Frankenjug 5qt

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
511
Location
Greensboro NC, USA
So, since my van takes 4.5 qts, I have a collection of 1/2 qts in a Mobil 1 jug. It consists of the following ow-20's

1) Mobil 1 EP
2) TGMO
3) Amsoil ASM
4) MGMO
5) PP

So all of these amounts are equal at a qt per respective oil.

Anyone be interested on a VOA and also, would anyone fret over running this combo for an OCI? I know some are against mixing flavors.
 
Thanks Caterham. So I guess it's still on the light side of 0w-20's. How did you come up with the HTHSV? I've never seen a couple of them published.
 
Originally Posted By: asharris7
Anyone be interested on a VOA

Realistically, the only person who would benefit from it would be you, if you wanted to compare it to a UOA later.
 
Originally Posted By: asharris7
Thanks Caterham. So I guess it's still on the light side of 0w-20's. How did you come up with the HTHSV? I've never seen a couple of them published.

There is little doubt that the HTHSV if TGMO and
MGMO are at the grade minimum of 2.6cP.
Since most API 0W-20s have the HTHSV at the grade minimum your blend will be somewhat above that.
The only 0W-20 viscosity that should matter to you is the OEM Honda 0W-20 and your blend is probably on par with the CoP made oil but somewhat heavier than the Idemitsu 0W-20 Honda Canada uses.
 
Funny though, that other "warm" countries Honda recs as high as 10-30 for the same engine I have. I guess the tolerances are not that great.
 
Won't be ideal but running for a single OCI won't hurt. I've seen a lot of people posting after switching to M1 and it burned a quart or less over the first OCI in an engine that never burned before, but after the first OCI it never burned again.

So I wouldn't be surprised if this brew might cause some oil consumption.
 
Originally Posted By: asharris7
Funny though, that other "warm" countries Honda recs as high as 10-30 for the same engine I have. I guess the tolerances are not that great.


I think it's more likely that this country's tolerances for "waste" of energy is not that great.
 
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Originally Posted By: asharris7
Funny though, that other "warm" countries Honda recs as high as 10-30 for the same engine I have. I guess the tolerances are not that great.


I think it's more likely that this country's tolerances for "waste" of energy is not that great.


I doubt it, the destruction that went on in the clunkers programme while ostensibly for "energy efficiency" wasted huge amounts of inherent energy.

If thinner oils mean that the engines and cars wear out at closer to the same time, not only is that fuel efficient, it makes more sense in the overall life of a vehicle.

People just have to realise that compromise is real, makes sense, and that 20s aren't there to make your engine last an extra 0.5 vehicle lifetime.
 
Originally Posted By: asharris7
So, since my van takes 4.5 qts, I have a collection of 1/2 qts in a Mobil 1 jug. It consists of the following ow-20's
Good story. My Honda V6 often burns a qt per 1000 mi so that I always have use for that extra half quart before next oil change.
 
These oils all have pretty similar add packs and probably basestocks.
I'd run this mix without hesitation if I had fractional quarts of them just laying around.
 
Originally Posted By: HKPolice
Won't be ideal but running for a single OCI won't hurt. I've seen a lot of people posting after switching to M1 and it burned a quart or less over the first OCI in an engine that never burned before, but after the first OCI it never burned again.

So I wouldn't be surprised if this brew might cause some oil consumption.


This van doesn't consume any oil.....
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
[/quote]
If thinner oils mean that the engines and cars wear out at closer to the same time, not only is that fuel efficient, it makes more sense in the overall life of a vehicle.

People just have to realise that compromise is real, makes sense, and that 20s aren't there to make your engine last an extra 0.5 vehicle lifetime.

Bollocks.
As every manufacturer will tell most engine wear occurs on start-up and during warm-up.
When a manufacturer spec's a 20 grade oil particularly a high VI synthetic 0W-20 over a cheap heavier dino it's all about maximizing engine efficiency and minimizing engine wear when it's most likely to occur. Under extreme use at high oil temp's the manufacturers have taken step's to insure it is still viscose enough; there is no lubrication advantage in running anything heavier.

What some people have to "realize" is that it doesn't "make sense" to continue to hold onto old outdated automotive lubrication notions.
I think what Einstein said about common sense applies here:
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18."
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: Shannow

If thinner oils mean that the engines and cars wear out at closer to the same time, not only is that fuel efficient, it makes more sense in the overall life of a vehicle.

People just have to realise that compromise is real, makes sense, and that 20s aren't there to make your engine last an extra 0.5 vehicle lifetime.

Bollocks.
As every manufacturer will tell most engine wear occurs on start-up and during warm-up.
When a manufacturer spec's a 20 grade oil particularly a high VI synthetic 0W-20 over a cheap heavier dino it's all about maximizing engine efficiency and minimizing engine wear when it's most likely to occur. Under extreme use at high oil temp's the manufacturers have taken step's to insure it is still viscose enough; there is no lubrication advantage in running anything heavier.

What some people have to "realize" is that it doesn't "make sense" to continue to hold onto old outdated automotive lubrication notions.
I think what Einstein said about common sense applies here:
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18."


Good to see that "Bollocks" gets past the censor. Now I can talk about how back in the day my grandpa used to pull his cart with his 2 Bollocks.
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: Shannow

If thinner oils mean that the engines and cars wear out at closer to the same time, not only is that fuel efficient, it makes more sense in the overall life of a vehicle.

People just have to realise that compromise is real, makes sense, and that 20s aren't there to make your engine last an extra 0.5 vehicle lifetime.

Bollocks.
As every manufacturer will tell most engine wear occurs on start-up and during warm-up.
When a manufacturer spec's a 20 grade oil particularly a high VI synthetic 0W-20 over a cheap heavier dino it's all about maximizing engine efficiency and minimizing engine wear when it's most likely to occur. Under extreme use at high oil temp's the manufacturers have taken step's to insure it is still viscose enough; there is no lubrication advantage in running anything heavier.

What some people have to "realize" is that it doesn't "make sense" to continue to hold onto old outdated automotive lubrication notions.
I think what Einstein said about common sense applies here:
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18."


CATERHAM,
the pumpability issues are addressed with the pumability specs....i.e. the 0W.

Most wear occurs during warm-up, undoubtedly true...but the oil is clearly present in the wear pints during that phase (unless the 0W, 5W, 10W, is being grossly misapplied like the Esso videos, but that's not the topic.)

As per repeated requests...
* pleas tell the crowd which stadard tests are used to mesaure startup wear (by the API, ILSAC)
* where is the evidence that 20s, high VI outperform any other viscosity in these "INDUSTRY STANDARD" cold wear tests.
* please explain why they use such complicated and expensive tests, when by your assertion, it could be replaced by VI.
* Why the manufacturers of these high VI lubricants (e.g. Honda) talk "efficiency while providing acceptable wear".

As an aside, "Bollocks" was the very fist thing that went though my mind when you attributed the taxi wear used oil tests to "improvements in lubrication as the oil thinned out", when you had nether read the paper, not understood it's premise...with the preconceived bias that you bring yourself.
 
Very good questions.

However, we all know that reducing viscosity has fuel efficiency as a major driver. What we don't know is how much extra wear it creates, how many miles until that wear translates into reduced fuel and oil efficiency (which could defeat the intended purpose of thinner oil), how much less we expect an engine to last and how that all compares against the thicker alternative.

I read that the Daimler now see thinner oil as inevitable for their engines also. So how much will they be compromising by going from 40 to 30?

None of this matters without hard facts. The engineers determined that reducing viscosity was safe, and the ultimate test ie real world usage proved that it was.

So the question is, now that argument is over, what do the numbers show as a result of moving from 30 to 20, and do they match what was expected?

And if they do, then you have even more reason to trust the engineers as they determine exactly what it would mean if you move from 20 to 16.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top