Oil additives in 0w20

[KARNUT]

Maybe it’s where I lived during the seventies. The average life of a vehicle was 100K miles. About 10 years for older or low mileage drivers. Payment’s lasted 3 years so no one complained. Now most any vehicle will last 200K miles.  For most people that’s over 10 years even in Texas. Not many people keep a vehicle that long. My 20 year old truck runs like a champ but weird stuff goes out on it. Rubber brake lines, pristine leather seats are getting brittle. All the rubber gaskets are hardened. I only deal with it because it looks nice and I drive it 20 miles per day. I play my phone through a blue tooth speaker because only one speaker works in the truck. But it looks good and runs good. All on regular proscribed oil. Oil isn’t the problem time is. 

[Black02Silverado]

If oil has not improved over time, "better", then why change what isn't broke and why is synthetic now more the norm?

[Grumpy Bear]

10 minutes ago, Black02Silverado said:

If oil has not improved over time, "better", then why change what isn't broke and why is synthetic now more the norm?

 

Fair questions. You are familiar with boiling frogs in a pot? 

 

What do TRUE synthetics bring to the dance? For the same 100 C viscosity they improve the HTHS viscosity. They are more oxidation resistant. Can, in synergies, improve lubricity, or slickness and due to the high VI's of most reduce the amount of VI needed to span a particular grade. 

 

But Nick, this is in response to everything that is being taken away. Lower ZDDP levels, for example, reduce base oil oxidation resistance (they do the heavy lifting) so they TRADE one for the other instead of Synergizing a true improvement. That in response to REGULATION that is requiring lower phosphors levels. Ditto reduced Calcium levels. Often at the sacrifice of TBN which would lower OCI IF a synthetic base stock wasn't helping improve oxidation to begin with. So that is why more common and yet, not always. PAO is being replaced by Group III/III+ and a good dose of marketing 

 

As far a not fixing what ain't broke.....PROFIT MARGIN. You run a nice business. How do you like increases in your overhead? What is your response to that? 

 

The dog and pony show going on in lubrication is pathetic given the science we have. No new regulation that improves our daily life is made without an ROI. Someone is making a killing on the destruction of ICE. 

 

For every one thing they improve (base) they take away that advantage with less of something or a cheaper less effective alternative. (adds) they are in a race to the bottom of the drum.

 

Every generation forgets the past and like Lemmings MUST repeat their forefathers errors. Because hey, every 16 year old believes his fathers is out of touch and an idiot. Every 30 year old thinks those 70 are feeble minded old sots. 

 

Here's a question for you my friend. 

 

Why do people believe the person that lies to them with the greatest skill? With the biggest 'Branding". The largest marketing budget? The.....  

 

 

[customboss]

1 hour ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

Fair questions. You are familiar with boiling frogs in a pot? 

 

What do TRUE synthetics bring to the dance? For the same 100 C viscosity they improve the HTHS viscosity. They are more oxidation resistant. Can, in synergies, improve lubricity, or slickness and due to the high VI's of most reduce the amount of VI needed to span a particular grade. 

 

But Nick, this is in response to everything that is being taken away. Lower ZDDP levels, for example, reduce base oil oxidation resistance (they do the heavy lifting) so they TRADE one for the other instead of Synergizing a true improvement. That in response to REGULATION that is requiring lower phosphors levels. Ditto reduced Calcium levels. Often at the sacrifice of TBN which would lower OCI IF a synthetic base stock wasn't helping improve oxidation to begin with. So that is why more common and yet, not always. PAO is being replaced by Group III/III+ and a good dose of marketing 

 

As far a not fixing what ain't broke.....PROFIT MARGIN. You run a nice business. How do you like increases in your overhead? What is your response to that? 

 

The dog and pony show going on in lubrication is pathetic given the science we have. No new regulation that improves our daily life is made without an ROI. Someone is making a killing on the destruction of ICE. 

 

For every one thing they improve (base) they take away that advantage with less of something or a cheaper less effective alternative. (adds) they are in a race to the bottom of the drum.

 

Every generation forgets the past and like Lemmings MUST repeat their forefathers errors. Because hey, every 16 year old believes his fathers is out of touch and an idiot. Every 30 year old thinks those 70 are feeble minded old sots. 

 

Here's a question for you my friend. 

 

Why do people believe the person that lies to them with the greatest skill? With the biggest 'Branding". The largest marketing budget? The.....  

 

 

Amsoil is none of what you share above.  They are using new technologies that exceed the older formulations.  YES they offer API formulations that are licensed because of pushback from customers and OEM's.  That's business reality but if you run Signature Series 0w20 or other viscosities you are getting higher levels of a myriad additives blended with state of the art base oils that exceed the current standards.  They manage to make signature series higher SA content while leaving no pre ignition issues while your favorite Redline top of the line PAO majority formulation with a smaller cut of POE is using ancient technology additives.  

[Grumpy Bear]

3 minutes ago, customboss said:

Amsoil is none of what you share above.  They are using new technologies that exceed the older formulations.  YES they offer API formulations that are licensed because of pushback from customers and OEM's.  That's business reality but if you run Signature Series 0w20 or other viscosities you are getting higher levels of a myriad additives blended with state of the art base oils that exceed the current standards.  They manage to make signature series higher SA content while leaving no pre ignition issues while your favorite Redline top of the line PAO majority formulation with a smaller cut of POE is using ancient technology additives.  

 

That work.   D'ho! 

 

Just because something is new doesn't make it "Better". 

 

How did DeepSeek manage to out perform the industries newest chips, brightest minds and most advanced technology with 'ancient technology'?  Oh and for a fraction of the cost? 

 

PROFORMATIVE research. Actually honest to Pete RESEARCH whose objective was end performance result and not ROI. 

 

Remember, you brough this comparison crap up. (Sorry Nick)  AMSOIL's SS series is compromised by ROI . Red Line HP is not. (Yet) Both have other product lines to meet those demands so why does AMSOIL dilute their premium product? . 

 

I got a questioner from AMSOIL when I got my first order some years ago and I was asked what features of performance I would be willing to compromise to 1.) hold the price point. 2.) To lower the price point? 

 

There was no third option provided for improving the product at sacrificed cost to me. That one I would have taken. 

 

This indicated to me that Research done there is done to find the, like Mobil after the Castrol debacle, based on ROI first, performance second.

 

There's a confidence builder right there. 

 

MPT30K is high on my 'summer oil' radar. No compromise wear protection. They, like the others have more base products. And yet refuse to compromise on their premier series. I can be done. Amsoil is choosing a different path. The SS 5W30 attempts to reach the bottom of the HTHS barrel and rely on 'chemistry' instead.

 

In my world that is bass-akwards.  It's how most of the industry does it. So same old, same old in a pretty package and a hint of polarity. 

[Grumpy Bear]

Machinations II

 

Did we agree that 0W20 is a fuel economy move? That we would go lower but wear would make life so short they couldn't afford the warranty work. This hasn't been happening like setting that pot of frog on a blow torch. 

 

API Spec SAE 30. 100 C viscosity range 9.3 cSt to <12.5 cSt. 150C HTHS 2.9 cP minimum. 

Valvoline SAE 30. 100 C  10.3 cSt.  100 C HTHS 10.2 ish 150C HTHS 3.3 cP.  

Warren Oil 5W30 100 C  10.9 cSt 100 C HTHS 6.9 cP! 150 HTHS 3.2 cP 100C SSI is 9.4 cSt. 

 

That part in red is the viscosity the cam and lifter see. This is a SAE 20 with a 5W30 label and it's legal. 

 

AMSOIL SS 5W30 100 C  10.3 cSt. 150 C HTHS 3.1 cP

AMSOIL Euro 5W30 100 C  11.3 cSt 150 C HTHS 3.6 cP (Huston, a winner!) 

Red Line HP 5W30  100 C 11.9 cSt 150 C HTHS 3.7 cP (Competition is AMSOIL SS not EURO)

Red Line HP Euro 5W30 100 C 11.6 cSt 150 C HTHS 3.6 cP. 

 

I'd bet dollars to donuts that both of these brands use a Star polymer and have an SSI of 0. 

 

MPT30K 5W30 100 C 10.9 cSt 150 HTHS 3.9 cP. Also has a SSI of 0 and 100 C  HTHS shear loss of 0%

This one uses NO VII. 

 

Back in the day we had zero shear down because we didn't use VII's and reasonable HTHS values and SSI 0 results

 

Big Box Oils are chock full of low grade VI and in use, under shear are a grade lower than their label. THAT is how they get the Fuel number while the public is thinking this oil is so advanced we get better mileage from the same SAE Grade. Oh brother. 

 

Oh it's the same GRADE it just isn't the same viscosity...IN USE AT OPERATING CONDITIONS. 

 

Then the OEM increases the water temp, the oil temp and load and gets that viscosity lower and the film thinner. 

 

It has said SAE 5W30 on the bottle for decades but the vis has been on a slide to zero ever since. Partly by chemistry and partly by REGULATION. The SAE grades have gotten thinner the HTHS minimums lower and lower. 

 

I don't hate or love any particular brand but I use the ones I KNOW have the goods to get the job I WANT DONE, DONE. 

 

If Red Line, Torco and MPT all go belly up tomorrow then I go to the next best I can source and grade up. And when they take that option away the nest best I can find. At some point I ride a horse. But I won't swallow the being sold as technology. What I won't do is buy an inferior oil if I have a better choice. I don't base that on blender owned lab work. I do it on tear downs and running UOA/VOA's. 

 

This WILL mean that I WILL use some additives. ZDDP. And I'm not using a W20 that in use is a W10. 

Edited February 7, 2025 by Grumpy Bear

[Grumpy Bear]

Machinations III

 

Frogs boiled slow haven't a clue they are being boiled at all. In fact he just might ask you to pass the back brush and some of that body wash. Tell you how fine the water is and even how whatever is cooking on the stove really smells good. It's just their nature. 

 

Boiling the consumer slowly is the business of business. The art of marketing is getting the buyer to believe that this inferior product isn't just inferior, it's a game changer. 

 

Did you catch it? Last four words in that last paragraph. "It's a game changer." Say that with a wink and the right background music against a blue sky and you turn a negative into something positive. "A game changer" in no way means anything more than there has been a change. 

 

Tide Detergent was the first to advertise "New and Improved" when TSP was ban in laundry products. The statement is now and was then a deceit. It was new. The thing that made it work so well had been removed and replaced with less effective and yet more costly alternatives. And it did 'Improve" the outlook for our environment. Not a bad thing but not what the label implied either. A legally told LIE that turned the heat up on the water ever so slightly. To those that were not paying attention anyway. I remember my mother hitting the roof after the first load of the "New and Improved" and adding Borax and TSP back into the product. 

 

It would take more than a decade for the chemistry to catch up with the promise. But even today, what we have is only equal to, not surpassing. 

 

I only took two semesters of Marketing over 50 years ago, but I remember allot and I never looked at my world the same since. Kids, it's like living in a fish bowl of Guppies. 

 

That said, if you tell that frog he IS dinner and show him convincing proof and he still insist on his course then is that frog worth any continued effort. 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2025 by Grumpy Bear

[Black02Silverado]

22 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Machinations II

What I won't do is buy an inferior oil if I have a better choice. I don't base that on blender owned lab work. I do it on tear downs and running UOA/VOA's. 

 

 

So you buy the better oil then. Pretty much sum's it up.

[customboss]

On 2/6/2025 at 1:36 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

 

That work.   D'ho! 

 

Just because something is new doesn't make it "Better". 

 

How did DeepSeek manage to out perform the industries newest chips, brightest minds and most advanced technology with 'ancient technology'?  Oh and for a fraction of the cost? 

 

PROFORMATIVE research. Actually honest to Pete RESEARCH whose objective was end performance result and not ROI. 

 

Remember, you brough this comparison crap up. (Sorry Nick)  AMSOIL's SS series is compromised by ROI . Red Line HP is not. (Yet) Both have other product lines to meet those demands so why does AMSOIL dilute their premium product? . 

 

I got a questioner from AMSOIL when I got my first order some years ago and I was asked what features of performance I would be willing to compromise to 1.) hold the price point. 2.) To lower the price point? 

 

There was no third option provided for improving the product at sacrificed cost to me. That one I would have taken. 

 

This indicated to me that Research done there is done to find the, like Mobil after the Castrol debacle, based on ROI first, performance second.

 

There's a confidence builder right there. 

 

MPT30K is high on my 'summer oil' radar. No compromise wear protection. They, like the others have more base products. And yet refuse to compromise on their premier series. I can be done. Amsoil is choosing a different path. The SS 5W30 attempts to reach the bottom of the HTHS barrel and rely on 'chemistry' instead.

 

In my world that is bass-akwards.  It's how most of the industry does it. So same old, same old in a pretty package and a hint of polarity. 

Huh?

[Grumpy Bear]

17 minutes ago, Black02Silverado said:

So you buy the better oil then. Pretty much sum's it up.

 

While true in the strictest sense, the point was that; as I am accused of being blindly brand loyal that nothing could be further from the truth. I use what I use because I believe it to be the best I can afford and source. If I loose that source or it gets beyond my ability to pay then I go to the next on the list. I don't buy just any old thing marked Red Line. 

 

 

[Grumpy Bear]

1 minute ago, customboss said:

Huh?

 

I ain't that hard boss. 

[customboss]

22 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Machinations II

 

Did we agree that 0W20 is a fuel economy move? That we would go lower but wear would make life so short they couldn't afford the warranty work. This hasn't been happening like setting that pot of frog on a blow torch. 

 

API Spec SAE 30. 100 C viscosity range 9.3 cSt to <12.5 cSt. 150C HTHS 2.9 cP minimum. 

Valvoline SAE 30. 100 C  10.3 cSt.  100 C HTHS 10.2 ish 150C HTHS 3.3 cP.  

Warren Oil 5W30 100 C  10.9 cSt 100 C HTHS 6.9 cP! 150 HTHS 3.2 cP 100C SSI is 9.4 cSt. 

 

That part in red is the viscosity the cam and lifter see. This is a SAE 20 with a 5W30 label and it's legal. 

 

AMSOIL SS 5W30 100 C  10.3 cSt. 150 C HTHS 3.1 cP

AMSOIL Euro 5W30 100 C  11.3 cSt 150 C HTHS 3.6 cP (Huston, a winner!) 

Red Line HP 5W30  100 C 11.9 cSt 150 C HTHS 3.7 cP (Competition is AMSOIL SS not EURO)

Red Line HP Euro 5W30 100 C 11.6 cSt 150 C HTHS 3.6 cP. 

 

I'd bet dollars to donuts that both of these brands use a Star polymer and have an SSI of 0. 

 

MPT30K 5W30 100 C 10.9 cSt 150 HTHS 3.9 cP. Also has a SSI of 0 and 100 C  HTHS shear loss of 0%

This one uses NO VII. 

 

Back in the day we had zero shear down because we didn't use VII's and reasonable HTHS values and SSI 0 results

 

Big Box Oils are chock full of low grade VI and in use, under shear are a grade lower than their label. THAT is how they get the Fuel number while the public is thinking this oil is so advanced we get better mileage from the same SAE Grade. Oh brother. 

 

Oh it's the same GRADE it just isn't the same viscosity...IN USE AT OPERATING CONDITIONS. 

 

Then the OEM increases the water temp, the oil temp and load and gets that viscosity lower and the film thinner. 

 

It has said SAE 5W30 on the bottle for decades but the vis has been on a slide to zero ever since. Partly by chemistry and partly by REGULATION. The SAE grades have gotten thinner the HTHS minimums lower and lower. 

 

I don't hate or love any particular brand but I use the ones I KNOW have the goods to get the job I WANT DONE, DONE. 

 

If Red Line, Torco and MPT all go belly up tomorrow then I go to the next best I can source and grade up. And when they take that option away the nest best I can find. At some point I ride a horse. But I won't swallow the being sold as technology. What I won't do is buy an inferior oil if I have a better choice. I don't base that on blender owned lab work. I do it on tear downs and running UOA/VOA's. 

 

This WILL mean that I WILL use some additives. ZDDP. And I'm not using a W20 that in use is a W10. 

Why use a more viscous lubricant if the design doesn’t require it? You have engine test data and UOA to correlate. I did. 

[customboss]

5 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Machinations III

 

Frogs boiled slow haven't a clue they are being boiled at all. In fact he just might ask you to pass the back brush and some of that body wash. Tell you how fine the water is and even how whatever is cooking on the stove really smells good. It's just their nature. 

 

Boiling the consumer slowly is the business of business. The art of marketing is getting the buyer to believe that this inferior product isn't just inferior, it's a game changer. 

 

Did you catch it? Last four words in that last paragraph. "It's a game changer." Say that with a wink and the right background music against a blue sky and you turn a negative into something positive. "A game changer" in no way means anything more than there has been a change. 

 

Tide Detergent was the first to advertise "New and Improved" when TSP was ban in laundry products. The statement is now and was then a deceit. It was new. The thing that made it work so well had been removed and replaced with less effective and yet more costly alternatives. And it did 'Improve" the outlook for our environment. Not a bad thing but not what the label implied either. A legally told LIE that turned the heat up on the water ever so slightly. To those that were not paying attention anyway. I remember my mother hitting the roof after the first load of the "New and Improved" and adding Borax and TSP back into the product. 

 

It would take more than a decade for the chemistry to catch up with the promise. But even today, what we have is only equal to, not surpassing. 

 

I only took two semesters of Marketing over 50 years ago, but I remember allot and I never looked at my world the same since. Kids, it's like living in a fish bowl of Guppies. 

 

That said, if you tell that frog he IS dinner and show him convincing proof and he still insist on his course then is that frog worth any continued effort. 

 

 

I’m not a frog. I’m a retired chem engineer. 

[customboss]

1 minute ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

I ain't that hard boss. 

Too verbose. Get to your point with less glitter language. We both want same thing. 

[Grumpy Bear]

4 hours ago, customboss said:

Too verbose. Get to your point with less glitter language. We both want same thing. 

 

Three in a row. You look desperate. 

 

You my friend are indeed a frog. The Kool-Aid drinking variety. 

 

Question. If I have a spot of rust on my fender should I park on the tracks and let the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe run over it and see what I can make of the pieces afterwards?

 

4 hours ago, customboss said:

Why use a more viscous lubricant if the design doesn’t require it?

 

And there it is.... MISTER you are smarter than that.  Get out of your head and THINK. How smooth can a surface get before it will no longer "WETS". That number was know before 1939. There is a MINIMUM HTHS for MAXIUM WEAR ABATEMENT. It hasn't changed in about 85 years. And it never will. REGULATION however will. And has. And acts in opposition to WEAR. Hardness, yes, also know since WWII. WT**** Terry.

 

 

Edited February 8, 2025 by Grumpy Bear