With the good prices on PP last month I ended up going to a couple local auto stores who had the deals. They didn't carry 0W-20 weight that I needed. WM was out too on the two different locations I went to twice. Going to likely switch to M1 since I can't find the PP. Now I have about 2qt leftover from my last 2 changes of PP. Can I safely mix 2qt PP and 2.1qt of M1? Or would it be best just to go all M1?
Mixing PP+M1
- Thread starter Liquidretro
- Start date
- Status
Of course! There won't be any issues.
You can do it. I'd use one qt. per oil change, taking two oil changes to use it all up. Opinions will vary.
+1
Yes you can.
Far from ideal, but you can mix it with safe. Don't make habit of it though.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Shannow
They are made to be safely mixed without separation, precipitation of gelling...that does not mean that they are synergistic, or pass any of the other tests that either oil passes on their own.
This. You can do it to use them up but don't expect a benefit.
They are made to be safely mixed without separation, precipitation of gelling...that does not mean that they are synergistic, or pass any of the other tests that either oil passes on their own.
This. You can do it to use them up but don't expect a benefit.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
They are made to be safely mixed without separation, precipitation of gelling...that does not mean that they are synergistic, or pass any of the other tests that either oil passes on their own.
Well that's not true because if both oils are approved by the car company they can be used with no issues regarding warranty or otherwise.
They are made to be safely mixed without separation, precipitation of gelling...that does not mean that they are synergistic, or pass any of the other tests that either oil passes on their own.
Well that's not true because if both oils are approved by the car company they can be used with no issues regarding warranty or otherwise.
Maybe it's just not worth it and i'll keep the old on the shelf for if PP comes back in stock. In uless the car uses 5 qts it seems easier to stick with one brand.
You should be able to mix the two pretty safely.
These oils have fairly similiar add packs and probably similar basestock blends.
You don't really need to, though, since both M1 and PP are offered with attractive MIRs a couple of times each year.
Keep the PP for future use with new PP.
If you paid more than twelve dollars or so net for five quarts of either oil, you paid more than you really needed to.
M1 MIRs are a breeze.
SOPUS MIRs OTOH often require that you make a phone call or two.
These oils have fairly similiar add packs and probably similar basestock blends.
You don't really need to, though, since both M1 and PP are offered with attractive MIRs a couple of times each year.
Keep the PP for future use with new PP.
If you paid more than twelve dollars or so net for five quarts of either oil, you paid more than you really needed to.
M1 MIRs are a breeze.
SOPUS MIRs OTOH often require that you make a phone call or two.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: Shannow
They are made to be safely mixed without separation, precipitation of gelling...that does not mean that they are synergistic, or pass any of the other tests that either oil passes on their own.
Well that's not true because if both oils are approved by the car company they can be used with no issues regarding warranty or otherwise.
Which bit's not true ???
Originally Posted By: Shannow
They are made to be safely mixed without separation, precipitation of gelling...that does not mean that they are synergistic, or pass any of the other tests that either oil passes on their own.
Well that's not true because if both oils are approved by the car company they can be used with no issues regarding warranty or otherwise.
Which bit's not true ???
Originally Posted By: chrisri
Far from ideal, but you can mix it with safe. Don't make habit of it though.
And why exactly shouldn't he make it a habit. I almost never use the same brand of oil for 2 changes in a row,and I routinely mix brands and grades.
I use ceratec and mos2 as well. Should I expect my engines to somehow fail,or suddenly sludge up?
My work vans and trucks all have in excess if 350000kms and 2 vans are over 400000kms. They are loaded to the roof with tools and are driven by men who are oblivious to knowing how to check the fluids prior to leaving the compound.
My personal vehicles over the years all run into and past 300k and the only time an engine gets opened up is for upgrades.
None of my work vehicles have even so much as had the valve covers off. Since I discovered motor oil saver I don't have any gasket leaks either.
So if you can I'd love an elaboration as to why mixing oils is bad.
I completely understand that the chemistry of different brands will mean the mix may not be optimal however there won't be any harm.
In fact all these threads about mixing oil and the evils of it yet when we get a uoa posted of a frankenbrew the numbers seem to be in line with the pre-established trends,and in most of the examples I've seen wear metals were lower than trended data and universal averages,not that that in itself means much and I'm not saying that a frankenbrew is magical and will lessen wear,what I am saying is that though it's not optimal it's not harmful in any way.
I read guys post about additive clash yet in my years here on this site I've never seen an example of this phenomenon,so I'm relegating the idea to myth.
Far from ideal, but you can mix it with safe. Don't make habit of it though.
And why exactly shouldn't he make it a habit. I almost never use the same brand of oil for 2 changes in a row,and I routinely mix brands and grades.
I use ceratec and mos2 as well. Should I expect my engines to somehow fail,or suddenly sludge up?
My work vans and trucks all have in excess if 350000kms and 2 vans are over 400000kms. They are loaded to the roof with tools and are driven by men who are oblivious to knowing how to check the fluids prior to leaving the compound.
My personal vehicles over the years all run into and past 300k and the only time an engine gets opened up is for upgrades.
None of my work vehicles have even so much as had the valve covers off. Since I discovered motor oil saver I don't have any gasket leaks either.
So if you can I'd love an elaboration as to why mixing oils is bad.
I completely understand that the chemistry of different brands will mean the mix may not be optimal however there won't be any harm.
In fact all these threads about mixing oil and the evils of it yet when we get a uoa posted of a frankenbrew the numbers seem to be in line with the pre-established trends,and in most of the examples I've seen wear metals were lower than trended data and universal averages,not that that in itself means much and I'm not saying that a frankenbrew is magical and will lessen wear,what I am saying is that though it's not optimal it's not harmful in any way.
I read guys post about additive clash yet in my years here on this site I've never seen an example of this phenomenon,so I'm relegating the idea to myth.
clevy, the problems, as best I can work out are in the "W" part of an oil's grade.
The additives that get upset are the ones that provide the cold temperature pumpability...No UOA tests for cold temperature performance, and even a UOA that gives Viscosity index (calculated from KV40 and KV100) tells nothing about the cold temperature performance.
As I've posted lots of times, the activation of zinc/moly additives creates lots of species that help with boundary layer protection (why I add MoS2 is that's one of the components that's formed)
But people were using various monogrades across the US and Canada for the history of the motor car...so the 0W bit has had a workaround for 100 years...not ideal, but typically not catastrophic unless you are one of the unlucky ones.
The additives that get upset are the ones that provide the cold temperature pumpability...No UOA tests for cold temperature performance, and even a UOA that gives Viscosity index (calculated from KV40 and KV100) tells nothing about the cold temperature performance.
As I've posted lots of times, the activation of zinc/moly additives creates lots of species that help with boundary layer protection (why I add MoS2 is that's one of the components that's formed)
But people were using various monogrades across the US and Canada for the history of the motor car...so the 0W bit has had a workaround for 100 years...not ideal, but typically not catastrophic unless you are one of the unlucky ones.
I have mixed oils for many years, especially in my younger days when the money went towards beer as a priority, and whatever oil I needed was on the cheap. I would find stuff in the shed and mix everything up. Guess what, not one problem with an engine or oil related issue. I have mixed oils in raced motorcycles too and those were tore down frequently and nothing was out of the norm.
I say mix all you want is my opinion.
I say mix all you want is my opinion.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
clevy, the problems, as best I can work out are in the "W" part of an oil's grade.
The additives that get upset are the ones that provide the cold temperature pumpability...No UOA tests for cold temperature performance, and even a UOA that gives Viscosity index (calculated from KV40 and KV100) tells nothing about the cold temperature performance.
If you're implying that this blend could result in the 5W-30s somehow being converted into a 10W-30 I can't see how that is remotely possible.
Firstly, as per ASTM D6922, their PPs cannot be adversely affected.
Secondly, a 10W-30 is formulated from heavier base oils with a resultant lower VI. Both these 5W-30s have 170+ VIs and that's what you're still going to get when blended.
You can't make a 10W-30 with a 170+ VI.
clevy, the problems, as best I can work out are in the "W" part of an oil's grade.
The additives that get upset are the ones that provide the cold temperature pumpability...No UOA tests for cold temperature performance, and even a UOA that gives Viscosity index (calculated from KV40 and KV100) tells nothing about the cold temperature performance.
If you're implying that this blend could result in the 5W-30s somehow being converted into a 10W-30 I can't see how that is remotely possible.
Firstly, as per ASTM D6922, their PPs cannot be adversely affected.
Secondly, a 10W-30 is formulated from heavier base oils with a resultant lower VI. Both these 5W-30s have 170+ VIs and that's what you're still going to get when blended.
You can't make a 10W-30 with a 170+ VI.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
If you're implying that this blend could result in the 5W-30s somehow being converted into a 10W-30 I can't see how that is remotely possible.
CATERHAM, please read what I said, not what you would like to strawman me with...your standard OP.
You continually state that things are "self evident", "obvious", "don't appear remotely possible", but never bring any science to your arguments, other than "feelings.
I didn't say that the oils would somehow be converted to 10W30, I said that the "W" performance is the area most likely to be affected by negative additive interactions....sometimes VERY badly, and not just slipping a grade.
e.g. http://papers.sae.org/2000-01-2942/
Go back to the 0W40 thread, and there's others.
As to attributing statements to others, your continual reference to ASTM D6922...
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Firstly, as per ASTM D6922, their PPs cannot be adversely affected.
Surely, as an Insurance Salesman, versed in reading and comprehension, you have read said standard and comprehend it. It neither states, nor implies those arguments that you continuously attribute to it.
I'll refresh your memory if you like.
In short, the standard is a "miscibility standard", not a guarantee of mixed oil's field performance.
The oil is mixed with 6 ASTM reference oils (not every available oil out there),
Quote:
Visual color determinations and observations are made
on an undiluted test oil specimen, along with six blends of the
same test oil that have been combined with specific reference
oils. The pour point is then determined for the undiluted test oil
specimen and the six blends. The undiluted test oil specimen
and six blends are then allowed to warm to room temperature.
Color determinations and observations are again made on the
undiluted test oil specimen and six blends. The undiluted test
oil specimen and six blends are heated to 232°C, then allowed
to cool to room temperature, and then stored at their pour point
temperatures for 18 to 24 h. The undiluted test oil specimen
and six blends are then allowed to thaw and a series of color
determinations and observations are made as they reach room
temperature. All data are recorded on a report form.
That's it...there's nothing other than colour, and the fact that it doesn't split, separate, gell, or form a precipitate. It doesn't test for pour point, other than the mix as the start point for the testing.
It does NOT guarantee that the blends maintain their W rating. It Does not guarantee that any other test that either oil meets on it's own, wear, scuffing, you name it...regardless of how many times that you, CATERHAM, say that it does.
Was discussed here if you want to get up to speed with what ASTM D6922 DOES promise.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Secondly, a 10W-30 is formulated from heavier base oils with a resultant lower VI. Both these 5W-30s have 170+ VIs and that's what you're still going to get when blended.
You can't make a 10W-30 with a 170+ VI.
Again, read what I said, not the strawman that you would like to beat down. That's not what I said, and there is literature to support that sometimes the interactions are a horrible loss in cold performance, while the KV40/KV100 re relatively unaffected...cases...and cases occur because the ASTM D6922 can only screen every test oil with 6 reference oils and check if they "split"...not check every oil against every other oil
You, of all people should understand that VI doesn't promise anything with regard to the cold weather performance "W" rating.
discussion here
Pictorially, to better enable it to be "felt". Two "synthetic" basestocks of same KV40/KV100, and therefore Viscosity Index (calculated from KV40/KV100, not an inherent measurement)...vastly different "W" performance....nothing to do with the possible negative interactions of blending, but answering your point.
Obviously, and clearly self evidently, these two basestocks need a different low end add pack to meet whatever cold weather "W" standard that's required, and surely it's obvious that the behaviour of two finished oils, with these two basestocks, when mixed isn't easily and linearly predictable, which is your blending posit, and one that I've repeatedly requested that you defend with other than motherhood statement.
(Oh, and the chart DOES support your argument that some racing oils get their 0W "by accident" on their choice of basestocks...not really for street oils).
If you're implying that this blend could result in the 5W-30s somehow being converted into a 10W-30 I can't see how that is remotely possible.
CATERHAM, please read what I said, not what you would like to strawman me with...your standard OP.
You continually state that things are "self evident", "obvious", "don't appear remotely possible", but never bring any science to your arguments, other than "feelings.
I didn't say that the oils would somehow be converted to 10W30, I said that the "W" performance is the area most likely to be affected by negative additive interactions....sometimes VERY badly, and not just slipping a grade.
e.g. http://papers.sae.org/2000-01-2942/
Go back to the 0W40 thread, and there's others.
As to attributing statements to others, your continual reference to ASTM D6922...
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Firstly, as per ASTM D6922, their PPs cannot be adversely affected.
Surely, as an Insurance Salesman, versed in reading and comprehension, you have read said standard and comprehend it. It neither states, nor implies those arguments that you continuously attribute to it.
I'll refresh your memory if you like.
In short, the standard is a "miscibility standard", not a guarantee of mixed oil's field performance.
The oil is mixed with 6 ASTM reference oils (not every available oil out there),
Quote:
Visual color determinations and observations are made
on an undiluted test oil specimen, along with six blends of the
same test oil that have been combined with specific reference
oils. The pour point is then determined for the undiluted test oil
specimen and the six blends. The undiluted test oil specimen
and six blends are then allowed to warm to room temperature.
Color determinations and observations are again made on the
undiluted test oil specimen and six blends. The undiluted test
oil specimen and six blends are heated to 232°C, then allowed
to cool to room temperature, and then stored at their pour point
temperatures for 18 to 24 h. The undiluted test oil specimen
and six blends are then allowed to thaw and a series of color
determinations and observations are made as they reach room
temperature. All data are recorded on a report form.
That's it...there's nothing other than colour, and the fact that it doesn't split, separate, gell, or form a precipitate. It doesn't test for pour point, other than the mix as the start point for the testing.
It does NOT guarantee that the blends maintain their W rating. It Does not guarantee that any other test that either oil meets on it's own, wear, scuffing, you name it...regardless of how many times that you, CATERHAM, say that it does.
Was discussed here if you want to get up to speed with what ASTM D6922 DOES promise.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Secondly, a 10W-30 is formulated from heavier base oils with a resultant lower VI. Both these 5W-30s have 170+ VIs and that's what you're still going to get when blended.
You can't make a 10W-30 with a 170+ VI.
Again, read what I said, not the strawman that you would like to beat down. That's not what I said, and there is literature to support that sometimes the interactions are a horrible loss in cold performance, while the KV40/KV100 re relatively unaffected...cases...and cases occur because the ASTM D6922 can only screen every test oil with 6 reference oils and check if they "split"...not check every oil against every other oil
You, of all people should understand that VI doesn't promise anything with regard to the cold weather performance "W" rating.
discussion here
Pictorially, to better enable it to be "felt". Two "synthetic" basestocks of same KV40/KV100, and therefore Viscosity Index (calculated from KV40/KV100, not an inherent measurement)...vastly different "W" performance....nothing to do with the possible negative interactions of blending, but answering your point.
Obviously, and clearly self evidently, these two basestocks need a different low end add pack to meet whatever cold weather "W" standard that's required, and surely it's obvious that the behaviour of two finished oils, with these two basestocks, when mixed isn't easily and linearly predictable, which is your blending posit, and one that I've repeatedly requested that you defend with other than motherhood statement.
(Oh, and the chart DOES support your argument that some racing oils get their 0W "by accident" on their choice of basestocks...not really for street oils).
Now we are reading all the reasons NOT to mix different brands of oil.
Or the same brand except different grades?
Or the same brand except different grades?
Ah, the protestations of a sore loser.
Quite the palaver.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
I didn't say that the oils would somehow be converted to 10W30, I said that the "W" performance is the area most likely to be affected by negative additive interactions....sometimes VERY badly, and not just slipping a grade.
So you are suggesting they are "slipping a grade" as much as you like to dance around it. And as I've asked before I would love to have just one oil example of these fear mongering, "negative additive interactions....sometimes VERY badly."
Originally Posted By: Shannow
It does NOT guarantee that the blends maintain their W rating. It Does not guarantee that any other test that either oil meets on it's own, wear, scuffing, you name it...regardless of how many times that you, CATERHAM, say that it does.
Take about a Strawman argument, I have never made those claims regarding D6922. And yes I disagree with your assessment that is has no value. I do agree with Tom NJs summation of D6922 as follows:
"The purpose of the temperature and time profile in the test is to accelerate or push any potential chemical reactions/interactions or additive insolubilities/incompatibilities, which would then likely show up in the observations as hazing, clouding, precipitation, color change, pour point change, and/or phase separation. In this sense it goes beyond mere miscibility and may flag potential performance issues."
Originally Posted By: Shannow
You, of all people should understand that VI doesn't promise anything with regard to the cold weather performance "W" rating.
You can read a lot from the VI of a finished oil.
Which is why we know the blending of these two oils will not produce a 10W-30 as you suggest...oh right, "not just slipping a grade".
I also posit that it's not likely possible to make a 5W-20 with a 220 VI, it will turn out to be a 0W-20.
Just like you can't formulate a synthetic (at least not a GP III) 15W-40, it will be no heavier than a 10W-40 if not a 5W-40.
Anyway this has nothing to do with mixing compatibility or otherwise alleged negative reactions.
As for your elementary stylized PAO vs mineral oil (GP III presumably) graph. Yes a PAO will hit the wall at lower temp's than a mineral oil as if that's some sort of revelation we don't already know. And again your implying some inherent incompatibility without provided not a single example or proof to back up your position.
I've mentioned recently that the API allows up to a 30% base oil interchange with GP III or PAO without the need for retesting.
And as far as blending finished oils I think every formulator I know of would disagree with you that their are issues if their synthetic oil is blended with a conventional oil of another brand.
For example Castrol have made the following statement regarding their original PAO/ester based Syntec:
"Mixing Syntec with a premium oil will IMPROVE the performance of the conventional oil and not harm your engine in any way."
Blending oils really is a non issue in the greater automotive community. Sure there are some unique formulations (generally not OTC oils) that one can argue are better used straight to garner maximum effect. If any member has concerns about blending any oils all they need do is contact the formulator and ask. I've yet to find one that says there would be any harm to your engine in any way to top up with a quart or two of their oil.
Oh, and BTW I don't sell Insurance as I've explained to you before although I have been involved in property and casualty commercial risk management. And I do have a Science degree from the University of Toronto and fully understand the scientific method, something that's apparently a foreign concept to you. If you did you'd be more vigilant against falling into the confirmation bias trap where you're so firmly entrench.
And finally I've noticed you've dropped the blended oils in one of your cars that was part of your signature. Now why would that be, not that you're hypocritical in the slightest.
Quite the palaver.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
I didn't say that the oils would somehow be converted to 10W30, I said that the "W" performance is the area most likely to be affected by negative additive interactions....sometimes VERY badly, and not just slipping a grade.
So you are suggesting they are "slipping a grade" as much as you like to dance around it. And as I've asked before I would love to have just one oil example of these fear mongering, "negative additive interactions....sometimes VERY badly."
Originally Posted By: Shannow
It does NOT guarantee that the blends maintain their W rating. It Does not guarantee that any other test that either oil meets on it's own, wear, scuffing, you name it...regardless of how many times that you, CATERHAM, say that it does.
Take about a Strawman argument, I have never made those claims regarding D6922. And yes I disagree with your assessment that is has no value. I do agree with Tom NJs summation of D6922 as follows:
"The purpose of the temperature and time profile in the test is to accelerate or push any potential chemical reactions/interactions or additive insolubilities/incompatibilities, which would then likely show up in the observations as hazing, clouding, precipitation, color change, pour point change, and/or phase separation. In this sense it goes beyond mere miscibility and may flag potential performance issues."
Originally Posted By: Shannow
You, of all people should understand that VI doesn't promise anything with regard to the cold weather performance "W" rating.
You can read a lot from the VI of a finished oil.
Which is why we know the blending of these two oils will not produce a 10W-30 as you suggest...oh right, "not just slipping a grade".
I also posit that it's not likely possible to make a 5W-20 with a 220 VI, it will turn out to be a 0W-20.
Just like you can't formulate a synthetic (at least not a GP III) 15W-40, it will be no heavier than a 10W-40 if not a 5W-40.
Anyway this has nothing to do with mixing compatibility or otherwise alleged negative reactions.
As for your elementary stylized PAO vs mineral oil (GP III presumably) graph. Yes a PAO will hit the wall at lower temp's than a mineral oil as if that's some sort of revelation we don't already know. And again your implying some inherent incompatibility without provided not a single example or proof to back up your position.
I've mentioned recently that the API allows up to a 30% base oil interchange with GP III or PAO without the need for retesting.
And as far as blending finished oils I think every formulator I know of would disagree with you that their are issues if their synthetic oil is blended with a conventional oil of another brand.
For example Castrol have made the following statement regarding their original PAO/ester based Syntec:
"Mixing Syntec with a premium oil will IMPROVE the performance of the conventional oil and not harm your engine in any way."
Blending oils really is a non issue in the greater automotive community. Sure there are some unique formulations (generally not OTC oils) that one can argue are better used straight to garner maximum effect. If any member has concerns about blending any oils all they need do is contact the formulator and ask. I've yet to find one that says there would be any harm to your engine in any way to top up with a quart or two of their oil.
Oh, and BTW I don't sell Insurance as I've explained to you before although I have been involved in property and casualty commercial risk management. And I do have a Science degree from the University of Toronto and fully understand the scientific method, something that's apparently a foreign concept to you. If you did you'd be more vigilant against falling into the confirmation bias trap where you're so firmly entrench.
And finally I've noticed you've dropped the blended oils in one of your cars that was part of your signature. Now why would that be, not that you're hypocritical in the slightest.
- Status