Total Quartz Ineo MC3 5W30

[anl0109]

Originally Posted By: Emperors6
Btw, here's a report from another lab on the same sample (WIX is the lab -- I think they use Polaris?):

Their comments:
"All wear levels appear within acceptable limits for first
sample. Silicon level (dirt/sealant material) satisfactory.
Water content acceptable. Viscosity within specified
operating range.
Action: As oil and filter(s) already changed, resample
at next recommended interval to monitor and establish
wear trend. "

Apparently they have trouble reading my writing since they got the time on oil wrong, and my contact info (not shown here). I think next time I'll just get Blackstone. Still waiting for one more lab.


The Wix and NAPA kits I had used and sent to the Atlanta lab were processed by ALS Tribology. Might be different if you are using Canadian labs.

As to readings, it's odd that Blackstone reported additives quite a bit lower in terms of ppm, isn't it? And then viscosity readings are different too although both represent 30 grade.

 

[Emperors6]

I used the ALS Tribology lab in Valley View OH since it's closer to where I shipped it from: NY.

Oh, and they got the sampled date wrong too. Blackstone must just be so much better at reading my writing!

 

[nickolas84]

It would be nice to check your OLM before and after track use. In my case a 2 hour/100km session reduced it by like ~10%. At the same time (extrapolating) it allows me 40.000+km of highway driving or around 25.000km of city driving.

Note that Redline is not on the GM Dexos approved list. So you are taking Redline's word that it meets the spec.

The list is here http://www.centerforqa.com/dexos-brand1/

 

[Emperors6]

Hmm, thanks for the advice. I will keep track of the OLM for each event.

I've received the third report and put it a table with the other two for easy comparison:

Their comments were:

"Flagged data does not indicate an immediate need for maintenance action. Continue to observe the trend and monitor equipment and fluid conditions. Base Number is SLIGHTLY LOW. As Base Number depletes, the ability to neutralize acids is diminished and corrosive wear may occur. Sludge and deposits may form. Lubricant and filter change acknowledged."

The numbers between the three labs seem to have a big discrepancy (esp. between Blackstone and the other two) in the elemental concentrations. Should I be worried? This seems to call into question this method since it would be possible their measurement error might be larger than the variation in the trends.

 

[Colt45ws]

The only numbers really that far out are the Calcium, Phosphorus, and Zinc. All of which are additives in the engine oil. Everything else looks reasonably repeatable.
This is why people have said you can't use UOAs to 'engineer' a few ppm of wear out by changing oils because normal variation between samples and all kinds of other variables can produce several ppm of difference just on their own.
Personally, Im not too concerned about Ca, P, and Zn being out like that. We know the oil has additives, otherwise, those numbers don't tell you much.

What would be interesting to me is to do B-S vs OAI on a known fuel diluter. I might do that with my Mom's car later this year. Depends if I have the money.

 

[Emperors6]

Known fuel diluter? Explain more please.

 

[Emperors6]

I think it meant a car that is known to often leave fuel in the engine oil.

I have another question. I was able to hook up an OBD reader and can now obtain engine coolant, oil temperature and pressure. What should I be looking for at the track to know if Redline 5W30 is tho correct one? (I've switched to it, also did the transmission and rear diff)

Here's some graphs from a recent longer trip.

 

[Gene K]

Redline 5W30 at 250F is roughly equal to 15W50 at 300F. I would base which grade I use on peak oil temps in track use. Be aware you also have to take into account sump temps will usually rise with increased oil grade. As long as oil temp doesn't exceed 260F the 5W30 of is likely fine. I ran M1 10W30 in LT4 Corvette with up to 270F oil temp without issue.

That said you need to talk to some track guys with LS Engine experience because engines can sometimes have unique requirements.

 

[Emperors6]

I'm curious, where did you get the viscosity figures for Redline or any other oil at different temperatures? Did you just extrapolate from the 40C and 100C they give?

 

[Emperors6]

Second UOA on this oil. Changed out early to Redline 5W30 for summer at the track. Units are in km instead of miles.

I could have probably just skipped the change in January. My plan is to use the vacuum pump mid-June after my second track weekend and if all looks good change out in October for six months on the Redline 5W30. I've got three more track weekends after the one in June planned. Thoughts?

 

[Emperors6]

Originally Posted By: Gene K
Redline 5W30 at 250F is roughly equal to 15W50 at 300F. I would base which grade I use on peak oil temps in track use. Be aware you also have to take into account sump temps will usually rise with increased oil grade. As long as oil temp doesn't exceed 260F the 5W30 of is likely fine. I ran M1 10W30 in LT4 Corvette with up to 270F oil temp without issue.

That said you need to talk to some track guys with LS Engine experience because engines can sometimes have unique requirements.


FYI in my first track weekend I saw oil temp go up as high as 223F, so I think the 5W30 might be good enough for my driving skills and tires this year. I'll keep an eye on it.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Emperors6
I see. What's the advantage of using a lighter oil? Fuel efficiency? If that's all there is, then I would prefer a heavier one if it sticks to the surfaces better. I care most about the life of the engine over fuel costs.

Yes fuel efficiency is one advantage as is lower engine wear on start-up/warm-up.
You do want oil to "stick" to metal at the molecular level but heavier oil doesn't do this any better than a lighter one and of course the lighter the oil the greater the amount of circulating in an engine which is critically important when the oil is cold and thick.

So to minimize wear you want the oil you choose to be as light as possible on a cold start while still being viscose enough when the oil is as hot as it will possibly get.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Gene K
Redline 5W30 at 250F is roughly equal to 15W50 at 300F. I would base which grade I use on peak oil temps in track use. Be aware you also have to take into account sump temps will usually rise with increased oil grade. As long as oil temp doesn't exceed 260F the 5W30 of is likely fine. I ran M1 10W30 in LT4 Corvette with up to 270F oil temp without issue.

That said you need to talk to some track guys with LS Engine experience because engines can sometimes have unique requirements.

Well said.
I would add that M1 10W-30 with it's HTHSV of 3.0cP is actually lighter than the spec' M1 5W-30 (HTHS 3.1cP).

 

[CATERHAM]

FYI in my first track weekend I saw oil temp go up as high as 223F, so I think the 5W30 might be good enough for my driving skills and tires this year. I'll keep an eye on it.[/quote
With maximum oil temp's of only 223F your concerns that the spec' M1 5W-30 being too light were unfounded; you've got a very large viscosity reserve with it.
This shouldn't come as a total surprise considering your engine has a 11 quart sump capacity. In fact it's possible that your oil temp's on the lighter spec' oil would be somewhat lower still.

At you're next oil change prior to the winter I'd suggest going back to the spec' M1 5W-30. Or if you want to run the lightest 0W/5W-30 you can buy on start-up in a T.O. climate (short of blending your own) it to try Sustina 5W-30.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: Emperors6
I see. What's the advantage of using a lighter oil? Fuel efficiency? If that's all there is, then I would prefer a heavier one if it sticks to the surfaces better. I care most about the life of the engine over fuel costs.

Yes fuel efficiency is one advantage as is lower engine wear on start-up/warm-up.
You do want oil to "stick" to metal at the molecular level but heavier oil doesn't do this any better than a lighter one and of course the lighter the oil the greater the amount of circulating in an engine which is critically important when the oil is cold and thick.


OK, your posit, your proof.

If the oil is in it's pumpable range, then there is ZERO difference in the time to fill galleries and get the oil to where it needs to be.

After that...please (again) provide something that evidences your posit that greater oil "circulation" provides lower warmup wear.

Please...just once ???

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

At you're next oil change prior to the winter I'd suggest going back to the spec' M1 5W-30. Or if you want to run the lightest 0W/5W-30 you can buy on start-up in a T.O. climate (short of blending your own) it to try Sustina 5W-30.


Tell me again how you calculate the "W" rating on a mix of two different oils, as your previous explanations have been somewhat lacking in evidence.

And BTW, it's "mixing"...blending is something that oil manufacturers use to MAKE an oil, using science...taking two disparate oils and mixing them to achieve an imagined outcome is mixing.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: Emperors6
I see. What's the advantage of using a lighter oil? Fuel efficiency? If that's all there is, then I would prefer a heavier one if it sticks to the surfaces better. I care most about the life of the engine over fuel costs.

Yes fuel efficiency is one advantage as is lower engine wear on start-up/warm-up.
You do want oil to "stick" to metal at the molecular level but heavier oil doesn't do this any better than a lighter one and of course the lighter the oil the greater the amount of circulating in an engine which is critically important when the oil is cold and thick.


OK, your posit, your proof.

If the oil is in it's pumpable range, then there is ZERO difference in the time to fill galleries and get the oil to where it needs to be.

After that...please (again) provide something that evidences your posit that greater oil "circulation" provides lower warmup wear.

Please...just once ???

It's not just my posit that lighter oil reduces start-up wear but the claim of auto manufacturers including Honda, Toyota, BMW and even race oil formulators such as Red Line and Joe Gibbs Driven.

Even if an oil is pumpable the more viscous it is the less the volume of oil that will be able to flow or circulate through an engine. The higher oil back-pressure thicker oil provides is proof of the increased resistance to oil flow. Your past and current claim that this "higher oil pressure" actually increases oil flow is nonsense as others in addition to myself have pointed out.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

At you're next oil change prior to the winter I'd suggest going back to the spec' M1 5W-30. Or if you want to run the lightest 0W/5W-30 you can buy on start-up in a T.O. climate (short of blending your own) it to try Sustina 5W-30.


Tell me again how you calculate the "W" rating on a mix of two different oils, as your previous explanations have been somewhat lacking in evidence.

And BTW, it's "mixing"...blending is something that oil manufacturers use to MAKE an oil, using science...taking two disparate oils and mixing them to achieve an imagined outcome is mixing.

Is this some more your rubbish alluding to your past claims that blending two premium synthetic 0W-XX will produce a 5W-XX or heavier oil? I'm still waiting for an example of any two oils that will cause this effect notwithstanding the fact that all formulators claim no such issues.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Is this some more your rubbish alluding to your past claims that blending two premium synthetic 0W-XX will produce a 5W-XX or heavier oil? I'm still waiting for an example of any two oils that will cause this effect notwithstanding the fact that all formulators claim no such issues.


The miscibility standard is that they will mix, without adverse reactions...it claims absolutely nothing with respect to maintaining the "W" ratings, or any other performance metric.

You claim that it does, but it clearly doesn't...have posted the actual tests, and what it promises, but than you ignore that with an "of course" it does.

I've posted the results of some taxi fleets where the mixing of residual Factory Fill oil and new service oil resulted in a failure to pump at "normal" ambient temperatures leading to engine failures.

I've posted SAE documents that show that the interaction between different PPDs and VIIs can cause similar issues at low temperatures.

Again, the miscibility standard doesn't promise that the "W" rating is maintained.

As to "All formulators", in the Pennzoil Q and A, they stated that the viscosities would be calculable in a mix, but none of the other performance parameters could be guaranteed...there's one less to your "ALL"...

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
It's not just my posit that lighter oil reduces start-up wear but the claim of auto manufacturers including Honda, Toyota, BMW and even race oil formulators such as Red Line and Joe Gibbs Driven.

Even if an oil is pumpable the more viscous it is the less the volume of oil that will be able to flow or circulate through an engine. The higher oil back-pressure thicker oil provides is proof of the increased resistance to oil flow. Your past and current claim that this "higher oil pressure" actually increases oil flow is nonsense as others in addition to myself have pointed out.


You keep wheeling out advertising puff pieces for your cold start flow...flow doesn't lubricate anything.

And now you are misrepresenting my statements (no surprise, it's CATERHAM 101).

Warm-up is where the wear takes place, and during this phase the oil is present and lubricating...the bearings draw off only what they need to replace side leakage, and they have less side leakage on thicker oils...require less make-up, and the artifact is oil pressure...that's what I've stated all along, thankyou.

Now, your posit is that you need to jam a full oil pump's worth of volume through the bearings to lubricate...that's just plain incorrect.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Your past and current claim that this "higher oil pressure" actually increases oil flow is nonsense as others in addition to myself have pointed out.


Compare what I'm actually saying, to what you claim I am saying and have said.

You are clearly misrepresenting my position (again) so that you can swat down a strawman.

Go back and read...

When it comes to piston cooling jets, the flow through them is related to pressure and density. More pressure equals more flow...20% more oil pressure gives 10% more piston cooling oil...simple physics.

So people who follow your advice on running lower oil pressures at operating temps are reducing the cooling flow to the pistons...that's my claim.