Previous results and here



This is Blackstone's read on my latest round with Bruce's 0w-10 blend. This was after a Fast Track Auto-Rx treatment to remove some moly slug that was plaguing UOA reads. No moly has been in the VOA oil for quite a while, yet about 200ppm was leaching into the UOA. Apparently I had added a full bottle of VSOT when it was en vogue here and didn't heed Molakule's advice and use only 1oz/quart. It didn't even show up much in my two back to back RTS UOA's. Whatever was in Bruce's blend obviously had some disruptive antagonist for this sunk out formation. Terry was uncertain if Auto-Rx would remove it once formed, but it appears that it was effective, at least to some degree.

Discoveries and alterations:

I used an ultrasonic leak detector and found that my apparently intact brake booster hose was leaking. No clamps are used on these hoses on either my wife's 99 or my 02. I installed clamps and the detector indicated a good seal. I changed the relatively clean Wix air filter for an EAA. These were done nearer the end of the 5k. Inconsequential alterations are an electric fan conversion and an inlet thermostat.

Exceptional operational conditions:

I had a road trip to western PA and the jeep had two bouts of sustained 70-85+mph usage on each leg. It's a 6 hour trip one way. No drafting and the mountains, even on the turnpike, were murder. At one point I had to manually shift into 2nd to prevent the jeep from cycling in and out of 2nd. You would reach 65mph in 2nd ..shift into 3rd ..and the incline would then reduce your speed below the threshold for a downshift.
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/179/d91102.pdf

Blackstone's comments:

GARY: Copper and silicon have improved in the latest sample from your Jeep. Whatever has changed
since November 2008 has had a positive effect on this engine. This oil run is up to 5,100 miles so far, and
we think you can definitely go longer. All wear metals read at or below average, which is a good indication of
normal wearing parts. The flashpoint read at 400ºF, indicating no fuel was present. The insoluble reading
was low at 0.3%, and shows air filtration was working well. We have no problems to report for this Wrangler

Miles on unit: 82,950
Miles on oil: 5100
Air filter: EAA
Oil filter: EaO42
Make up oil: ZERO - samples totalled 16oz.

Al: 3
Cr: 1
Fe:16
Cu: 7
Pb: 2 (first indication of Pb)
TN: 0
Mo:10 (down from nearly 200ppm)
Nk: 1
Po: 2
Bo:29
Si:14
So: 4
Ca:2734
Mg: 11
Ph:1042
Zn:1151
Br: 136

SUS: 43.3
cSt: 5.18
FP: 400F
Fuel: <0.5%
Insol: 0.3

Oil Analizers and Bruce's labs to follow.

Unless Bruce has objections, I'll take this out to 10k and see what it looks like.

As always, comments, views, musings, objections ..all are cheerfully welcome.

Are you helping Amsoil develop a 0w-10 oil by running this in your Jeep?

No, this is a custom one off batch done by a blender on here.

Nearly two hundred? Highest I see is 168, it is like saying I will give you nearly two hundred dollars for something and giving one hundred and sixty-eight.

Looks like the oil is working good for you.

That's just Blackstone's reading. If you check the links you'll see that a 4 lab comparison showed a good bit.

The VOA is <5ppm

Mo <5/ 194/ 156/ 275/ 151

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1211410#Post1211410



If there was ever a paying job that could be had ..I'd love to be chosen for the real world testing dept.

No, this is just a "light oil will destroy your engine - NOT" experiment. So far I haven't ground my cam to paste ..nor summarily seized in mid stroke.

Darned 0w10 is gonna destroy your engine Gary! There is no way it could hold uyp to sustained high speed driving in the mountains....oh wait.

Well, it does allegedly have the ultra-robust >2.6 HTHS or so Bruce suggests


What I'm pleased with is the volatility ..or really the lack of it.

So, technically, its a 0W20?

Well, hmmm..I don't know. If it fell in the 20 range but had less than a 2.6 HTHS, it couldn't be called a 0w-20 ..it would just be a "0w". But since it qualifies under the minimum definition for a SAE grade (the lowest being 20 weight) in terms of HTHS, it's hard to say.

Right now it's still under the 20 weight grade. Another couple of ticks upward and it may make a 0w-barely20.

Heck, I think Bruce could easily make an inverted M1 0w-40. It only has to be a 40 grade while in the bottle. Instead of shearing, Bruce and use an even lower visc base stock and have volatility bring it up to a high 20 weight by the time you test it.



I keep waiting for something to happen ..and I'm continually disappointed. No noise. No consumption. No nuttin'.

It kinda like Redline in that way, the HTHS is typically good for one grade higher than the SAE grade (except their 0W offerings).
I wish this was a commercial formula. I might be tempted.

I had a line on some lab (it may have been Polaris) that did the tapered plug HTHS testing. The guy never got back to me beyond the initial exchange. I now have an email into the people that make the machines. They should either be running the tests too ..or refer me to one of their customers.

This stuff is $1400/55gallon drum. $125/5gallons. That's the producer costs at the time of the blending about a year ago. No labor (free) no handling (free) no ROI (lark project of Bruce)...let alone shipping a 40lb bucket across the nation. His insider bulk pricing. That is, it can only get worse from there.

It's no wonder Joe Gibbs and RLI are so expensive.

That's really an interesting result Gary.

(no other comments, as I'm trying to file away the parameters so they can assimilate with other "knowledge")

Don't fret none. Stuff always works backwards on the other side of the world in the opposite hemisphere.

Ewes guys are supposed to be using 50-70 weights.

You need to revisit Timecube.

Could I ask what function 'Barium' provides in a finished oil, Gary?

I'm impressed by these results - I'm not a 'thickhead' overall, but I do think higher viscosity oils have their place - and if you asked me, one of those places would be large, heavy 1970's I-6's or I-4's, like, oh, I dunno, and AMC-designed engine!

Clearly not the case!

I dunno what function barium serves here. Molakule or Bruce will have to provide that insight. I really should pay more attention in class. It was always a struggle for me.

Polaris asserts that it's mainly a demulsifying agent..but also says that it's not typically found in reciprocating engines.

Barium (Ba)
Possible Sources:
Reciprocating Compressors: Demulsifying agent, Additive common in Compressor Oil, Some Transmission Fluids and Gear Oils, Contaminant in Drilling Applications
*
Rotary Compressors: Demulsifying agent, Additive common in Compressor Oil, Some Transmission Fluids and Gear Oils, Contaminant in Drilling Applications
*
Turbines / Centrifugal Compressors: Demulsifying agent, Additive common in Compressor Oil, Some Transmission Fluids and Gear Oils, Contaminant in Drilling Applications; Note:Turbine oils do not typically contain metallic additives
*
Hydraulics: Not Commonly found in Hydraulic Oils, Contaminant in Drilling Applications
*
Reciprocating Engines: Not Commonly found in Engine Oils, Contaminant in Drilling Applications
*
Transmissions: Demulsifying Agent in some Transmission Oils, Contaminant in Drilling Applications
*
Gear Systems: Demulsifying Agent in Some Gear Oils, Contaminant in Drilling Applications


I don't know why this appears to work so well in this engine. I would have preferred my 3.0 Mitsubishi or something otherwise without push rods/flat tappets.

Maybe it's the superior base stocks and additive combinations ..the relative low power density ..or just plain dumb luck