Another oil thread

[diyer2]

[customboss]

 

[Grumpy Bear]

Viscosity Matters 

 

 

Latest data on newest project motor. Aluminum hits zero. Iron continues it's decline well below historical data. Total wear metals are a fraction of the Universal Averages by MUTIPLES. 20% of industry standards! A fraction of the data driven RESULTS for the platform. (Green lines/dots are the motor under test). 

 

Normalized to ppm/K miles. Apples to apples. 

 

Each increase in HTHS produces a lower wear rate. Zero impact on fuel economy. Yes, there's a trick to that. Lubricity.

 

GM blew up the idea that more viscosity would impede the hydraulic functions of their fancy cam/valve manipulation schemes when authorizing the use of 0W40 6.2's.  

 

 

[Grumpy Bear]

Listen carefully to what constitutes 'better oil' in this video. 15 through 20 seconds in. 

 

Then the claim is GF7  15% better than GF6. Raven, my Mitsubishi, which has averaged 54 mpg over 22K miles using 5W40 should be propelled to 62 mpg .... No wait that apples and pears. Perhaps closer to 70 mpg once one moves down two SAE oil grades which would net something equally phenomenal. 

 

I'm kidding, Seriously, I'm kidding. It's already getting north of 35% better milage than the EPA estimates based on 0W20 using 40 weights. 

 

There are questions no one is asking that play a bigger part than trading wear for mpg. 

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2025 by Grumpy Bear

[Grumpy Bear]

"Ravenol VST 5W40" 

 

Another PAO/Ester ACEA C3 and Porsche A40 oil on my radar.  

 

One source from 2024 put the oxidation value at 26 abs/cm. 

Use a little 0-5 SSI polymer and very shear stable. 

 

Likely won't clean a motor but will keep a clean one clean and this combination is pretty darn slippery. (Natural Lubricity) 

 

Pricy in the USA

Edited June 27, 2025 by Grumpy Bear

[Black02Silverado]

On 6/8/2025 at 12:25 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

Listen carefully to what constitutes 'better oil' in this video. 15 through 20 seconds in. 

 

Then the claim is GF7  15% better than GF6. Raven, my Mitsubishi, which has averaged 54 mpg over 22K miles using 5W40 should be propelled to 62 mpg .... No wait that apples and pears. Perhaps closer to 70 mpg once one moves down two SAE oil grades which would net something equally phenomenal. 

 

I'm kidding, Seriously, I'm kidding. It's already getting north of 35% better milage than the EPA estimates based on 0W20 using 40 weights. 

 

There are questions no one is asking that play a bigger part than trading wear for mpg. 

 

 

 

Not questioning anything, but there has to be some gain in mpg using a 0w-20, even a super small gain for manufacturers stating to use it in their vehicles all in the name of CAFE.  That to me is whole reason for it so they can please the CAFE people.

[KARNUT]

1 hour ago, Black02Silverado said:

Not questioning anything, but there has to be some gain in mpg using a 0w-20, even a super small gain for manufacturers stating to use it in their vehicles all in the name of CAFE.  That to me is whole reason for it so they can please the CAFE people.

Same with cylinder deactivation. Lots of nonsense so the manufacturers can show cumulative gains. They admitted  during the chip shortage as written on window sticker. There was a 50$ rebate. On trucks without the chip to turn it on. 

[Grumpy Bear]

2 hours ago, Black02Silverado said:

Not questioning anything, but there has to be some gain in mpg using a 0w-20, even a super small gain for manufacturers stating to use it in their vehicles all in the name of CAFE.  That to me is whole reason for it so they can please the CAFE people.

 

Hi Nick:

 

Valid observation and within a very limited context this is true. 

 

 

The above is the customary formula used to figure the degree of gain (or loss) when comparing an oil against a traditional SAE 40. If your reference is another standard then replace 3.7 with that number. 

 

The problem is that this formula compares apples to apples within a FIXED chemistry and other base oils and lubricity additives are an entire basket of different fruits. The SAE being who they are and the OEM's being who they are compare apples to apples by 'rule'. That is a Dexos licensed oil must meet not just performance standards but base stock "Read Across" as well and live withing those values. Apples to apples. Consistency is the point of the license. It's why it doesn't matter much who's oil you use if it has a paid Dexos approval. 

 

Oils that do not and are not restricted to those guardrails can and most certainly do use combinations whose lubricity places them in the oranges, pineapples and banana basket comparisons. Each can be compared by the formula only to another fruit of kind.

 

Here is an easy one that everyone should be able to grip as I know others will read this as well. 

 

The statement goes "SAE 20 will give better fuel economy that a SAE 30" Blanket statement. Lets work with that.

 

2 hours ago, Black02Silverado said:

there has to be some gain in mpg using a 0w-20,

 

HPL Premium PCMO 0W20 has a HTHS of 2.76 and a 100 C of 8.87 cSt and uses a shear stable VM polymer 0-8 SSI

Kirkland 5W30 has a HTHS of 3.2 cP and a 100 C viscosity of 10.91 cSt but uses the most unstable polymer (cheap) made and has a 100 C HS viscosity of 6.9 cP! A density of .8457 puts the 100 C viscosity at 8.1416 cSt. Lets' recap

 

HPL Premium 20 weight 100 C HS density corrected viscosity of or 8.82 cSt at a maximum of a 5% loss

 

Kirkland 30 weight is 8.15 cSt

 

The 30 weight is less viscous than 20 weight everywhere in the motor but the rings. 

 

Rings account for only 37% of a motors internal friction and that formula from above accounts for only that drag. 

 

The lower 100 C viscosity in the sited case it what the other 63% of the drag is working with. So the SAE 30 in this case runs freer on just viscosity than the 20 weight. 

 

This is one of the reasons for the DEXOS standard. Every oil that has a license uses the same stuff, base, adds and VM's. It's the only way they can pass a CAFE standard test procedure.

 

Nick there are combinations of base than net lower friction just on NATURAL lubricity. POE blended with a POA has a huge impact on NATURAL lubricity and that base oil is not approved, no read across, for the API SP license and I have run across an oil yet that has a Dexos license and doesn't have an SAE approval.

 

Bottom line, combine EVERY feature of the lubricant in question and you can find situations were 2 or 3 grades heavier lose nothing in fuel economy but add HUGE to wear control.

 

*****************************************

 

Nicks question is the best example I've seen, lately, of a person holding a belief firmly and yet being open to the possibility there is more to learn and asking the question because he wants the truth and not an argument to "Be Right".

 

Thank you Nick. 

Edited June 28, 2025 by Grumpy Bear

[Grumpy Bear]

Interesting

 

[OnTheReel]

54 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Interesting

 

3 pack of 5 quart jugs for ~$105 on Amazon. PAO/Ester, nice HTHS. Red Line-ish blend for less than half price? 
 

Honestly seems like great value so I’m wondering what the catch is.

[customboss]

7 hours ago, OnTheReel said:

3 pack of 5 quart jugs for ~$105 on Amazon. PAO/Ester, nice HTHS. Red Line-ish blend for less than half price? 
 

Honestly seems like great value so I’m wondering what the catch is.

It’s crap. Don’t use this. Some dude in Dallas home mixing Chinese constituents. 

[customboss]

8 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Interesting

 

Blender makes this himself and writes whatever he chooses for specs. 

[Grumpy Bear]

Weird

 

Some of the data sheets look like the are AI generated and lots of mistakes

Just like the spec sheets from BioSynthetic

 

Edited June 30, 2025 by Grumpy Bear

[Grumpy Bear]

9 hours ago, OnTheReel said:

3 pack of 5 quart jugs for ~$105 on Amazon. PAO/Ester, nice HTHS. Red Line-ish blend for less than half price? 
 

Honestly seems like great value so I’m wondering what the catch is.

 

Hope not to offend with this question. They have multiple lines of products. Are you looking at the right product? It's like $14 a quart direct. 

 

If yes, then there is another possible non-Nationalistic explanation. There are allot of types of esters and there are an unlimited number of blend ratios. Ester are the big end of the $$$$ blending stick and many blenders touting Ester are doing the old Pennzoil Pennzane trick. That was one of the first PAO's. About 1/2% PAO in a Group III.

 

Here's one I have data on. AMSOIL SS 0W20 tested 6/4/2025, very recent, Oxidation value? 48.3 vs Red Line HP 5W30 at an oxidation value of 93.  My RL Euro run low 80's. I haven't looked at the AMSOIL values for a long time but last I remember it was in the middle 60 range and I've seen Red Line over 100. Everyone is scaling back. TRIAX could be a 2% blend and still legally make the claim. 

 

Tell what this mini dive has done for me. Restore my confidence in the AMSOIL SS line. 

 

Anyway, I think, if my thought has any value, would be buy one quart and have it tested by someone that runs Oxidation. Until then I'm shying away. At least until there is some third party data that inspires confidence. 

 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2025 by Grumpy Bear

[Grumpy Bear]

TRIAX

 

I've found ONE UOA on this product, their LX 5W30 and it's from 2020. Guy running it in a Ford 3.6 Ecoboost. 7K OCI an it held up well and give decent wear numbers. I found a few long time users that seem to like their products as well. Several with hundreds of thousands of miles using the SRT line. Found nothing with an oxidation value but did see a mention using the word "low'. 

 

Strikingly there is darn little independent information and boatloads of HATE for this outfit from those who haven't any ability to show receipts for their claims. 

 

Last time I heard Terry talk about this product he was claiming this was repackaged product from some Eastern European country like Romania or Serbia. Now I hear China?.... What I hear is allot of hate without proof of a foul. 

 

Point is, I haven't tested it. Don't know anyone who has and all there is to go on is gossip. Not the kind of data I tend to rely on.