropouts, and what came back online first. That also solves the display-order problem you mentioned. The main report should not always show the same fixed list first. It should show the system that appears abnormal first, and then the supporting values for that system. I also agree that the truck already has an oil pressure gauge and MIL. The point would not be to duplicate those. The value would be in showing what else was happening before and after the warning or symptom. For example, if the MIL comes on for a misfire, the truck already told the driver there is a problem. The useful part would be: - which cylinder or bank looked abnormal first - whether it happened after an AFM/DFM transition - whether fuel trims were already moving - whether oil pressure or voltage changed at the same time - whether the same pattern happened previously without a MIL On the OBD port point, I think you may be right for a consumer-facing version. OBD is much easier for the average owner: - easier install - easier removal - inside the cabin - easier phone connection - easier data download - easier to include a pass-through port for another scanner OBD is also the right place for DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration information, Mode 6, and normal scan-tool parameters. The reason I was looking at ECM-side recording is that some events may be gone by the time someone plugs in a scanner, and some powertrain-side network evidence may not be available the same way through the DLC. But I agree that if an OBD-based version can capture enough useful evidence for most owners, that is probably the cleaner consumer product. Maybe the split is: - OBD/DLC version for most consumers - ECM-side version only if it proves it adds evidence that the OBD version cannot get - shop/pro version if deeper powertrain-side event evidence is actually useful So I would not want to force the inline approach if the OBD workflow solves most of the real-world problem. Your last point is probably the key product requirement: the report should be specific to the system showing the abnormality. Not “here are 50 parameters.” More like: “Misfire-related event detected. Here are the misfire/fuel/DFM/context values.” or “Oil-pressure-related event detected. Here is oil pressure compared with RPM/load/temp/baseline.” or “Communication event detected. Here is what dropped, when, and whether voltage/reset happened first.” That is a much better way to think about the report.

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...