OCI, not when but why?

jwhjr · January 10

On 1/8/2026 at 10:44 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

An alligator is wearing a green suit and shades. I laugh and remark on how difficult it must be for the gator to dress himself and comment so. Everyone knows what an alligator is and yet fully half the respondents will declare it to be a kangaroo. Will rasp on for pages in some ridiculous irrational attempt to 'Say a thing in to Truth'. Create 'new' science, redefine natural law.... Attempts to discredit anyone who plainly sees the gator (truth)...Very popular these days in all circles. Figures don't lie but liars figure and if you can't tell the difference it's felt that it's worth promoting for who know what reasons. I am no longer interested in exploring those irrational reasonings.

That's some serious cray-cray.

It’s truly a testament to your focus that you’ve managed to turn a suit-wearing reptile into a sweeping indictment of modern epistemology. Most people would probably assume the 'kangaroo' crowd was just making a joke, but your commitment to treating a hypothetical reptile as a literal battleground for the soul of objective truth is... deeply committed.

Grumpy Bear · January 10

2 hours ago, jwhjr said:

Most people would probably assume the 'kangaroo' crowd was just making a joke,

A story is told as a joke is a thing told by an individual to a crowd for a laugh. When the crowd is telling the story it's a belief system. I like a good 'two drink minimum' routine as much as anyone. This ain't that.

And sir, I didn't come up with the idea: Isaiah 5:20

Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good, Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness, Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Grumpy Bear · February 12

OIT

Oxidation Induction Time by PDSC (ASTM D6186) is a method to determine oxidation resistance of motor oils in the laboratory. You can find and read the method on your own time if it interests you. I did. For PCMO and HDMO this test is carried out at 392 F (200C) and under pressure and in a oxygen rich atmosphere. Every part of that is done to aid in repeatability and reliability of the results. However, it also means it doesn’t have any 1:1 relationship in practice in your vehicle. What we can say is that better is better and worse is worse. How that translates into practice (OCI) in your vehicle is determined by the minutia of the service it is placed into.

Influencing this ‘time’ are the usual cast of characters; base oil type and type and amount of antioxidants as well as temperature, moisture and metal catalyst. Much of that is under your control and some of it is induced by your environment.

Lake Speed Jr. made a rather big deal out of this in his latest round of videos where he showcased PDSC and TEOST, KRL and so on and using a ‘weighted’ method to come to some conclusions as to the suitability of a particular oil to a particular service.

17 to 80 minutes is the range of normal based on base oil type and antioxidant levels, with 17 to 40 minutes on average for Group I and Group II bases and 40 to 80 minutes on average for Group III and better bases. The only oil on his list that didn’t get past 40 minutes was Driven LS, a mineral based stock with little antioxidant past the ZDDP levels. So limited use of hindered amines, i.e. The effectiveness of ZDDP as an antioxidant is inversely proportional to it’s effectiveness as an antiwear agent and subject to its exact chemistry.

Liquid Moly is also aberrant as a Group II/III blend in breaching 40 minutes. Likely majority Group III and a good dose of antioxidants.

Then we have AMSOILS SS breaching the expected values of even Group IV/V fluids by a smidgen. Alkylated Napthine? Hinder Amine? Whatever the cause, it worked out to lead the Synthetics.

Then we have a true outlier. High Performance Lubricants No-VII decimating the field at 117.61 minutes. Also, a Group IV/V-(AN) with a strong oxidation package. But really letting it blow the lid off is the fact it is devoid of VM’s! The weakest link and easiest to oxidize part of most PCMO’s is the polymeric viscosity improver package.

Grumpy Bear · March 13

Raven

Green Line

It would be hard to imagine a lower total wear rate than this and I'm very comfortable with an OCI of 3,750 miles. 6K km.

After getting a VOA on the new chemistry of the Red Line HP Euro 5W40 I think somewhere between this value and 5K miles is about far enough. Red Line has reduced the TBN value in compliance with the newest ACEA C4 standard for SAP and TBN which now stands at 6 KOH/gr by ASTM D2896-11 leaving the D4739 method registering 5.05 KOH/gr.

Under the old values I ran this oil routinely to 5K in American motors and 7,500 in Asian equipment without crossover.

Although tests show me that I can reach 5K in the summer it is a stretch in the winter and me being me I like it simple.

To the point. OCI is FOUND and is equipment and fluid choice centric. Blanket statements don't work.

Grumpy Bear · March 17

ZDDP isn't going anywhere

https://www.stle.org/files/TLTArchives/2022/01_January/Cover_Story.aspx

[quote from link above] STLE member Vince Gatto of Vanderbilt Chemicals LLC says, “In engine oils, ZDDP functions by forming various glassy polyphosphate films, which are very effective at reducing wear but not very good at reducing friction. Molybdenum dithiocarbamates function in a way that synergizes with ZDDP by producing more durable friction reducing MoS₂ tribofilms.¹⁰ Replenishment of the MoS₂ tribofims is enhanced by ligand exchange between ZDDP and MoDTC.” [close quote]

I found this STLE article while going down the low ash rabbit hole and was but one of many very interesting items I ran across.

Grumpy Bear · March 17

Take notes on the last four oils in this video and the EXACT wording used.

Grumpy Bear · March 17

VI index as an indicator or base oil type

Some values were given in the video above to use as a guide in determining base oil type. That was not well researched.

Problem: The numbers he gave are indicative of 'neat base' oils. Here is the SAE values

Group I 95 - 105

Group II 95 - 118

Group III 123 - 150

Group IV > 135

Group V has no range

Pull the data sheet for Kirkland's Signature 5W30 and you will see the value of 169 and yet that oil is straight up a Group III

So what's the what-what with that?

The numbers you read on these PDS sheets are after formulation into finished products and not the neat values he gives in the video.

His values are:

Group III 120 - 135

Group IV 140 - 180

Fully formulated oils have the VI determined on the base AND the Viscosity Modifier together. PPD is not part of this as the VI is a measurement of the viscosity delta between 40C and 100C.

His values don't hold. Let's compare Kirkland's Group III value with AMSOIL SS in the same weight, 5W30 and Red Line HP 5W30, both PAO/Ester blends

Kirkland 169

AMSOIL 162

Red Line 166

Compare the pour points and CCS values and they still look the same. Then look a volitility and you see something.

Red Line 6 NOACK

AMSOIL 6.7

Kirkland 12% or about double.

Kirkland starts with a very light Group III base to give low pour point and a small CCS value that also gives it a very high NOACK and then stuffs a bunch of very high molecular weight viscosity modifier in it to reach the high VI value they can thus display.

Ya can't rely on a single piece of information to find out anything about pretty much anything. :idiot:

Just because someone is making money on clickbait doesn't mean the information is grounded. This one even passed a few rounds of scrutiny.

Grumpy Bear · March 22

Finally a long term teardown.

HTHS on this oil is 3.3 cP. Impressive. It is not on the Dexos list of approved oils.

Homer1959 · March 22

On 3/17/2026 at 11:39 AM, Grumpy Bear said:

Take notes on the last four oils in this video and the EXACT wording used.

A long time ago, a tribologist IIRC at Sopus told me to stop focusing mainly on the base oil and to pay more attention to the additive package—that’s where the real substance is. Regarding base oil I beleive I can say that Oil company are like politicians,They are not there to primarily serve your interests.

Homer1959 · March 22

Any reason to not using valvoline clean and protect all the time ?

Grumpy Bear · March 22

6 hours ago, Homer1959 said:

Any reason to not using valvoline clean and protect all the time ?

None I can think of with appropriate OCI.

Grumpy Bear · March 22

6 hours ago, Homer1959 said:

A long time ago, a tribologist IIRC at Sopus told me to stop focusing mainly on the base oil and to pay more attention to the additive package—that’s where the real substance is. Regarding base oil I beleive I can say that Oil company are like politicians,They are not there to primarily serve your interests.

It's not an ether or situation. Those same people use the phrase "Fully Formulated Oil". Interesting, right? They quote the one that favors the direction the wind is blowing in that argument.

Focusing on one half the formulation exclusively is a purposeful distraction. Deliberately isolating a feature is kind of the point of marketing. So...correct. They are self serving. Marketing will promote what makes the best margin not the best product.

There are about a half dozen blenders that are truly bent on the excellence of the product and it's performance. Even these have products in their line that will stoop to commercial lows. Price point products rather that performance point products. Then, there are hundreds of blenders attempting to drown them in such nonsense like unwanted kittens. Cat's in the bag, bag's in the river. All they sell is margin.

I don't expect anyone to agree with my views. I also don't accept views with an evil design on my kittens. :driving:

Grumpy Bear · March 23

Fully Formulated

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say a motor will run longer on a pure base oil that it will on a pure commercial chemical additive. But I'd also agree that additives bring allot to the party...or can.

Now that said a fully formulated oil isn't a specific chemistry when viewed over time and yet can be very conforming within a specification. Confusing? Think of comparing the current SAE SQ specification the the antiquated SAE SA spec. SA is a neat mineral oil without any additives and was the stuff grandfather used if you're are old enough to be a grandfather yourself.

If you think base oil doesn't matter give this chart below a gander. Licensing for certification has a lot of limits on it and yet enough to to make a performance difference. Now concentrate on that last column. Group V interchanges are not permitted without recertification. Thing is the magic happens in the Group V category. Esters and Alkylated Naphthalene are Group V materials as is whatever Valvoline is using in R&P.

The SAE certification bar is set pretty low. Will it get it through warranty and EPA requirements. Period. Both most blenders and the OEM's are looking for MARGIN and will use the lowest base on this list that will pass that low bar. Problem is that it sets the limits for every other blender who has the money to blend and market but not to spend the millions to test each new specification. SO....they copy each other varying only by the degree allowed in this chart.

That kids is a LOT of head space for a competent blender to play in to make a better mousetrap IF he is willing to either spend the money to have it tested OR go to market without the certifications. Nothing demands a certification but the warranty and then ONLY if the OEM can prove that exercising that latitude was the direct cause of an oil related failure.

The same thing is true when it comes to the additive package. EXACT same thing is true.

https://www.swri.org/markets/automotive-transportation/locomotive/large-engine-testing aka SwRI is a private lab that does certification. XOM (Exxon/Mobil) and Ashland (Valvoline) are the only two blenders in North America that have the ability to certify a licensed oil. EVERYONE else copies or pays.

It isn't "All about the additives" and it's not "All about the base oils".

It's about the formulation and NOT the certifications.

Edited March 23 by Grumpy Bear

Homer1959 · March 23

7 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Fully Formulated

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say a motor will run longer on a pure base oil that it will on a pure commercial chemical additive. But I'd also agree that additives bring allot to the party...or can.

Now that said a fully formulated oil isn't a specific chemistry when viewed over time and yet can be very conforming within a specification. Confusing? Think of comparing the current SAE SQ specification the the antiquated SAE SA spec. SA is a neat mineral oil without any additives and was the stuff grandfather used if you're are old enough to be a grandfather yourself.

If you think base oil doesn't matter give this chart below a gander. Licensing for certification has a lot of limits on it and yet enough to to make a performance difference. Now concentrate on that last column. Group V interchanges are not permitted without recertification. Thing is the magic happens in the Group V category. Esters and Alkylated Naphthalene are Group V materials as is whatever Valvoline is using in R&P.

The SAE certification bar is set pretty low. Will it get it through warranty and EPA requirements. Period. Both most blenders and the OEM's are looking for MARGIN and will use the lowest base on this list that will pass that low bar. Problem is that it sets the limits for every other blender who has the money to blend and market but not to spend the millions to test each new specification. SO....they copy each other varying only by the degree allowed in this chart.

That kids is a LOT of head space for a competent blender to play in to make a better mousetrap IF he is willing to either spend the money to have it tested OR go to market without the certifications. Nothing demands a certification but the warranty and then ONLY if the OEM can prove that exercising that latitude was the direct cause of an oil related failure.

The same thing is true when it comes to the additive package. EXACT same thing is true.

https://www.swri.org/markets/automotive-transportation/locomotive/large-engine-testing aka SwRI is a private lab that does certification. XOM (Exxon/Mobil) and Ashland (Valvoline) are the only two blenders in North America that have the ability to certify a licensed oil. EVERYONE else copies or pays.

It isn't "All about the additives" and it's not "All about the base oils".

It's about the formulation and NOT the certifications.

Referring to my post, I should mention that I really condensed the discussion I had with the SOPUS rep. In short, he didn’t say that base oil isn’t important, only that it’s far from being the sole factor in making a good product. Personally, I understood that a good HC or GNL base oil is more than sufficient as long as the additive package is a solid one. Like with anything, it's the sum of components in a product that makes it good, good enough, or very good. Can you find an oil with an excellent base oil, even a Group IV, but with a weak add pack? I’m not sure, but I think if we look hard enough, we might come across a Group III that performs better thanks to a stronger add pack. I may be wrong , that happened before

Grumpy Bear · March 24

6 hours ago, Homer1959 said:

Referring to my post, I should mention that I really condensed the discussion I had with the SOPUS rep. In short, he didn’t say that base oil isn’t important, only that it’s far from being the sole factor in making a good product. Personally, I understood that a good HC or GNL base oil is more than sufficient as long as the additive package is a solid one. Like with anything, it's the sum of components in a product that makes it good, good enough, or very good. Can you find an oil with an excellent base oil, even a Group IV, but with a weak add pack? I’m not sure, but I think if we look hard enough, we might come across a Group III that performs better thanks to a stronger add pack. I may be wrong , that happened before

I can find no error in your response. Sure, anything is possible. But let me run this by you.

6 hours ago, Homer1959 said:

I understood that a good HC or GNL base oil is more than sufficient as long as the additive package is a solid one.

Referring to the red bold underlined section. That implies SOPUS knows exactly what sufficient IS and can quantify it. It also says that whatever this IS and as far down the ladder of real possibility is may lie beneath what can BE it will exceed by MORE than was it required. So....ask I ask you....what level of wear, of cleanliness of corrosion protection, of thermal properties is SUFFICIENT for you and why anyone but the end user should be allowed to determine what they DESERVE?

Let me be so bold as to answer that for you. API/ILSAC/ACEA and the OEM's are telling us what is sufficient protection and yet that level they have determined as sufficient is FAILING. Not to adequately service the warranty and their margins but to provide a level of protection that benefits' the end user which other than their back account they could care less about. I know this just on a cleanliness basis by the SAE test requirements and acceptable levels of deposit formation.

So yes, a Group II/III blend with a robust package that will pass the SAE certifications and the OEM licensing requirements will indeed provide a level that will get the powertrain past whatever dismally low length of time and miles they warranty the product is for (their bar for Sufficient) and it will do so with a level of 'acceptable' failures that will keep the bean counters in happy land. Courts are full of oil related ring failure class action law suits.

SOPUS did not error in statement. It errors in judgement and it does so willingly and at the end users expense for gain. It is a business run by the same greed as most other business. I took the same marketing classes they take. LOL.

But rest assured. On base oil alone, the statement that a Group II/II+/III/III+/GTL is equivalent to or better than a PAO/POE/AN is a bold faced LIE. The statement that a well formulated Group III with and excellent add package can outperform a POA with a crap add pack is a "Strawman argument". Is it possible, yes, but...can you find me an example? I don't think so, I know so. Not in any 'recognized' brand name product.

Here are a few easy examples. A Group III has a possible range of viscosity that lies between 4 and 8 cSt. GTL is even lower https://www.stle.org/files/TLTArchives/2015/11_November/Worldwide.aspx Shell sells only the 3 cSt oil to the market. So to build a *W30 some VII will be required. However blends of POA/mPOA can yield the full viscosity range without any VII for many grades and much less in the widest ranges. And it will do so with a neat VI high enough to use a fraction of the VII's.

Then there is the thermal capacity and thermal transfer rates. PAO's excel in both allowing most gear boxes to run 15 F cooler.

Both are non polar and require some co-base to reach an aniline point low enough to hold that 'robust' add package. For Group III's that is a Group I or Group II or both sacrificing almost all advantage the Group III's bring. OR a PAO blended with a POE or AN will yield not just a lower add pack with greater solubility but greatly enhance, by synergies, both lubricity and oxidation resistance. The addition of the Ester also dramatically enhances the film strength (HTHS) for the same grade viscosity and in nearly every case the SSI will be MUCH lower than anything one can whip up with a mineral oil derived base.

Lastly a low VII product with an robust Ester or AN co-base will keep it assembly day clean for as long as you wish to run it PROVIDED a reasonable OCI. It doesn't have a 'required minimum deposit level".

Now all that blather aside. I take no issue with anyone pouring Mineral based 'syn' oil into their motor and running it for whatever OEM dictated OCI's are run. Not my dog, not my fight and not my wallet.

Don't be tricked by slick marketing even from the majors. I worked in Research for several Majors. They ALL lie. they don't make money by using the most expensive high performance products. They use the cheapest crap they can and tell you "It is just as good".

Marketing is the business of the most profitable artful lie.