Delo 400 15W16 home brew SM/GF-5?

[Garak]

That is one of the reasons I do trust when a known oil company lists an older diesel spec on one of their 10w-40 offerings, for instance; I will use it in a diesel calling for that older specification. It's also important to note that we do see a dichotomy of TBN levels on HDEOs of several sorts. The E7/E9 ones seem to be significantly and consistently higher than those with simple CJ-4 approval.

You're also quite right about the ULSD matter.

 

[userfriendly]

Does anyone remember when multi-grades would go 2,000
miles or less, then suddenly start burning oil?
Or the pressure would drop, indicating its time
to change the oil?
The rule of thumb was to use the least grade spread
that you could get away with for the ambient.
At first 15W30 looks odd. Then we see 20W30 in a
Lubrizol link.
I threw 15W16 into the hat and Shannow questioned
whether 10W16 might confuse consumers.
Personally I think we are looking at future grades
that are not being invented just for marketing purposes.

 

[Garak]

My LTD was notorious for that burning, but it was at least as much a fault of the vehicle as the oil.

As for oil grading, there certainly are plenty of ideas as to how to improve the current system. It confuses people at the best of times, anyhow.

 

[userfriendly]

Here is an additive package from a Cat TO-4 CD/GL-3 from 2002.
Ca 3130
N 30
P 1190
Si 7
S 3810
Zn 1280
TBN 7.86
TAN 2.78

Its not much different from a CI-4, but with 50% more calcium.

 

[userfriendly]

If I'm reading the Infineum report correctly, 10W30 is more shear stable than 15W40.
I always thought it would be the other way around.
Especially if the story that 15W40 was originally a trucker invention by adding
SAE 50 to 10W30 is true.
The other piece of information Shannow posted is that one quart of
oil consumption per 1,000 miles is the new target.
In the Lubrizol presentation of the additive test, 150,000 miles
at that oil consumption rate is also the target life of the TWC.
(three way cat)
My Toyota test with two HDMOs, 10W30 and 15W40 posted above went over 12,000 miles each
with 1.5 liters and zero consumption observed.

At the target rate, the total would have been 25 liters instead of 1.5 liters.
With the additive package being replenished every 1,000 miles, there should be no reason to ever change the oil.
Just keep adding and adding as the miles roll by adding to the cost of motoring.
Don't forget to factor in the price of a new TWC every 150,000 miles.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: used_0il
If I'm reading the Infineum report correctly, 10W30 is more shear stable than 15W40.
I always thought it would be the other way around.
Especially if the story that 15W40 was originally a trucker invention by adding
SAE 50 to 10W30 is true.


I think that there's two breeds of 10W30.

The ILSAC variety, which the hot end is extended by VIIs and use a lower base oil viscosity, and the B3/B4 C3 types which seem to be a higher viscosity base oil, with the bottom end augmented by PPDs and the like...as is seen, 15W30 and 20W30 (and Amsoil's 10W30) are nearly there basestock alone.


Originally Posted By: used_0il
My Toyota test with two HDMOs, 10W30 and 15W40 posted above went over 12,000 miles each
with 1.5 liters and zero consumption observed.

At the target rate, the total would have been 25 liters instead of 1.5 liters.
With the additive package being replenished every 1,000 miles, there should be no reason to ever change the oil.
Just keep adding and adding as the miles roll by adding to the cost of motoring.
Don't forget to factor in the price of a new TWC every 150,000 miles.


That's why I don't bother with what level of adds are in the oil (and don't play ILSAC typically, and won't into the future)...don't burn the stuff, and TWC life isn't an issue...and it wouldn't be an issue for most vehicles at higher SAPS, it's just the OEMs want to protect their lemons.

Was part of the reason that I asked a few months ago if there was a fully formulated "additive" that could take (say) a hydraulic oil and make something out of it.


As to the just keep adding and adding...


I loved the M1 and Amsoil tests
http://www.brianschreurs.org/neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/mobil1.html which demonstrated exactly that. Take enough oil for a UOA, and a regular filter change, and the oils lasts forever.

 

[userfriendly]

If I remember correctly the "W" cold cranking and pumping
limits were upgraded 10 or 12 years ago in the J300.

The old 15W was like 20W is now with higher cranking limits,
or tested at 5 degrees warmer.

15W40 has evolved into what it has become.

It is no longer acceptable to
have planned evaporation of light-ends to keep
an engine oil in grade.

How old is NOACK and what is it's objective?

 

[Shannow]

Re the cold cranking, here's some pics from my library.

1984 to 1992

1997

And Current

You recall correctly, it's been tinkered with.

ILSAC GF3 was the first standard with the phosphorous volatility tests.
somewhat touched on here and here

 

[A_Harman]

Good info, Shannow.

It looks like the SAE also applies the "double viscosity for every 5C of cooling" rule that we quote on BITOG from time to time. Somewhere between 1984 and 1997, they dropped the test temperatures for cold pumpability by 5C, then the max allowable viscosity changed from 30,000 to 60,000. Then somewhere between 1997 and 2013, they dropped the test temperatures for cold cranking by 5C, then the viscosities more or less doubled depending on the W-grade.

 

[Shannow]

I entirely missed that correlation, thanks for pointing it out.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Good info, Shannow.

It looks like the SAE also applies the "double viscosity for every 5C of cooling" rule that we quote on BITOG from time to time. Somewhere between 1984 and 1997, they dropped the test temperatures for cold pumpability by 5C, then the max allowable viscosity changed from 30,000 to 60,000. Then somewhere between 1997 and 2013, they dropped the test temperatures for cold cranking by 5C, then the viscosities more or less doubled depending on the W-grade.


The doubling rule strikes again!!! We've seen examples of it in play right up to -15C BTW, which makes it incredible easy to extrapolate performance when comparing oils.

 

[OVERKILL]

When I started using it (the "doubling rule") on here (early 2013?) I hadn't heard reference of it before and thought it was something original, however when searching I've found references of it popping up every once and awhile back to around 2006.

Not sure why it has been mentioned so infrequently, as it applies to a lot of the topics we discuss on here and provides a lot of insight into oil behaviour below 0C, something that VI does not.

 

[userfriendly]

Is the intent of NOACK lost when an engine uses a lot of oil?

I always thought that NOACK was an invention of the API old boys club.

Eliminate group one base stocks with rule changes, squeeze out the small
refiners and pay for their billion dollar babies.