CATERHAM BLEND | 60%/40% | 15161KM(9420m)|G5 2.4L
- Thread starter cp3
- Start date
- Status
Unfortunately Idemitsu doesn't offer a 40wt oil option.
The Mazda 0W-20 with it's 221 VI and 675 ppm of moly is a very interesting oil. As far as blending it with M1 0W-40 I have no problem with it. I'm running the last of the Idemitsu made GF-4 200 VI high moly Honda 0W-20 from my stash in a 60/40 blend with M1 0W-40 in my Bimmer and it's very quiet and smooth.
The Mazda 0W-20 with it's 221 VI and 675 ppm of moly is a very interesting oil. As far as blending it with M1 0W-40 I have no problem with it. I'm running the last of the Idemitsu made GF-4 200 VI high moly Honda 0W-20 from my stash in a 60/40 blend with M1 0W-40 in my Bimmer and it's very quiet and smooth.
Originally Posted By: buster
Link
Quote:
However, it is not recommended to routinely mix oils because the additives in different products may interact or the oils may become destabilized by the mixture. You may reduce or negate the properties of the additives.
Why are you posting this unidentified quote?
Did regal55 ask for your opinion? No.
Has this added anything to this thread you haven't already brought up? No.
Link
Quote:
However, it is not recommended to routinely mix oils because the additives in different products may interact or the oils may become destabilized by the mixture. You may reduce or negate the properties of the additives.
Why are you posting this unidentified quote?
Did regal55 ask for your opinion? No.
Has this added anything to this thread you haven't already brought up? No.
I am a confessed blender, I can't help myself. But I am trying to move away from it, I've had great luck trying to tweak the cst@100 to where I want it, but not so much the cold starting properties end of things.
I have seen some recent posts by the likes of Molakule and similar that have said the same thing, I really take note of such things when it mirrors my first hand experience.
I'd think the 50/50 blend mentioned here would still be pretty good though, but I'd bet the cold start properties would not live up to expectations. UOA's rarely test for lower viscosity though.
I have seen some recent posts by the likes of Molakule and similar that have said the same thing, I really take note of such things when it mirrors my first hand experience.
I'd think the 50/50 blend mentioned here would still be pretty good though, but I'd bet the cold start properties would not live up to expectations. UOA's rarely test for lower viscosity though.
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
I'd think the 50/50 blend mentioned here would still be pretty good though, but I'd bet the cold start properties would not live up to expectations. UOA's rarely test for lower viscosity though.
What cold start properties are you referring to?
Extreme cold or at more typical start-up temp's.
Mobil has told us the effect on MRV.
At more normal start-up temp's the calculated KV40 will give you an indication, but as I've always said, I've you want to know precisely install an oil pressure and oil temp' gauge.
I'd think the 50/50 blend mentioned here would still be pretty good though, but I'd bet the cold start properties would not live up to expectations. UOA's rarely test for lower viscosity though.
What cold start properties are you referring to?
Extreme cold or at more typical start-up temp's.
Mobil has told us the effect on MRV.
At more normal start-up temp's the calculated KV40 will give you an indication, but as I've always said, I've you want to know precisely install an oil pressure and oil temp' gauge.
Nothing specific really, just speaking in general terms that the cold viscosity is much harder to predictably blend or modify.
3.5 million vehicles is the number included in the suit, which included my 1MZ-FE of course. But how many were actually affected?
I had a friend with a 1MZ-FE that had the sludge issue. It was due to extremely short trips (less than a mile) during our cold winter months. When I asked him how often he had his oil changed he said "at least once or twice a year, I'm pretty sure". And this was at random quick lube change places. Although there may be engines that could tolerate this OCI, oil and driving habit, but I doubt many could.
Nevertheless at least Toyota provided relief for affected drivers regardless of the cause. Good luck getting compensation from Chrysler.
And it wasn't 3.5 million claims.
Originally Posted By: mase
Quote:
Where did you see that?
Saw in a thread here at bitog earlier today where it sheared 13%, in a Prius.
Quote:
According to Wearchecks VOA of the TGMO 0W20 SN oil, the VI is 216 ( 214 for the SM )
The VI@100C, cSt is 8.54 ( 8.8 for the SM ), and the VI@40C, cSt is 37.38 ( 39.3 for the SM )with a 6.84 TBN. In our experience, the TGMO 0W20 SM oil in a 2011 Prius has sheared down to 6.79 ( 28.56%... factory fill ) and was changed at 1234 miles.
Another change with 5010 miles resulted in a shearing of 13.76% ( 7.64 ) with a 385 F flashpoint and trace of fuel. The TBN was 5.0 with a TAN 0f 5.1.
Quote:
That's a statement that shows deep ignorance (and an agenda), and makes me question anything else you may have to say.
The fact that the motors have a sludge issues or the fact that I won't buy a Toyota. I have no agenda other than trying to point out that VI isn't everything in an oil data chart.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/feb/09/business/fi-toyota9
I would consider 3,500,000 vehicles an issue, but the problem with Toyota is that they tried to deny it and claims for so long.
Now me not buying Toyota may be ignorant, but I remember how they dealt with this sludge issue initially and for that reason I choose not to own one.
I had a friend with a 1MZ-FE that had the sludge issue. It was due to extremely short trips (less than a mile) during our cold winter months. When I asked him how often he had his oil changed he said "at least once or twice a year, I'm pretty sure". And this was at random quick lube change places. Although there may be engines that could tolerate this OCI, oil and driving habit, but I doubt many could.
Nevertheless at least Toyota provided relief for affected drivers regardless of the cause. Good luck getting compensation from Chrysler.
And it wasn't 3.5 million claims.
Originally Posted By: mase
Quote:
Where did you see that?
Saw in a thread here at bitog earlier today where it sheared 13%, in a Prius.
Quote:
According to Wearchecks VOA of the TGMO 0W20 SN oil, the VI is 216 ( 214 for the SM )
The VI@100C, cSt is 8.54 ( 8.8 for the SM ), and the VI@40C, cSt is 37.38 ( 39.3 for the SM )with a 6.84 TBN. In our experience, the TGMO 0W20 SM oil in a 2011 Prius has sheared down to 6.79 ( 28.56%... factory fill ) and was changed at 1234 miles.
Another change with 5010 miles resulted in a shearing of 13.76% ( 7.64 ) with a 385 F flashpoint and trace of fuel. The TBN was 5.0 with a TAN 0f 5.1.
Quote:
That's a statement that shows deep ignorance (and an agenda), and makes me question anything else you may have to say.
The fact that the motors have a sludge issues or the fact that I won't buy a Toyota. I have no agenda other than trying to point out that VI isn't everything in an oil data chart.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/feb/09/business/fi-toyota9
I would consider 3,500,000 vehicles an issue, but the problem with Toyota is that they tried to deny it and claims for so long.
Now me not buying Toyota may be ignorant, but I remember how they dealt with this sludge issue initially and for that reason I choose not to own one.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked