Running Rotella 5w40 in my new 6.2 gas?

[Manofsteel]

Originally Posted By: Doublehaul
I have a thread going about running QSGB Conventional in my new F350 gasser. That being said I was wondering what everyones thoughts were on running a slightly heavier HDEO. I was just speaking with a friend of mine who owns a diesel shop and he has offered to keep me in Rotella 5w40 for free. He buys it 250 gallons at a time. Truck calls for 5w30...go this route or keep the qsgb plan?

Are you saying he will give you free oil changes or upgrade to rotella 5w40 at no extra charge? Either way I would go with the 5w40 rotella. The 40 weight wont hurt a thing in that engine and is probably a better idea anyway.

 

[InhalingBullets]

Originally Posted By: Blaze
Originally Posted By: old1
I thought the issue for cats was the zddp
Me too. I'm in the same situation. I have a Toyota pick-up with a 22-r motor and also have two gals of Rotella 5-40 I got cheap and no place to use it. My Toyota has a cat too.


You guys were correct my brain got crossways with the Moly and ZDDP, in relation to the clutches in motorcycles...ill shut up now.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: Brybo86
Originally Posted By: Doublehaul
My only concern is the cats...

HUH?
Thicker would mean oil would be less likely to get to the CAT...

Thinner oil more likely to have consumption and oil getting into the CAT


False


True, that's why they keep lowering the P limits, on ILSAC grades, while promoting 1qt/1,000 miles as acceptable consumption.

Even Toyota suggest that lowering viscosity can increase consumption.


False again. The thinner oil comment was referring to an engine that was severely worn with high oil consumption, not an engine that is still operating normally. Any "oil" that is getting into a cat will shortly ruin a cat. Besides if an engine is that worn, and getting that kind of blow by, then any wt oil will get past the rings, not just 20 wt oils. I've been using 20 wt oils for some time, as have tens of thousands of others, and I don't believe any ruined a cat just because they were using 20 wt. vs 30-40. Even in the late 70s I used 5-20 in engines calling for 10-40 and never scraped out a cat.

 

[Shannow]

tig1...in the late 70s, were the OEMs playing with low tension everything (for economy), and arguing that 1qt per 1,000 miles was "normal" on a new engine ?

With the excessive "normal" oil consumption (not every car, just the outliers that they declare "normal" to avoid shelling out $$$), comes their impetus to reduce P in the ILSAC (economy) grades.

It's true, and the fact that your non burning 70s cars on early M1 didn't waste cats has virtually zero relevence.

 

[901Memphis]

That is an older VOA, they have increased GTL production since then and started moving it through the product line with the surplus.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
tig1...in the late 70s, were the OEMs playing with low tension everything (for economy), and arguing that 1qt per 1,000 miles was "normal" on a new engine ?

With the excessive "normal" oil consumption (not every car, just the outliers that they declare "normal" to avoid shelling out $$$), comes their impetus to reduce P in the ILSAC (economy) grades.

It's true, and the fact that your non burning 70s cars on early M1 didn't waste cats has virtually zero relevence.

Most of the 70s engines did use more oil than todays, at least mine. A qt. every 3K was common.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Most of the 70s engines did use more oil than todays, at least mine. A qt. every 3K was common.


And the OEMs want a qt/1,000 to be "normal" for the sake of warranty, so they reduce the P (in ILSAC oils) to allow for it...which is my point.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Note that Rotella 5W-40 is a very cheap synthetic (cheapest Group III base stocks) and lacks friction modifiers (other than some moly). There are much better synthetic xW-40s out there, such as M1 0W-40, which is also designed more for gas engines and comes with a good dose of moly and organic friction modifiers. It also throws in Group IV and Group V.

This said, you are probably OK with the OEM recommendation.
+1

From what I have read, their 5w40 T6 is primarily GTL group III which is very good synthetic, even besting some Grp IV synthetics when it comes to NOACK. Cheapest Grp III doesn't say anything. If a base oil meets a class, doesn't matter how much it costs to make it. If Shell can do it cheaper and meet the standard, more power to them.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: Doublehaul
New truck calls for 5w30...not worried about stepping up to a 40. Just a little concerned about using hdeo in a gas engine calling for gl5/sn
I think T6 carries a gas engine rating as well. I have been using it in Toyota engines for years.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: tig1
Most of the 70s engines did use more oil than todays, at least mine. A qt. every 3K was common.


And the OEMs want a qt/1,000 to be "normal" for the sake of warranty, so they reduce the P (in ILSAC oils) to allow for it...which is my point.


1000 does seem to be the normal, but I personally haven't seen a newer engine use that much oil. Thankfully.

 

[Shannow]

tig1, I agree that it's rare to see.

Which is why there's no issue IMO running the Rotella 5W40 from an emissions systems perspective...