GC vs, Mobil 1 - Japanese Engine Questions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
598
Location
Tennessee
I was looking at an old post on one of the Honda Civic forums recently. The conversation pertained to Japanese engines which can run 30 wt oils. Many of the members were explaining why thinner oils such as Mobil 1 were preferred in their engines over Castrol Syntec 0W30. Basically the argument goes as followed:

"Most German engines generally utilize a unique, low friction piston; which results in better performance, fuel mileage and higher efficiency. Their engines have larger piston ring gaps (clearances), and consequently, more engine blowby. So a thicker oil is needed to retain a lower visosity at higher temperatures.

Most Japanese engines have tighter specifications and clearances. The engines are economy green based. So thicker 30wt oils like GC does not work as well. The engines are not as "rev happy" in the upper rpm zones as thinner oils like Mobil 1. GC, makes these engines sluggish and lose fuel economy. GC should be used only if you have one of the few Hondas with a turbo."

My questions to anyone with a Japanese engine who has run both:

1) What is this "economy green based" design mean?

2) Any truth to the low friction piston statement?

3) Any truth to the less "rev happy" statement?

4) In general, have you had a better UAO with GC than thinner oils like Mobil 1?
 
GC contains no VII's and it can produce a sluggishness in many high reving 4 bangers. I know because I've used it. It's a great oil for some applications, but would not be on my top 5 list for a Honda.
 
i use amsoil 10W-40 in my type-R engine, while winter i use either 5-30 or 5-40

don't recommend 0W-30 unless your engine doesn't burn oil
 
GC contains a good slug of VII's.

In fact, a conventional 5W-30 (SM) uses less VII's than GC 0W-30.
smile.gif
 
I have two vehicles that I'm using GC in right now that were made in Japan. My 2003 G35 had a steady diet of various 5W30 (recommended wt) up until 61K miles. It's now on its second fill of GC. I don't consider this car rev happy, per se, but torque happy yes. Based on UOA's, noise, and performance, I consider GC to be a very good choice in the G35.
I also have a 2004 S2000 that has its first fill of GC in it. I consider this car to be rev happy, but not torque happy. This car was on a steady diet of 10W30 (recommended wt) until 35K miles. Although I don't have a UOA yet with GC, but the little F22C engine seems to like it very much, especially on back country roads. Performance wise, I can't really tell whether it's any better than the 10W30's though. It is a good valvetrain noise on start-up suppressor, which I was starting to have trouble with on the new SM oils. I will stay with SL or HDEO's in this car. Bottom line...I think you can put the S2000 through it's paces (fun) without any reservations while GC is in the crankcase.
I hope this helps with the discussion, but I'm not quite sure of the premise still. If the Japanese cars were designed with oil thinner than 0W30 GC in mind, why wouldn't the manufacturers recommend them?
 
jmac ++

Why would anyone compare Mobil 1 with GC? Is someone saying that Mobil 1 oil is thinner that GC without reference to the viscosity listed on the label? I think that GC as been tested more than any oil on this forum and to say it has VII's is to have not read the info available and again going off on a tangent that is not confused with the facts.

You have to remember that all Honda's blow up at 80k miles and BMW engines all blow out the rod bearings (lol).

If the experts on other boards want to use Mobil 1 oil instead of GC because it's thinner and GC has too many VII's then be happy that they got over all he leaks than Mobil 1 caused and that they have not reminded you that Pennzoil causes white sludge and that Amsoil can't get an API certification. (lol, again).
 
Quote:


Keep spouting misinformation. One of the results of the testing of GC was that it contains no conventional VII's.



Sorry jmac I don't buy it. I believe the conclusion (that someone states in that thread) that GC uses no conventional VII's was based on either incomplete or flimsy evidence.

Quote:


link

Our high temperature G.C. columns will show all volatile organics up to roughly 1,500 molecular weight and sometimes higher (depending on the chemistry). This includes all typical base oils such as PAOs … … … … In short it can easily see about 90% of a typical motor oil, missing only some additives such as the VII solids, portions of organometallic detergents and polymeric dispersants, and other heavy compounds such as some Ketjenlubes.




If the G.C. (Gas Chromatograph) can't detect the VII's -- how can they reach the conclusion that they are not there?

Does Castrol have some special VII that is far superior to what everyone else is using in the industry? If it does and it is cost effective to blend with, then why aren’t other blenders using it? Why isn't Castrol using it in other formulations? If it's not cost effective then how does Castrol sell GC at a competitive price? Doesn't add up.

Here are the numbers.

A PAO/Ester (10% Ester) 0W oil will use base oils that start out ~ 5.0 cSt.
A Group II 5W will use base oils that start out slightly > 5.0 cSt … … lets say 5.2 cSt.

………………. Base oils ……finished viscosity

GC 0W-30 … … 5.0 -----> 12.1 cSt … … … viscosity gap = 7.1 cSt
GII+ 5W-30 … 5.2 ------> 10.6 cSt … … …viscosity gap = 5.4 cSt

The GC needs something to increase its viscosity 7.1 cSt which is more than the viscosity gap a conventional 5W-30 needs to make up (5.4 cSt). Therefore, it needs more VII's.

If we cut through the GC hype, I think the reality is that GC is just another very high quality Group IV based 0W-30 that uses VII's like other blenders.
smile.gif
 
Drivebelt, I tried to find to something significantly wrong or missing in your argument for the sake of truth seeking, not fault-seeking for the sake of it. You may be right. I didn't receive the test results that some members paid for, so I may be missing something in that to answer this. I recall reading that bruce381 has his hands on a fluid ingredient that was used in Green GC. I'd like to hear from him about it and see what he has to say on this subject.
 
Quote:


I have two vehicles that I'm using GC in right now that were made in Japan. My 2003 G35 had a steady diet of various 5W30 (recommended wt) up until 61K miles. It's now on its second fill of GC. I don't consider this car rev happy, per se, but torque happy yes. Based on UOA's, noise, and performance, I consider GC to be a very good choice in the G35.
I also have a 2004 S2000 that has its first fill of GC in it. I consider this car to be rev happy, but not torque happy. This car was on a steady diet of 10W30 (recommended wt) until 35K miles. Although I don't have a UOA yet with GC, but the little F22C engine seems to like it very much, especially on back country roads. Performance wise, I can't really tell whether it's any better than the 10W30's though. It is a good valvetrain noise on start-up suppressor, which I was starting to have trouble with on the new SM oils. I will stay with SL or HDEO's in this car. Bottom line...I think you can put the S2000 through it's paces (fun) without any reservations while GC is in the crankcase.
I hope this helps with the discussion, but I'm not quite sure of the premise still. If the Japanese cars were designed with oil thinner than 0W30 GC in mind, why wouldn't the manufacturers recommend them?





Wow. Maybe, I did not state my original question as I should have. I thought it a bit amusing on that forum, of the opinions of many high rpm Civic owners (B16 and K series engines). Many of them thought that there was NOTHING, an oil like GC could do for their engines. The consensus was that GC was designed for "slow revving 6500 -7500 rpm German engines (makes them sound like tractor motors)" (also US engines) - not the 7500 -8500 rpm Honda motors. As a result, thinner oils like Mobil 1 were more appropriate.

Last year, I sold some of my stash of the thin, Mobil 1Racing 0W30 to a guy with a 8500 rpm modified RSX. (I never heard of how he liked it).
I seem to recall of Patman posting a great UAO on a Civic on GC. I also remember hearing of some Subaru WRX owners with spun rod bearings from running the "too thin" Mobil 1.
Comments guys?
 
Quote:


I recall reading that bruce381 has his hands on a fluid ingredient that was used in Green GC. I'd like to hear from him about it and see what he has to say on this subject.




This is the main component in my current fill of Bruceblend® 0w-20-Lite, IIRC. With a 5.x CST base stock ...the rest is additives and their carriers to bring it up to 6.2CST. Seeing as the additive content is already way out there in ppm of all the vitamins and minerals ...I'd say that (possibly) another basestock would have to be blended/added in some proportion to achieve 10.x CST without VII. Normal linear properties don't apply to GC on the cold end of the equation.

I'm struggling here ..so be gentle (or not).

This 0w-20 has a rather narrow VI (about 150, IIRC).
 
Gary, now I recall that your Bruceblend discussion was where I read it. Yeah, it doesn't solve the ability to make Green GC free of VII's. MolaKule mentioned a polymer ester in Green GC. I have no clue what that is other what the name generally implies. But I digress from the OP's topic.
 
I wasn't thrilled with GC in my Acura TSX. Fuel economy bumped up noticeably when I switched to Pennzoil Platinum 5W-30, which surprised me.
 
I own a high-revving Honda, and have noticed absolutely no difference in "rev-happiness" using different oils. Subjectively speaking, the engine behaved the same using Honda factory fill, Honda-brand semi-syn, Mobil 1 5W-30, and Amsoil ASL 5W-30.

Can't tell a difference in engine noise, either... the ultra-loud injectors drown out all other sound. And as a random point of interest, FP60 did nothing to quiet my injectors or fuel pump.
 
K20Z3. Same as the RSX-S (K20A2/K20Z1), but with a few improvements from the factory.

There are somethings I could nitpick in that thread, but overall I think it's a helpful FAQ for those who know nil about engine oil.
 
I think there are a lot of things that could be nit picked. Retarded thread, 2 guys just bantering back and forth. I am a super beginer here and I could see lots of things that were incorrect.
 
Shoot, I've used Schaeffer's 7000 15w-40 almost exclusively in my B16. The UOA's were great, it revved fine, and gave me 32mpg. I wish I had close ratio 6sp though.
 
I have higher- displacement lower- revving Japanese engine. UOA on GC were consistently better then on M1 3w30. No difference in fuel efficiency or power.
 
Originally Posted By: teaelle
don't recommend 0W-30 unless your engine doesn't burn oil


I dont know if I find any truth in that statement. At normal temperatures, a 0w-30 will be the same if not thicker than a 5 or 10w-30...

A difference could be if the at temperature viscosity of the 0w-30 is less than an equivalent oil, as then it would hae the potential to burn more. However this is a function of the operating temperature viscosity.

JMH
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top