Some Assembly is Required

customboss · December 19, 2025

8 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Can it be assembled?

A Rubik's Cube is challenging to solve because it has over 43 quintillion possible configurations, but only one correct solution.

Hold that thought!

Google this SAE paper title and read the introduction:

In the intro it is acknowledged that there is a relationship between wear and fuel efficiency/Green House Gas generation. It also CLEARLY states that the latter, efficiency, carries more weight than the former, wear.

Buy it, read it. If you do you are going to find that 'designing a motor from the ground up for low HTHS' isn't as much about design and it is about goal post moving. Unlike a Rubik Cube and running motor doesn't have one correct solution. It has no correct solution. It only has margins around an acceptable result. It also has not 43 quintillion possible configurations or positions but and infinite number.

This is why Rafe Britton says in his viscosity series: [quote] The main significance of HTHS viscosity is its ability to indicate the oil’s performance in maintaining a protective film between moving parts under high stress and temperature. Oils with higher HTHS viscosity values provide better protection against wear and reduce friction, which is essential for engine longevity and efficiency. However, higher HTHS viscosity can also result in increased fuel consumption. [close quote]

Two take aways in Rafe's comment. The word BETTER PROTECTION. Odd choice adjectives. He didn't say prevent. If the motor is going to run it's going to wear. Higher HTHS reaches further into the margins. What does that mean?

Means it will prevent things from touching other moving things at LOWER SPEEDS, at HIGHER LOADS, at HIGHER TEMPERATURES and this isn't taking about when the motor is being abused. All within a single normal down the road revolution. That piston comes to a dead stop at each end of the stroke. What happens to Hersey at a velocity of zero?

HTHS and ring tension hysteresis prevent collapse of the film thickness reducing the wear kiss that no surface finish or hardness will eliminate. And yes adds protection during harsher environments such as fuel dilution and towing. Protection as Rafe uses the word is relative to all conditions during a cycle. More area under the curve.

I said there were two. His second went unsaid but implied in that last sentence. However, higher HTHS viscosity can also result in increased fuel consumption. (higher FRICTION) Same word he used in the opposite in the preceding sentence: higher HTHS viscosity values provide better protection against wear and reduce friction,

People seem to have a problem separating the wear friction of surface ON surface contact with the internal fluid friction of viscosity. They are OPPOSITE ends of the Stribeck Curve and why Lake Jr makes such a point in saying wear and friction are NOT mutually exclusive.

Designing a motor for low viscosity oil would require a smoother or harder surface or both. Even then it doesn't eliminate wear. It utilizes more of the margins. It does not eliminate the margin. It's a frog trying to reach a wall by jumping half way there with each attempt. Motors are not Rubik cubes.

Increases in hardness invite fractures as the surface becomes brittle. Reductions in surface finishes inhibit 'wetting'. Both have been known and maximized since WWII. Stellite and Hard Chrome over tool steel cam cores (Now Ceramic DLH coatings) and single quartz light band flat finishes at zero micron have been done.

Most of what makes a motor 'designed for it' is altering expectations of the end user.

Toyota KNOWS nothing bad happens when you use 0W20 oil in their CROWN 'designed for 0W8. They don't even supply the dealers with 0W8. They offer 0W16 as a suitable substitute and allow 0W20 in the manual. To do that the motor was EPA qualified on 0W20. This designed thing is word salad that can be impossible to assemble until the scales come off the eyes.

What viscosity grade does this guy use?

customboss · December 20, 2025

Hydraulic fluid = engine oil. AGREED with this video.
Dont add additives.

Grumpy Bear · December 21, 2025

Subassemblies

When you are looking at a Stribeck curve you are not looking at THE Stribeck curve but rather A Stribeck Curve.

Every point plotted to make the curve is unique to that moment in time where load, velocity and viscosity are frozen. Thing is, if it were grafted that way it look like bird shot on a paper target. So...they are draw to display 'cycles' and each moving part has it's own pattern. Makes it easier to understand and yet it eludes minds quite easily.

Reciprocating motion, piston/rings/bore move constantly left to right to left with a few hiccups tossed in for nonlinear velocity increased/decreases.

Cam/roller start left and move right and stay right but not static as velocity and load change over a single revolution.

Main/cam bearing come closes starting left and moving right and staying there within a smaller zone dictated by load/viscosity/temperature.

Rod small ends oscillate.

Rod big ends rotate concentric with the mains but vacillate in direction relative to each other. Not smooth rotation. Kind of like a differential going around a corner. The also have the most load swing as graphed by GM and shown in Smokey's "Hot to Hotrod the Small Block Chevy" It's cool if you ever get a chance to read a copy.

When I use the word 'margin' I mean the far left edge of Stribeck. More HTHS puts the boundary regime in a smaller box as a percentage of the whole. Know what else it does? Allows larger debris to pass the space without damage to the surfaces.

Stribeck is a multi level chess game played by multiple players in the same space. It's is dynamic.

customboss · December 21, 2025

1 minute ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Subassemblies

When you are looking at a Stribeck curve you are not looking at THE Stribeck curve but rather A Stribeck Curve.

Every point plotted to make the curve is unique to that moment in time where load, velocity and viscosity are frozen. Thing is, if it were grafted that way it look like bird shot on a paper target. So...they are draw to display 'cycles' and each moving part has it's own pattern. Makes it easier to understand and yet it eludes minds quite easily.

Reciprocating motion, piston/rings/bore move constantly left to right to left with a few hiccups tossed in for nonlinear velocity increased/decreases.

Cam/roller start left and move right and stay right but not static as velocity and load change over a single revolution.

Main/cam bearing come closes starting left and moving right and staying there within a smaller zone dictated by load/viscosity/temperature.

Rod small ends oscillate.

Rod big ends rotate concentric with the mains but vacillate in direction relative to each other. Not smooth rotation. Kind of like a differential going around a corner. The also have the most load swing as graphed by GM and shown in Smokey's "Hot to Hotrod the Small Block Chevy" It's cool if you ever get a chance to read a copy.

When I use the word 'margin' I mean the far left edge of Stribeck. More HTHS puts the boundary regime in a smaller box as a percentage of the whole. Know what else it does? Allows larger debris to pass the space without damage to the surfaces.

Stribeck is a multi level chess game played by multiple players in the same space. It's is dynamic.

Diagram when HTHS is too high?

Grumpy Bear · December 27, 2025

I didn't know where else to put this....

"Train Dreams"

Now playing on Netflix. It's an incredible film. Not many of those anymore. It has Depth. No arcade action here.

customboss · December 27, 2025

26 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

I didn't know where else to put this....

"Train Dreams"

Now playing on Netflix. It's an incredible film. Not many of those anymore. It has Depth. No arcade action here.

Agreed excellent film.

Grumpy Bear · February 25

Brake giants go bust: StopTech and Raybestos dead after $6 billion fraud

Grumpy Bear · February 27

On 9/6/2025 at 12:18 PM, customboss said:

"According to one CLE 10 abs / 0.1 mm is a hard limit and something is in need of immediate attention if it breaches this value."

Your references are not appropriate for used engine oil.

10 abs units FTIR ......NOT A HARD limit but a good RULE OF THUMB for ideal combustion sensing at ring and combustion chamber.

Go with that. Can't fix stupid, pearls to swine, take your choice.

So.....I've shown REPEATEDLY that the measurement for nitration is NOT in "Orders of Magnitude." Simpley area under the curve and that area subject to the 'width' of measurement and as oxidation and nitration have different 'widths' common sense AND mathematical definitions preclude the accuracy of that idea. Let me make that simpler :bs:

I've also show REPEATEDLY that all base oil vary greatly in VOA levels of nitration products and if indeed this were orders of magnitude, and they are not, then not being subtractive would be ludicrous. Let that rest on the gray a hot second. An oil with a VOA background of 4 and one with a background of 9 both are condemned at 10? Again,

Get a background value and go with the standards the labs use. 10 unit increase.

Grumpy Bear · March 11

Breaking News!

Assembly without all the pieces of the puzzle is fruitless.

In the not to distant past I remarked on some rather unusual lab returns for the UOA's for Raven. This happened, if your recall, when a new lot was started on a reformulated batch of Red Line HP Euro 5W40 missed my notice. As such I hadn't a VOA run on the new formulation and picked it up in the Ca/Mg loading of returning UOA's.

Full disclosure. I panicked. Reacted, got upset and then and only then had a VOA run on the new lot. OMG what an idiot I can be. Got it back today and I've corrected the results. Last two entries corrected down and now meeting trend.

There is an improvement to be gained between *W20 and *W30 but nothing gained in iron going higher.

Aluminum

There is little difference between *W20 and *W30 in abating piston wear BUT....

*W40 is a deal maker

Aluminum is huge because rings are supported by pistons and piston wear integral with late stage ring wear. Longer the piston lives the longer the rings live. All rotating parts, cams, rollers, mains and rods are impacted by viscosity more than the add package. Naturally low aluminum wear has an input to total wear but the heavier viscosity also reduces bearing wear. Yes I said the same thing twice differently.

But the thing of greater importance is getting that background VOA. Can you live without it? Sure. Just makes the data noise unbearable for a numbers geek like me. I'd say this motor is off to a fine start. Now, all I have left is finding the basement on TAN/TBN. (OCI)

Edited March 11 by Grumpy Bear

Grumpy Bear · March 27

Major Assembly Required

I've spent the last few days looking into Hexagonal Boron Nitride as an AW additive. A few retailers sell it commercially and the best known is likely Liqui Moly Ceratec. This post isn't about the product but the information used by AI assistants in explaining it.

AI pulls information from anywhere it can find it and the filtering is awful. It is confused easy and doesn't seem to differentiate between the gourmet table and the garbage pile. It defers not between a scholarly article and grade-schooler musings.

If you have some knowledge to begin with it is possible to short the trash but ain't easy McGee.

As an aside; I was amused after the terror subsided at how poorly the average internet user processes the written word and how little deference some give to 'rational thought'. Little example to the painfully obvious....

As used in motor oils hexagonal boron nitrate is a suspended solid whose size runs between 0.05 and 0.03 micron. There is some concern that is will fall out of suspension and deposit in the pan. One long time user went to the trouble of pulling his oil pan after a few hundred thousand miles to show it clean enough to be used as a shaving mirror. Naturally he thought that this was properly put to bed. Oh boy.....

First response to his post was a fella challenging him to prove he can see particles of such small size. :crazy:

Fella was more patient than I. He says, "A single particle that size is indeed impossible to see but five pounds of particles that size is impossible not to see".

:idiot:

Grumpy Bear · May 11

Assembly of an OCI

Going about my business I practice what I preach and obtained the result I expected all along. What was that result?

A data driven answer!

:idiot:

As it turns out, the correct OCI isn't a number of miles nor a length of time that can be standardized for every vehicle in every environment under every circumstance for the entire service life of said vehicle. There a tons of drivers/inputs to a result and the OEM blanket statement printed values are a median value that supports their required result. It has nothing to do with maximizing machine life OR your costs in providing transportation for your family. There is zero support that the commercial quick-lube industry fares any better. Their values are also self serving. Are you really that surprised?

And then there are the internet based results. Some even from very reputable people that at the end of day reflect, in large part, an idea that there is a 'standard'. Why? A lazy public; that's my best guess. People like their ears tickled. Even experts will relent.

"I demand validation and standardization. I need a place to hang my hat!" (Other than data which is costly, time consuming and irritating to obtain.) They chant like a mantra.

Along the way I learned more about people than I did the equipment. But then, I did learn allot about the equipment in spite of all the distractions. People are quite happy to be boiled in oil (pun intended) as long as it takes a long enough period of time before being driven to the inevitable failures that will result. There's even a name for it. ROI.

ROI, it's a blunt tool for a complex problem and relies heavy in the lie there is a standard.

I have the good fortune of not being the only guy on the planet that is data retentive. I have several units maintained by others with excellent record keeping and multiples of miles past mine on the odometer with several of those postmortem disassembles to proof the puddings their habits produced. I have mentioned....I don't guess and I don't follow the Rat-Catcher of Hamelin's piping.

I found mine, lets others follow my every move toward that goal. My reward? The health of my equipment.

asilverblazer · May 14

On 5/11/2026 at 12:00 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

...And then there are the internet based results. Some even from very reputable people that at the end of day reflect, in large part, an idea that there is a 'standard'. Why? A lazy public; that's my best guess. People like their ears tickled. Even experts will relent.

...Other than data which is costly, time consuming and irritating to obtain...

...People are quite happy to be boiled in oil (pun intended) as long as it takes a long enough period of time before being driven to the inevitable failures that will result. There's even a name for it. ROI.

ROI, it's a blunt tool for a complex problem and relies heavy in the lie there is a standard.

...My reward? The health of my equipment.

ROI isn't a lie, and using a "standard" doesn't necessarily make one lazy, they may just have different priorities.

As you acknowledge, it takes time, money and effort to obtain the data required to find one's perfect OCI.

To what end though? The vehicle will NOT last forever, the engine may still run like a top, but the body will wear, the paint will fade, the vehicle WILL degrade. Its a haunted abandoned house with new wiring.

Sure, the health of the engine is 'better'. You, who has much more experience in the field than most of us, have invested heavily to obtain that - what does your ROI look like? Are you keeping your vehicles forever where the longevity (beyond what the standard would/might/could/should/will/may and by what amount) will be realized?

The general public however is different, including myself, I think we want our vehicle to last as long as most others, we'll likely get something new or different every 5-10 years, we want a reasonable amount of value for our vehicle that has been maintained (per standard), whether by trade-in, private sell, hand me down, etc. Given those general statements, will any of us (general public) realize the gains that you do through your methods - not likely.

Very specifically, if you sold your truck, how much more money would you get for it compared to one exactly like it maintained per standard?

Does that amount make it worthwhile to you (presumably yes), me (don't know, $500, no; a thousand maybe), Bob or whomever?

Not an attack, criticism, etc, just another perspective.

Grumpy Bear · May 14

1 hour ago, asilverblazer said:

ROI isn't a lie, and using a "standard" doesn't necessarily make one lazy, they may just have different priorities.

As you acknowledge, it takes time, money and effort to obtain the data required to find one's perfect OCI.

To what end though? The vehicle will NOT last forever, the engine may still run like a top, but the body will wear, the paint will fade, the vehicle WILL degrade. Its a haunted abandoned house with new wiring.

Sure, the health of the engine is 'better'. You, who has much more experience in the field than most of us, have invested heavily to obtain that - what does your ROI look like? Are you keeping your vehicles forever where the longevity (beyond what the standard would/might/could/should/will/may and by what amount) will be realized?

The general public however is different, including myself, I think we want our vehicle to last as long as most others, we'll likely get something new or different every 5-10 years, we want a reasonable amount of value for our vehicle that has been maintained (per standard), whether by trade-in, private sell, hand me down, etc. Given those general statements, will any of us (general public) realize the gains that you do through your methods - not likely.

Very specifically, if you sold your truck, how much more money would you get for it compared to one exactly like it maintained per standard?

Does that amount make it worthwhile to you (presumably yes), me (don't know, $500, no; a thousand maybe), Bob or whomever?

Not an attack, criticism, etc, just another perspective.

Interesting post with many valid points. But one was missed. I don't care about ROI in the same way the 'standard' defines it. My truck is not a business. It doesn't support a business.

Here's how I look at ROI. I've bought exactly 3 new cars/trucks in my entire life and a few very low mile used vehicles. I'm 72 years old and literally have more vehicles than I can wear out what remains of my life. How many vehicles DIDN'T I buy? What were the cost of those unbought units? How about the cost of their maintenance and INSURANCE. ROI isn't just about what you don't spend on the current unit. It's also about not havening a need to buy another and not maintaining, taxing and insuring those you didn't buy. You can't spend yourself out of debt.

Some guys spend little effort on there possessions and they have little trouble over the useful life they have defined by the practices they employed to get them there. Then they buy another, rinse and repeat and over a lifetime of buying new every 5 to 10 years buy 6 to 12 new units. Lets take the average, 9 units.

I've bought 3 saving the cost of 6 new units. There's my ROI. I've owned a few over 30 years. Then there is the value of money. It declines with time, right? So I don't see the ROI is spending on 6 new vehicles, each more costly than the last. I might be freer with my money if I could still by a candy bar and a soda for a dime total. New cars today cost more than my first house and people think that is cheap. They haven't lived very long.

I look at things like the object of my intent is the only one I will ever posses and for some things that has been true. My body for example. I could have done better and yes there are younger faster stronger units out there setting new records every day. I let things that should be treated as disposable as such but thing that can be prevented from being treated that way..... I'll maintain. With less money

It's not that I don't see your point. I just think it inefficient.

Know what else is inefficient? Learning lessons others have already learned and SHARED and ignoring that FREE education to repeat the same mistakes they did. I don't write this stuff for me. I've already profited from my efforts and those of my father, uncles and grandfather.

But like I said. I see your point. Enjoy it.

Edited May 14 by Grumpy Bear

Grumpy Bear · May 15

13 hours ago, asilverblazer said:

Very specifically, if you sold your truck, how much more money would you get for it compared to one exactly like it maintained per standard?

This needed its own reply.

First and foremost,; and as Dad would say, "You ain't never had, don't have now and never will have a dog as good as that dog". Pepper isn't for sale so on it's face the question is moot. That put to bed....

The value of a thing is not the same thing as it's cost which is a concept most find mind numbing to digest. So lets be specific. As few would see the "value" of Pepper the fetch price would be no different than that of a truck "Maintained by Standard" but that isn't the same thing as Peppers VALUE verse that maintained by "The Standard". They are worlds apart in that regard.

Dad used to repair anything with a motor in the garage at home and sometimes a customer would forfeit the machine to cover the repair, in which case dad sold it. (Mechanics lean). OR he would use the machine and others like it as parts to complete yet another unit. So....he had a few mowers displayed in the front yard one day with their prices on cardboard and a guy stops by wanting to know what the 'Bottom Dollar" was on a mower dad had posted at $25.

This mower was a steel deck 18 or 20 inch unit with a solid but refurbished motor so dad said, "Price is what the price is".

Guy says, "I'll give ya $5 for it". Without a thought dad took an eight pound sledge to the machine decimating it in one stroke. Pulled out a second, which was half the machine and said, "This one is $100". (Dad had about $10 in it.) Guy opens the wallet and peels off five twenties.

Thing was, everyone within a hundred miles of the shop knew his work and knew his cast off's were twice the machine of most anything on any lot anywhere. They also knew if it didn't sell, he'd use it until he died and never bat an eye, bury it in the back yard or set fire to it than give it away.

Pepper is an 11 year old truck with 200K on the clock with less rust than a new one and no dents. Uses no oil. Gets good mileage and most of it looks new even today. Profound mechanical shape otherwise which has cost me to date near nothing in $$$$. Just attention to detail and preventative maintenance and not drive it like I stole it.

To a dealer its worth book. To a buyer who doesn't know her or I, it's worth high book. To a buyer who knows me they know the bank won't lend them that kind of money on a truck that old with that many miles. BUT to me...I have a FREE NEW (like) truck that I'll drive yet another decade or two IF God is willing and I live that long. I bought her for $17K and I've already saved full the $40K replacement cost of a new replacement and spent next to nothing to get her there. Those extra oil changes are CHEAP compared to the new truck I didn't buy. I'll save that much again on the third one I don't buy. The insurance $$$$ I save and the finance cost will pay her repairs for another decade.

Outside normal maintenance I spent under $100 on that truck. Why? Cause I do all the dumb stuff that 'Makes it so Number One". :crackup:

Edited May 15 by Grumpy Bear

KARNUT · May 15

100K miles is the new 20K miles used car of my youth. The difference in their life cycle in comparison. Maintenance is a major player in reliability. Some manufacturers even certify with that many miles. When you check CarFax those vehicles usually have had more maintenance than the certifying manufacturers recommend. I can’t justify buying a new vehicle anymore. I haven’t bought a cheap model in a long time. Through daily research I keep a list mentality just in case I got to have it hits me like the old days of two-three year trade ins. I miss those days of cheap performance vehicles. The last vehicle that really checked that box was the 06 trailblazer ss. You didn’t have to buy a highly option model to get the performance. The closest today is the Roush performance package on the 5.0 truck. I have a (high performance) four cylinder and six cylinder. It’s just not the same. Today replacing a vehicle would just mean getting the same vehicle just newer. No sense doing that before the lifecycle is nearly over. Maybe some new exciting model will come along. Time was wasted on electric. They certainly didn’t do it for me.