Non-dexos oil

OnTheReel · April 1

5 hours ago, Atlas said:

So I watched the segment on diesel (starting at ~1hr 30 minutes in) until the end. Felt the need to comment.

Key points for diesels:

Higher viscosity leads to lower wear, 50 weight shows an improvement over 20 weight

Cleaner oil (less soot) leads to lower wear (add a bypass filter, and higher quality primary oil filtration).

Oil additives tested show no significant benefit or harm, but harm may exist for things like wet belts as additives are not subject to API compatibility tests.

They did not discuss fuel additive significance except in relevance to the Bosch CP4 pump which is stated to require fuel with higher lubricity than standard ultra-low sulfur diesel sold in the US.

My editorial on the data they presented:

It lacks meaningful context.

I'm left wanting more data, which these experts never seem to provide. Theory: the data exists but it's very underwhelming and wouldn't sell the sensationalist skew that leads to increased product consumption, including oil testing/analysis.

I was annoyed by closing statements like "this helps people make choices backed by data". Ok, well, no, it doesn't for me since higher viscosity is specifically contraindicated.

Example:

In discussing "Babymax" oil (0w20) this is specifically indicated for use by GM. 50 weight oil supposedly leads to less wear according to their chart which is explained by "For diesel-fueled engines, higher viscosity lubricants provide slightly better wear protection".

20 weight shows an average of ~2.2 "Log of Wear Metals Per 1k miles LS Means" against operating grade, and 50 weight shows a mean of ~1.8 "".

What does 1.8 versus 2.2 actually mean? How many more miles, hours, smiles, dollars, rainbows, wishes, or gold stars does this provide in terms of longevity or benefit, where lower wear theoretically means more longevity?

Analogy: If my doctor tells me that consuming 100mg less sodium per day, when I'm well within "healthy" limits for sodium intake, translates to 1 fewer diastolic mm/Hg blood pressure, does it actually matter even though the numbers are statistically significant?

Meanwhile, exercise in a daily routine lowers blood pressure even more, and the effect of limiting sodium consumption is virtually invisible in people who exercise regularly. This might translate to "driving style" or "exhaust gas temperatures". But sodium, just look at the data! Meanwhile if idle hours are significantly reduced in a diesel or lower gearing is used to keep EGT lower at cruising speeds under load, maybe 1.8 unicorn poops versus 2.2 really means absolutely nothing...

Help me understand? How do relatively many pickup truck owners reach 1M miles using conventional oils, brand agnostic, of manufacturer-prescribed weights?

Reducing sodium carries a quality of life penalty, so the bar is high and the question of course is why would I?

Increasing oil viscosity carries no such penalties. Truck runs and drives the same. Oil costs the same. Fuel economy in the real world and not an EPA test is the same. Aside from the lower wear rates happening completely in the background there’s no indication of any change at all. More of a why wouldn’t I???

Grumpy Bear · April 1

We are exact in our math when we understand it and when it is of benefit to us. Statistics however baffle the masses, and because they don't understand it, they don't have faith in it the way they do in math's simpler forms. Like counting their change. Problem for us is that math is ambivalent to what we think of it or about it. Math is literally not the truth but represents it faithfully. No where in the universe can you by a three. Weigh a decimal. Five will not cast a shadow. Yet 3.5 seconds is an exact measure of time. Math is useful, it is precise and it is relentless in it's perfection.

Math's problem doesn't lie in what it is but in how it is used. Like any good wrench is can tighten a bolt or shear it off and the difference is in the users understanding and skill is it's use.

Saying a thing isn't so because we don't understand it..... that's the tool we use to remain ignorant. Misapplied math is also a tool of marketing indifferent to the truth. Scarry? And it should be.

When you hear an "Expert" use math you don't understand you are actually in the drivers seat. The math is reliable. The user is not, so the context in every way matters if you are to trust it. If the context isn't provided then skepticism is demanded.

Grumpy Bear · April 1

1 minute ago, OnTheReel said:

Reducing sodium carries a quality of life penalty, so the bar is high and the question of course is why would I?

Increasing oil viscosity carries no such penalties. Truck runs and drives the same. Oil costs the same. Fuel economy in the real world and not an EPA test is the same. Aside from the lower wear rates happening completely in the background there’s no indication of any change at all. More of a why wouldn’t I???

Insight is a wonderful thing me thinks. Nail struck square.

If you watch the gas section they state that ultra light oils provide the lowest wear. It's not wrong, it's just not explainednor universal...period. For normal bore prep more is still better. An explanation.....

Toyota Crown. Ground up design for a 0W8 oil. PTWA bores (Plasma Transferred Wire Arc). Very specific hone for the bore material and the hone specifics. More viscosity is bad. Ford uses this in some of the Mustang motors and will deny a claim for engine failure if the viscosity is not in spec upon inspection. This point is the basis on which the statement more is bad in the video. But used in the context of the entire universe of all gasoline ICE's is marketing convincing a willfully ignorant audience of a future reality now being formed in real time. You see this in the diesel section where these types of bores are not currently used to the best of my knowledge.

How it works. Spray bore is stupid hard as are the DLH ring faces. A reduction in wear is hard to drive on viscosity. BUT it also, due to silly fine finishing will transport oil to the combustion chamber lickety split. Which causes detonation which increases wear and can tear ring lands out of a piston left unchecked. In a diesel soot is the wear driver. Context matters

Blanket statements are always dangerous.

Atlas · April 1

I don't dispute that a higher viscosity represents 18% lower ppm/K as a single variable observed through a data set--with its own limitations. To reset expectations, remember, I'm asking what it means. What's the actual prize?

To OTR's point, why wouldn't I? Specifically: Use 50 weight oil in my 3.0 Duramax which specifies 0w20, for the benefit of an observed 18.1% lower ppm/K in LS' data set. There's no cost to the quality of life, we're not swapping bacon for tofu.

In the simplest explanation because GM engineers picked a viscosity that's an intersection of protection and efficiency that has reliably provided at least an average service life in vehicles they've sold to family, friends, and myself, in the past. I put what i feel is a reasonable amount of trust in that idea because I've observed it. I don't need to deviate from that for my purposes, and GM and I have a contractual relationship and mutual financial interests through warranty coverages and repeat business.

I don't have that relationship with someone on Youtube who sells a service and makes money through producing content. That doesn't mean the content isn't factual, but it could mean the data, the content, prioritizes selling a service or garnering views and engagement more than any benefit that data might provide.

The two responses I've received when I've asked what does it really mean, what's the prize are (I'm summarizing):

-Because there's no indication so far that it hurts anything

-Because it's math (I'm picking on you, Grumpy ;))

Edited April 1 by Atlas

Grumpy Bear · April 1

9 hours ago, Atlas said:

-Because it's math (I'm picking on you, Grumpy ;))

And I'd expect nothing less. Your questions are probing and on point. I have no issue with that. Fact is you make a very salient point that one variable doesn't a result make. Boy oh boy is that true.

Like humans, machines are the SUM of our experience, not a single experience. But even a single experience can have a harmful and irreversible consequence. Like running it out of oil or being shot in the head. But on a whole, it is the entire experience that matters.

There are folks, and I'm not guessing your one of them, that trade often enough that nothing outside routine maintenance will matter. Why maintain for a half million miles if you trade every 60K? You, personally, receive no more miles, smiles or cookies. Be about your business. And I'd expect this is true as well for the leasing crowd.

But for the fellow that buys and holds until moth and rust consume, every part of the puzzle is in consideration if the picture is to be completed. With that in mind then 18% lower wear = 18% longer life. Based on that single lever. But these are indeed stackable. Maintenance points that is.

Much of humanity has a toilet paper view of the worlds natural resources and each other. They are self serving and unloving and seek only their own advantage. The point? I get it. But I don't agree with it. I care what the second owners experience is. I've been that guy and most of us have.

During the video the point is made in a statement that says level A "Has no statistical significance". And they say this right after proving it has a mathematical significance. Shows it right in the chart. Their statement is in pointing to the relative significance of the usual short term ownership. Less is less but if you don't hold on long enough it doesn't matter.

So question, Do I need to preface every comment on maintenance with the a statement of "to those who care"?

Or will I have to ride the horse of those who believe the entire Universe of humanity is represented by only their experiences. :dunno:

newdude · April 1

9 hours ago, Atlas said:

In the simplest explanation because GM engineers picked a viscosity that's an intersection of protection and efficiency that has reliably provided at least an average service life in vehicles they've sold to family, friends, and myself, in the past. I put what i feel is a reasonable amount of trust in that idea because I've observed it. I don't need to deviate from that for my purposes, and GM and I have a contractual relationship and mutual financial interests through warranty coverages and repeat business.

Pretty much. Fuel economy is one of the big strong suits they've been pushing with the 3.0, and real world users are often meeting and exceeding EPA estimates.

I'd garner also that oil pump and lubrication flow and design also played a hand at using 0W-20. Seems like with the dual stage oil pumps its about lower pressure and higher volume to ensure everything is getting taken care of.

Watching the Lake Speed bit on NASCAR and using super low weights, there was a lot of talk about getting oil in, lubricating and getting it out into the sump as quick as possible to minimize friction and horsepower losses. NASCAR was playing with 0W-16 and under in the 90s and 00s, well before they hit passenger cars.

Z45 · April 1

.

Edited April 1 by Z45

Z45 · April 1

.

Edited April 1 by Z45

Z45 · April 1

.

Edited April 1 by Z45

Z45 · April 1

On 3/15/2026 at 8:58 AM, No F-bdy Bs said:

Any quality oil is fine, but I don't think I could find a reason to NOT run a Dexos oil with the ease of availability,and basically same price as any other synthetic.

The Dexos licensing system is voluntary certifications that only set minimum quality standards! If good enough is what matters, then buy oil with the dexos logo and help GM make more money.

Before you think its not a profit making scheme for GM, read this

KARNUT · April 1

41 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

And I'd expect nothing less. Your questions are probing and on point. I have no issue with that. Fact is you make a very salient point that one variable doesn't a result make. Boy oh boy is that true.

Like humans, machines are the SUM of our experience, not a single experience. But even a single experience can have a harmful and irreversible consequence. Like running it out of oil or being shot in the head. But on a whole, it is the entire experience that matters.

There are folks, and I'm not guessing your one of them, that trade often enough that nothing outside routine maintenance will matter. Why maintain for a half million miles if you trade every 60K? You, personally, receive no more miles, smiles or cookies. Be about your business. And I'd expect this is true as well for the leasing crowd.

But for the fellow that buys and holds until moth and rust consume, every part of the puzzle is in consideration if the picture is to be completed. With that in mind then 18% lower wear = 18% longer life. Based on that single lever. But these are indeed stackable. Maintenance points that is.

Much of humanity has a toilet paper view of the worlds natural resources and each other. They are self serving and unloving and seek only their own advantage. The point? I get it. But I don't agree with it. I care what the second owners experience is. I've been that guy and most of us have.

During the video the point is made in a statement that says level A "Has no statistical significance". And they say this right after proving it has a mathematical significance. Shows it right in the chart. Their statement is in pointing to the relative significance of the usual short term ownership. Less is less but if you don't hold on long enough it doesn't matter.

So question, Do I need to preface every comment on maintenance with the a statement of "to those who care"?

Or will I have to ride the horse of those who believe the entire Universe of humanity is represented by only their experiences.

My experience so far getting close to 200K miles so far. The Honda Odyssey cost 6000$ to go past 100K with maintenance and tires. Regular service up to 166K sitting at 10 years old. The Ridgeline getting past 100K miles about the same. The odyssey has had no issues. The Ridgeline needed at 150K a steering rack, a CV joint at 160K a 1200$ alternator. It’s still within its worth it zone. The Odyssey will be about 15 years old at 200K miles, the Ridgeline about 20. Using the dealership. Trying for maximum mileage I only use Honda parts. Just regular maintenance and tires will probably exceed 8K. Then you add suspension parts that will probably be due and other possible repairs. The worth it is very questionable. There’s probably some that are worth it. Like pepper. It’s a classic. Vehicles like Honda and Toyota. Minimum maintenance like severe duty 200K run to the ground. Or sell and upgrade to another 10 year old 100K mileage model. With car-fax and other such reports it’s easier today.

Atlas · April 1

57 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

And I'd expect nothing less. Your questions are probing and on point. I have no issue with that. Fact is you make a very salient point that one variable doesn't a result make. Boy oh boy is that true.

Like humans, machines are the SUM of our experience, not a single experience. But even a single experience can have a harmful and irreversible consequence. Like running it out of oil or being shot in the head. But on a whole, it is the entire experience that matters.

There are folks, and I'm not guessing your one of them, that trade often enough that nothing outside routine maintenance will matter. Why maintain for a half million miles if you trade every 60K? You, personally, receive no more miles, smiles or cookies. Be about your business. And I'd expect this is true as well for the leasing crowd.

But for the fellow that buys and holds until moth and rust consume, every part of the puzzle is in consideration if the picture is to be completed. With that in mind then 18% lower wear = 18% longer life. Based on that single lever. But these are indeed stackable. Maintenance points that is.

Much of humanity has a toilet paper view of the worlds natural resources and each other. They are self serving and unloving and seek only their own advantage. The point? I get it. But I don't agree with it. I care what the second owners experience is. I've been that guy and most of us have.

During the video the point is made in a statement that says level A "Has no statistical significance". And they say this right after proving it has a mathematical significance. Shows it right in the chart. Their statement is in pointing to the relative significance of the usual short term ownership. Less is less but if you don't hold on long enough it doesn't matter.

So question, Do I need to preface every comment on maintenance with the a statement of "to those who care"?

Or will I have to ride the horse of those who believe the entire Universe of humanity is represented by only their experiences.

No, I don't think every statement needs to be prefaced with "to those who care".

With my 3.0, I think everything needs to be prefaced with *if it doesn't seize because of a defective thrust bearing in the first 10k miles of life, however.

I'm a defensive optimist. All my vehicles, I treat like I'll own them for a long time, whether I actually do or not. If I don't, someone else probably will. Things like using a different viscosity in the future hope of obtaining a few more miles take a backseat to the reality that the truck itself is a consumable good. It has a service life. Tacking on a few miles to the end is probably only worth the satisfaction to those who eventually make it that far. And it's not wrong. But I do think some data points are oversold.

Atlas · April 1

2 hours ago, Z45 said:

Before you think its not a profit making scheme for GM, read this

To my knowledge, nobody in this thread disputed that. It's actually a value-added convenience for consumers who want assurance that a third party product meets the engine needs and warranty maintenance requirements set forth by GM. It saves a lot of time listening to people wearing "Science" sweatshirts who sell oil testing services instilling outsized fear through social media that using oils "only" meeting Dexos certification may equate to a moral dereliction of duty.

Dexos 2, now Dexos D is the one I follow because it summarizes the API and ACEA classifications for diesel oils that also meet emissions compatibility (DPF) and strong deposit reduction in light duty diesels.

It's 4/1 so have to have a little fun. Coming soon to an EV charger near you: Dexos E certification for electrons! It ensures the proper level of electron excitement and inconvenience that your EV battery needs.

Edited April 1 by Atlas

Grumpy Bear · April 2

On 4/1/2026 at 10:26 AM, KARNUT said:

My experience so far getting close to 200K miles so far. The Honda Odyssey cost 6000$ to go past 100K with maintenance and tires. Regular service up to 166K sitting at 10 years old. The Ridgeline getting past 100K miles about the same. The odyssey has had no issues. The Ridgeline needed at 150K a steering rack, a CV joint at 160K a 1200$ alternator. It’s still within its worth it zone. The Odyssey will be about 15 years old at 200K miles, the Ridgeline about 20. Using the dealership. Trying for maximum mileage I only use Honda parts. Just regular maintenance and tires will probably exceed 8K. Then you add suspension parts that will probably be due and other possible repairs. The worth it is very questionable. There’s probably some that are worth it. Like pepper. It’s a classic. Vehicles like Honda and Toyota. Minimum maintenance like severe duty 200K run to the ground. Or sell and upgrade to another 10 year old 100K mileage model. With car-fax and other such reports it’s easier today.

Well written and received.

I have been slowing down a bit as I age but I still enjoy driving just for the sake of the drive. Due to that I tend to put on allot of miles in a very short time. 18 months on Raven and already at 41K. Pepper is a decade old right under 200K and even Dizzy, same age as Pepper is now nearing 300K. We drive allot.

I bring this up because I think context matters to all of us. I a world where I drove 10K or less a year I'm certain my maintenance would be different than when I drive 20 to 30 K a year. I know this is factual because we own two Buicks, a 2009 with 50K on it and her 2014 sitting at 20K. Rarely leave the garage and when they do, it is cross country.

Terry used to say something that was a nail struck square. "Hand in Glove".

Practical example. On my 20-30K a year vehicles I reach for the top shelf, Continental, Pirelli for tires and I'll get speedy doing it. On the garage queens they get Mastercraft. Tires data out before their down to 8/32". Pretty much just holding the car up and still a good enough tire to run cross country on. Raven gets Falken. LRR tire suitable for her 50 mph life and more local service. Few good choices in the 165/65R14 line LOL

So I agreed with Customboss in this regard. Hand in glove. It has to work for you.

That said, I favor the machines best practice and I think I've shown that it can pay off, at least in the context of my personal service universe.

Grumpy Bear · April 2

23 hours ago, Atlas said:

With my 3.0, I think everything needs to be prefaced with *if it doesn't seize because of a defective thrust bearing in the first 10k miles of life, however.

Yea, there is that. Oil won't fix that problem.