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

I think it's just that well-made of an oil - you're getting some of Bruce's 'best work' here...why it would NOT be cheap if made commercially.

In a way, this level of performance isn't suprising. Remember, Conoco's 'Polar Start DN 600' oil in the late 1960's was basically a 0W-10 oil; albeit made with alkylated basestocks. But it would have been used in engines very similar in design to yours, in tough, high-load situations (Artic pipeline work).

I googled Polar Start DN 600 and came up with another product.

EMERY'S FRIGID-GO 2809-A 0w-20. It's a PAO and has a 5.77 cSt @ 100C. The date on the MSDS is 1990. The company, formerly of National Distillers and Chemical Corporation, now Quantum Chemical, appears to be a private company without a website.

Look at the volatility numbers on the chart about halfway down on this sample text.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/mr0310th214q2242/fulltext.pdf?page=1

I wish they had apportioned data so that you could see what more mundane temps produced ..or rather volatilized.

Do you think Bruce could bump that HTHS to 2.9? With an HTHS of 2.9 and his additive package. I would try this oil in my car which is not even approved for 5W20 according to Toyota. M1R 0W30 which I ran with no problem had an HTHS of 2.9 so I know that my car will do just fine on an HTHS of 2.9. I thought about trying Redlines 5W20 because it has a higher HTHS then most 5W30's. The problem is that I would be woried that I could afford to run three OCI's prior to testing so what good would the results be?

That is $6.25 a quart. Think it could be within $8-9? Just dreaming, I know it would never happen.

For all I know it is >=2.9 If I had rolerized cam followers, I'd be even more brazen ..that's if I could be any more brazen.

bruce has done an amazing job here.

Speaking of Bruce and Molakule...Where have they been? Do people actually have better things to do than posting on bitog?

-Dennis

Molakule has been around. Bruce too, just not as much as in the past.




Maybe Bruce will do a new cost evaluation to see how much the costs have drifted. Figure something to cover the handling and pails and whatnot.

Anyway, if you can find 11 people committed to a 5 gallon pail ..who knows, it might be doable. It might end up to be <$10/quart +S&H. The 40lbs of shipping is probably a killer.

From what I've found, Polar Start DN600 was only around in its '0W-10/AN base' form for a few years. By 1976, adds for this oil talk about it being a 10W-30 oil, and I have an e-mail from CP that states this oil was discontinued in the merger between Conoco and Phillips. At that time, Polar start was a 10W-30 syn-blend oil, with something like 10% syn content.

Emery's Frigid-Go oil was quickly picked up by the military for use in Artic equipment, and is still made today, solely for military use. I'm sure if you made the right connections, you could get 'army spec 0W-20'.....

Yep ..and it's about what you would expect in price

MIL-L-46167

MIL-L-46167 (MIL-PRF-46167), Lubricating Oil, Internal Combustion Engine, Arctic
54-Gallon Drum.
Ships 21-30 days after receipt of order.
Price: $1,875.00

What do they do, tap off a gallon for a tip? It doesn't even convert to an even number of liters.

http://www.mach-dynamics.com/Specifications/Military_Specification_Lubricant.htm
http://www.chemsol.com/chemsol/products.asp?scat=Lubricants

Very cool find, Gary!

Wondered where they got that stuff from!

There was another google reference when the MIL spec was put in to the engine. It was "alibaba" (spl?) ..but sourced the product from Europe. That would coincide with the other outfit's 21-30 day turn around time too.

btw-I found a lab that does just about ever ASTM test known to modern man. I'm inquiring about HTHS as a stand alone test or done in tandem with UOA/VOA. I hope it's not a fortune.

Looks great. Is this a PAO/Ester based oil?

Hopefully, the UOA isn't missing larger wear particles. That is the only thing that would concern me. UOA's are good at detecting very small wear particles.

I sent an email to Polaris asking how much PQ index was in addition to their standard UOA. The lady in charge, for some odd reason, wrote back, "Why don't you just call and we'll talk about it?". I did ..she was "out or with another call". I left a message .she never returned the call ...etc..etc. And all for the lack of about 25 key strokes. What is it, way over the top in cost and she was going to talk me into it?? What the heck.


Essentially, that means that this is all I got to work with at the moment. I can only bend backward so far to spend money. I would imagine, however, that if I was slinging big chunks of Fe off the cam, that there would AT LEAST be some aggravated metals just from them banging around.

That sucks. Well, I think you are probably right. PQ Index and Ferrography are good to know, but not necessary.

Emission spectroscopy has a particle size limit of 3 to 5 microns. Most serious wear issues generate wear particles in the range of 5 - 15 microns. Oil analysis also only measures about 15-20% of the particles in the oil, according to Roy H.

Well, Bruce should be throwing in readings from Analysts ..and I sent one into Oil Analyzers. I would have liked to have used Terry, but at the current price I'll save that for 10k if I go that far. I want to do HTHS and PQ.


You asked what it was made of:

No VII - GPIII and PAO
SL system with the SM AO and FM added
NOACK around 6%

Thanks Gary. Looks really good. Nice NOACK.

Along with 6% secret squirrel additive. That seems like a lot for an additive. I guess Im just used to Phos being limited to .0xx whatever percent weight.

I'd pay $12/qt for that :)

I think I would too. Redline's 0w-10 is $13/quart +S&H and appears to come close to the same visc/vi/etc.

Joe Gibbs is loaded with additives, yet only has a 3.3 100C cSt. It's got to be way volatile. Bruce states that he can go lower on base stock, but lower means 30% volatility.

RP- doesn't publish squat about their 0w-10. $15/quart + S&H

..but these are surely all racing oils and not formulated for 10k ..or even 5k drains.

Okay, so we've figured that the price could probably be right if someone didn't really care about making money. Now there's just having some sensible demand for the stuff. Which I can't see happening.

I wish I had something like a Crown Vic. Most of those guys are already "in with thin". If you could manage normal operation without any consumption, that would be the vanguard target group. You would think Honda types would be too, due to the obvious ease that the engines deal with 20 weight, but there's some spiritual thing going on with Honda's and their owners. It's like some sacred bond with pre-feudal monks or something. Not knocking it, but it's there. Forget any Euro. Probably forget Toy's too ..they don't have the Zen thing going on with their rides ..but ..hmm... nope. Don't see it. Mitsubishi, sure, but they only get love in turbo trim ..so they're out. Hybrid owners? Maybe ..but they seem to think that the OEM already factored the absolute max allowable "shaving" to be done. It's different than the Zen thing with Honda owners ..but it's as strong, imo.

So, you're down to the misfits






I think his "stealth polymer" was 8%. He sure wasn't letting on what he used. I don't even know.

I didnt realize Redline was that expensive for their 0W10. I agree $12/quart would be reasonable, considering this stuff has the TBN to last.

Hmm..I am 21 and I own a CV..in grandpa LX trim no less. Must be me.





Whoops. I was going by memory. Do you even know what it was supposed to do, or was that top secret as well?

Yep, you're a misfit. So is a jeep owner using anything that doesn't ooze "heavy duty". You should be meditating about your Honda.

haven't a clue what the stealth polymer does. Whatever it is.. it appears to be worth it.

Who knows, this might be the next ff for Honda. If it makes 10k in a pushrod, it should make 15k in your typical Honda.

Analyst appears to mostly agree with Blackstone's numbers. TBN is still strong here.

Aluminum 3.......5
Chromium 1.......1
Iron 16.........18
Copper 7.........8
Lead 2...........2
Tin 0............1
Moly 10.........11
Nickel 1.........1
Manganse 0.......NT
Silver 0.........<30
Titanium 0.......<1
Potassium 2......<10
Boron 29.........32
Silicon 14.......17
Sodium 4.........7
Caclium 2734...2776
Magnesium 11.....11
Zinc 1151......1297
Barium 136.......32 (132?)

Vis 100-5.18.....5.5
VI NT............170
TBN-D2896 NT.....7.3

Looks good. Bruce Blend rules.

Wow, looks good Gary. I wonder how it would fare in an off road rig? I just returned from a cross-country trip to Moab with my 2.5L YJ (towed it out, she's on 38's). Had a good time and only rolled once. Lost about 1/2 qt of oil in the airbox and cylinder 4, but after blowing it out, she's none the worse. Me on the other hand...LOL

I changed out the Delo SAE30 for Q-TP 5W30 for the trip. I could most certainly feel the extra ponies from less oil drag.
Looks like your's/Bruce's 0W10 is a squirrels secret weapon.

I don't normally like to comment on the butt dyno, but you can even feel the difference between the 0w-10 and something like MC 5w-20. Runs on everything else (like RTS 5w-40) made you feel like the thing was straining around/above 3000 rpm. I don't know if it's a product of friction modification, windage reduction, or some whacked out parasitic loss from the oil pump.

I actually qualified as a "green" vehicle by beating EPA estimates for the chassis. The addition of Dunlop M&S load range D took care of that. I only run 235/75's

I think this stuff would do fine in anything other than some Euro that banks on some really high HTHS. I think my sustained 80mph driving, pushing a brick into the wind (I wore ear plugs and managed both legs of the trip with the top down) would have produced the highest oil temps and the lowest operating visc.

I do need to find a lab that does PQ and HTHS testing. For all I know Bruce has come up with the Holy Grail of feather weights.

Moab. I hope to get there someday ..I'll probably be a spectator. I wanted to get Lion's back in ..but that's closed now.

Gary, I think you need to message OVERKILL and BuickGN and have them comment on this UOA.

i'd like to give this stuff a shot in my nissan. engine is a 2.0L DOHC with variable valve lift and timing, and revs out to 9 grand.

Maybe if a PQ index is added in. Everyone has to concede that UOA is hardly perfect in determining wear. It's good for trending, which I think I've done enough off. The oil itself survives fine. Flashpoint, TBN, visc ..all doing fine.



I dunno about your application. Bruce's original "Joe Gibbs" formula would probably be more your cup of tea. You'll find out if there's any free copper in the engine.

Vis @ 40 29.4
Vis @ 100 5.2
VI only 105

Moly 2146 ppm
Zinc 2085 ppm
Phos 1827 ppm
TBN 11.5

I do not have rolloerized cam followers either I have buckets upside down between the cam and the top of the valve stem! Not a low friction set up!LOL I am guessing that the stealth polymer is probably something that would be used in gear lube like what they used in German Castrol 0W30 stout stuff. Just a guess though. I am going to PM Bruce about the HTHS.

I'd love to try it in my Aerostar that I recently changed over to 5W20 from 5W30. So far so good! I think there's more to it than meets the eye with these thinner oils.

Gary, you are the man!
This is really interesting stuff, and is the kind of practical experimentation I love to see.
So a 10W works just fine in an old Rambler engine, albeit a very special 10W?
Most of us would have said heck no!

Yeah, I guess it is just a basic Rambler at heart.

This is a product of too many people speculating on the various aspects of thin oils. The same speculation was pondered over oil filter bypass valves. It annoyed the heck out of me. So, to eliminate most of the debate about 20 weight oils, I asked Bruce if there was such an animal available that was a (would be) 10 weight. He said that he could do it ..not that he'd recommend it ..but he could do it.

..it's sorta like being at an ice skating party and having everyone being afraid of thin ice. The best way to test it is to have the heaviest of the group just jump up and down with two feet.

It's hard to recommend this for anyone else. Just too many variables. My gut says that most people out there could use this without issue. Some surely could not. I was going to try this on a Vulcan 3.0 ..but that Taurus had to be junked. I don't think the engine would care what you put in it. I don't know if I'd do it with my youngest daughter's 3.8 in her 1993.

To be truthful, I never really considered stuff like cam wear. Everybody was so obsessed with bearings and seizing the darn thing under stress. That made it very easy to use it in this engine (besides the fact that I didn't have anything else to run it in). Having a bottom end going out on a jeep engine is unheard of unless you're flogging it with big meats and are just looking for an excuse to upgrade your trail rig to a V8.

In the end, it will be like seeing Big Foot on a routine basis for ONE PERSON. Sure, I'll probably have no issues and the engine will live a longer life than I will. Outside of that "zone" ..the multitude of vectors will assure that anything experienced in my plane of existence just doesn't apply to anyone else.

I hear ya. Just thinking outloud. I changed to a 20 wt engine oil in that little 3.0 Vulcan, most recent OCI is a mix of 5W20 and 5W30, oddly the oil use went up slightly with the mix, vs. all 5W20. Oil use is generally about 1qt/3000 miles with 5W30. The change to 5W20 gave me about another 500 miles bringing it to a qt/35000 miles. Going back to 5W30 or the mix of 5W20 with 5W30 takes me back to 1qt/3000 miles. I'd love to see what the thinner stuff does, but it would have to be a high quality oil like you are using if there are going to be any benefits. I don't think an off the shelf (if it existed) OW10 oil would help me.

I see your point about cam wear the only way to tell would be a tear down before and after, and the average car buff is not going to do that.

Really hard to say unless larger wear particles are being generated and not picked up by the report.

Well, I finally got in touch with this in state lab. HTHS is normally $225 ..but since the machine has bee idle and there's no routine usage of it, they won't do it. He had no idea what PQ index was. They do optical laser PC for $40 (stand alone). Their UOA is $55.

So much for that I'll try and get Polaris to speak up with continued prodding.

Not to be a flat earther, but let's see the oil work with SM energy conserving levels of EP. But if it won't it doesnt matter, it is viable as presented. I like the idea of a ~3 HTHS and low unstressed running viscosity. Being a noise nervous nanny, any qualitative noise assessments? More low torque due to lifter leak rates? Interesting and wonderful, Gary.

The engine is as quiet or noisy as it was on 5w-40. It's not even quiet with removal of the mechanical fan. There's no lifter noise ..nor was there ever any. You can tell it idling out side and the only thing that is more apparent then our jeeps is my neighbor's Cummins. The dogs can here the wife coming home from the end of the block.

As stated somewhere back there the engine normally feels stressed above 3000 rpm. With this oil, it does not. They use the same oil pump on this as they do for the 4.0 ..but hack off 2 cylinders. There is no sensible idle pressure. I think I can get down to around 38psi while peak appears to be around 60.

While this is a tractor like torque engine, in a 3500lb chassis with all kinds of drag losses it's hard to describe anything as "power". I'd call it "freer revving".

Dogs can hear vehicles coming a long ways away. Ive heard they can differentiate your vehicle from other vehicles of the same make/model/engine even.

I think they can tell time too.

Somewhat. My mom's dog will wait for her at the door around 4pm or so. But this is getting way OT. Sorry Gary.

Well heck I can do that as fair as discernment of my vehicle versus another identical one! In the Navy I think they have a name for it "Sound or my own ship" or something like that. Most people are just not attentive enough and have never trained their ear's to be discerning......Kind of like a piano tuner who happens to be blind. his sense of hearing is no better then the average person's he is paying closer attention to what his ears are always hearing. I would say a good 70% of the population go through life acting like their are deaf and dumb they just never tune in properly!I see it all the time in college.It is like they where asleep at the wheel from age 5-18!!! Obviously a dogs hearing is more sensitive then mine!

Well with out knowing the HTHS I think I will pass on the 0W10! Maybe I will just have to try Redline 5W20 inspite of Toyota it has a nice HTHS of 3.3.

While surely there's a "sound of your own ship" effect, I hear every car on the block. Most are "whoooosh" as they move off. More like a road/wind noise type thing. Most are silent when idling. You can't hear their exhaust. No engine pulses. No distinct rhythm

Yes, dogs can more or less tell time. They anticipate normal routine events. When my wife comes home it's a celebration. There's a whole ritual with the feeding event. Dogs always love the one that feeds them.

It seems that HTHS testing is beyond reasonable cost. I think Bruce has software that projects it ..but I don't know for sure.

That's so not true with (my) cat. This animal paws at my face every [censored] morning at 5:00 am for food and still he would rather sleep on my son's bed.

Didnt he project it as 2.6 or was that the old stuff?

It was more of a "sure >2.6 (easy)" type comment. It was more "open ended" to more or less say that it qualified at least in the SAE20 range for HTHS.

When you feed a cat you're paying tribute to it.

My cats can discern the wifes car v. mine. They get up for her BC she feeds them. Even if she comes home at an odd time. Only took a couple days with her new car for them to adjust.

http://www.trackmysample.com/HORIZON_3_0...&n89=7898235213

Oil Analyzers pretty much tracks with Analyst and Blackstone

Analyst appears to mostly agree with Blackstone's numbers. TBN is still strong here.

Aluminum 3.......5......2
Chromium 1.......1......0
Iron 16.........18.....15
Copper 7.........8......6
Lead 2...........2......1
Tin 0............1......0
Moly 10.........11.....10
Nickel 1.........1......0
Manganse 0.......NT.....0
Silver 0.........<30....0
Titanium 0.......<1.....0
Potassium 2......<10....2
Boron 29.........32....26
Silicon 14.......17....15
Sodium 4.........7......3
Caclium 2734...2776..2549
Magnesium 11.....11....10
Zinc 1151......1297..1153
Phos 1042......????..1008
Barium 136.......32 (132?)

Vis 100-5.18.....5.5...5.3
VI NT............170
TBN-D2896 NT.....7.3...4.6
Oxidation 29 Flagged 2 for severity
Nitration 20

Nice to see similarity in the results. TBN will easily take you to 10k miles, will we see results then?

BTW, what did Bruce recommend as an OCI on this and other oils he blended for you? Did he blend them as 'long life' oils, or is this a guesswork approach on both of your parts?

Bruce would like to look at it again in 2000 more miles. The TBN is still strong and everything else appears in decent control. I intend to take it to 10k.

I'll be down 24-32oz in just samples. I don't want to skew the test with make up, nor do I want to prematurely fatigue the sump due to lower capacity. I'm wrestling with how to do this.

There was no preplanned OCI's. Just testing at 3k+/-, 5k+/-. The former tests were littered with leaching moly, so it was a double dose Auto-Rx treatment to see if it could purge it. It apparently worked out. I probably would have changed it anyway. Silicon appeared higher than it should and there was some noise that appears to have gone away.

Now there's not much of a reason not to go to 10k.

I'd do the top-off, just with the same oil, and right after sampling. The closer to the UOA you do the testing, the more skewed it is.

If I had intended to do this from the start, I would have overfilled the initial fill by .5 quart to give me that room.

That's what I did last time. There were even more samples taken out of that one. Spacebears ran into this issue.


Here's what I'll do. I'll top up now with enough overfill to cover the 7.5k testing. That will only take another 12oz overfill. That should carry me to 10k.

Either way someone would be factoring it good and bad in the same thread ..so what's the difference?

Gary -- As follow-up to our conversation -- we can get one sample analyzed for $250.00 at an associate lab. If we were to get a series of samples to do in house (20 or more) our cost would be $220.00.



The following proposal should answer any questions you may have; but feel free to contact me personally, if any should arise.



[PLEASE NOTE WE ARE AN INDEPENDENT LABORATORY – NOT A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY or APPROVAL AGENCY]



ASTM TEST


DESCRIPTION


COST*

PER TEST

ASTM D4683


Measuring Viscosity at High Shear Rate and High Temperature by Tapered Bearing Simulator


See above

Gary, didn't you install an Oil Temp gauge in this Jeep?
If so, what sort of max' oil temps do you see?

Gary, what is the 40C vis and therefore the VI of this oil?

No, I don't have an oil temp gauge on this vehicle. I have a sandwich heat exchanger that surely keeps it around coolant temp.

The VI is about 130

23.9/4.9 VOA.

Gary, thanks for conducting this low vis experiment.
I would estimate that the HTHS vis design requirement for the Jeep is around 3.0 cP. With oil temps well contained at under 210F a 5.0 cSt oil provides adequate film strength.
In racing applications, a vis of 4 cSt is considered the low limit before risking bearing wiping in under 500 hp "tight" engines.

Since this is not a high VI oil, it will start to loose it's low vis advantage at sub zero F temps where high VI 20wts will outperform.

I dunno. I thought of it as more of being slammed against the floor with the low 100C visc. That is, the VI was compressed due to the low ceiling. It was a challenge to keep it under 5.3 cSt to be a true sub-20 grade. The carrier oil for the additives (or so I believe) was a significant contributor to the end visc. This was the lowest basestock he could use since the next lower one would have 30% volatility.



Probably 2.9 ..but 3.0 is just as good. 5w-30 is the minimum recommended visc for this model year (and quite a few years forward and backward) with 10w-30 being preferred. It has no rollerized valve train components and has average spring rates (220lbf+/- iirc). I hope that I'm not grinding my cam into graphite like paste Now that I've cleaned up some leeching deposits the UOA appears to be favorable. I know it doesn't count too much in the wear end of things, but it's all I have to work with at the moment.



You're welcome. I went into this in scoffing ignorance. What's that catchy statement about your sphere (or was it a circle) of knowledge? It's sorta how when you're young you need to make your fortune while you still know it all? As you age your sphere/circle expands and you can no longer cope with all the complications of the expanding unknown.

This whole thing was born out of the fear factor of 20 weight oils. I found it irrational. Not that it couldn't be true, but rather that it was blind fear. This experiment (with without Bruce's most generous material support would not be possible) was to go beyond current boundaries to validate them.

I think the consensus of opinion migrated before the experiment progressed enough to make a statement.

Thank you Gary and Bruce-this was a great undertaking and was a most interesting experiment.

Gary in another 100k post some pics of your cam so we can see all is well!

REDDOG

Are you talking about 4 cSt being limit for kinematic viscosity or HTHS viscosity?

Kinematic viscosity. On this side of the Atlantic no one seems to bother with HTHS vis and therefore most race oil formulators like RL don't provide the spec' for their race oils.
Nevertheless, HTHS min vis is a useful design spec if you know it.
If the spec' is 3.0 cP I'd roughly equate that to 4 cSt. 3.5 cP to 4.5 cSt etc.
Theses are minimum viscosities which assumes no filtration issues, both oil and air, or other mechanical issues.

wonder what is GC viscosity at 280F. that is the oil temp I had while tracking my S4

I think it would be around 6.2 cSt +/-

Castrol doesn't give you the 40C visc, so I plugged in a 175 VI ..which brought about a 68cSt 40C visc. That puts the 137C visc at 6.25cSt.

That should be close. widman's calculator

I'd agree with 6.3 cSt for fresh GC.
It could drop below 6.0 once it's sheared.
It's useful if the UOA provides both 40C vis and 100C vis so you know how much of a safety margin your dealing with at the end of the OCI.

Yes, in your case I can see why. I think that outside of some severe fuel dilution issue the most I'll see is thickening with this oil. It has no VII ..so there's nothing to shear.

or so I reason.

Didn't know GC contained absolutely no VIIs, but I guess that explains why it holds it's vis so well in the dozens of UOAs that have been posted. I don't think I've seen a 100C vis below 11.5 cSt or so.
On the other hand I've never seen a case of GC thickening.

Cool, thanks for sharing all of this Gary.

Well, GC probably has some, but most users probably don't keep it in service long enough to shear too much (or it has a designed shear tolerance like M1 0w-40) or thickening due to oxidation. I imagine the base stock is highly resistant to thickening overall but has other aspects that take it out of service before that point (TBN, etc.). That oil falls more along the lines of M1 0w-40 in target market (imo). It's a YMMV oil as far as endurance. Some would be hard pressed to get 10k out of it in normal service. Others do just fine in more demanding usage.

..but with a 0w-10 ..there's nowhere to go. The only use of VII would be if you wanted to qualify for a 0w-20.


buster- Well, I surely wouldn't have asked Bruce if he could do this if it wasn't for my membership here. I can't imagine connecting all the dots without the influence and access that this site afforded. I would say that if one personality helped move me in this direction (for all I know it was "let see if Gary will do it " ), it would be our former member 427Z06.

Here is my UOA with GC and it only had 1500 miles on it.

Was there no factory fill for the RX-8?
1500 miles on unit, 1500 miles on oil?

FWIW here is mine for which the vis at 100 for GC is 10.3 or so:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1409242&page=1

(but I am sure this thinning is in great part due to the fuel present.)

Yes this UOA was after a double drain and fill of GC 0W-30 to get all of the the factory Mazda 5W-20 out, so this UOA was pure GC. I now am close to 3,000 miles on this fill of GC 0W-30 and if my UOA has not shown improvement I have a case of M1 0W-40 waiting to go in. I was really disappointed because I bought into the hype but now after reviewing a bunch of UOA's of GC, it doesn't appear to be all it's cracked up to be. Especially since there were no track days on this sample or hard driving. I can only imagine what it would have looked like after some hard track days in 100+ degree weather.

your additive pack looks off, here is my last 4 GC UOA's

Hey, I'm heading out to do some shopping. You guys need anything? Beer is in the frig. The remote is by the Lazyboy. Make yourselves at home. I'll only be a few.



(it just seemed like a thing I'd say )

No, really ..carry on

checks the cabinets for cheetos!

I don't find it severe. If you look at your first (1 of 4) it's comparable to his in zinc and most other additive levels.

I figure the retail price with a modest profit would be say $20/qt? But if you got into serious volume production, maybe as low as $10/qt?

Gary and Bruce, what say you?

$10/quart would be the easy part...I think. Shipping it in 5 gallon lots @ 40lb+ would be the killer.

If that was the case, a HTHS of nominally 2.6 cP, then there was no greater risk in running this oil than any typical 2.6 cP 20wt and very possibly less since this oil won't likely shear unlike most dino and other GP III VII containing 20wt's.

Gary, earlier in this thread you made reference to oil pressures in the Jeep, does it have a gauge?

Gary probably has an aircraft cockpit in his Jeep.

If he doesn't, I do.

Good one, Jim. That's more like what my minivan looked like. Not as clean (not even close), but I was using it as a testing platform where gauges might be in there today and not tomorrow.

Yes, I've got a real OEM gauge. As much as people assert otherwise, mine is fairly accurate on both my wife's 99 and my 02. Accurate might not be the right word. The index can make it a guesstimate on what the true reading is since you've got 0-40-80 and divisions in between. On the 02, you can see the transition between full envelopment and where the relief closes as it eeeeeeases up to the peak pressure. On the wife's ..the HV oil pump slams the needle right up to the 58lb limit that the aftermarket company spec's for the pump.

That said, the lowest oil pressure I've seen would be at 215F coolant temp and a similar oil temp..at idle ..and it would be somewhere around 28psi. On my engine, the oil:coolant heat exchanger won't let the coolant go above the 195F thermostat setting until it gets to the point of low/limited/no exchange.

With a 40 grade, you're either at 50+/- ..or 40+ over all temp ranges.

I've reached over 10k on this sump. I'll be sending it in shortly to Bruce, Dyson, Blackstone ..and maybe Oil Analyzers.

I've experienced my first consumption with this oil. At about 7500 miles into it, I consumed approximately 16 oz. This was the same consumption seen with Delvac 1 5w-40 and Agip PC 5w-40 when driven at a rate of about 15k/year. This did not occur with back to back 13 month OCI's with RTS, but that was probably due to some mixology with fuel in the short(er) trip usage. Those OCI's were only around 9.5k over 13 months.

16oz. were also consumed with sampling at the 5k point. The sump was topped off with one quart of new oil @ the 7500 mile (+/-) mark.

$5.00 to $6.00 for components is not bad for tote blending, considering it's been stated he's using mostly GroupIII and PAO.

Barium compounds have typically been used in the following applications:

1. Rust inhibitors

2. Corrosion Inhibitors

3. Soot dispersants for diesel engines.

Of late, the concern over heavy metals has reduced the use of Barium compounds. One interesting facet of this fact is that Barium does not bioaccumulate as do other metals; I.E., it doesn't build up in most living cells.

It would surely be more difficult, in some creative sorta way, to manage a SN formulation. The SL phos/zinc levels surely made it easier.

Bruce has pondered an ash free formula. Whether or not that can be done in an ultra-light weight is something I do not know.

This has been a long trip. Assuming all looks well (to the degree that we can determine) I don't know what's next.

Jim, that's very impressive.
I think you've pretty much got things covered.

Gary, so if I understand you correctly, the oil pressure (hot) in the Jeep with various 40wt oils was in the 68 to 78 psi range?
That's 28 + 40 and 28 + 50?

What sort of max' hot oil pressure do you see with the Bruce Blend?

Have you run a 30wt or 20wt in the Jeep? Do you recall the max' hot oil pressure with those oils?

My pressure limit is around 60psi. While Jeep "spec's" anything up to 75lbs (iirc), that I interpret as stress limits on the distributor drive. The variance from unit to unit ..or rather year to year, can be substatial.

With a 5w-40 it will settle out at (somewhere near, but under) 60lbs and retreat to about 45lb. Very narrow range.

With the 0w-10 it can still reach the just <60lb but can retreat to (fuzzy) <30psi. Much broader range.

At highway, they're both about the same. This pump is the same for an engine 50% bigger with 50% more of everything except the timing chain to lube.

The gauge is somewhat more dampened than the one on my wife's. Both gauges get their input from the PCM.


I've run mostly 5w-40 in this engine from a very early age. I did do one bought of 5w-20 for an Auto-Rx double dose treatment to get the moly slug out of it. Hot idle pressures were in the near 40psi+/-.

The 0w-10 was the first oil to dip to this range, and then it's only since I've allowed the coolant temp to drift up to 210+/- with fan setpoints.

I'd like to throw some independent gauges on the thing. The theft of my minivan robbed me of a substantial amount of hardware that took a very long time to accumulate at (for me) substantial cost.

no consumption with 0w-10? niceeeee

Gary, sorry to hear about the minivan theft.

The reason for asking about oil pressure was to indirctly determine the HTHS vis of the Bruce blend 0W-10.
If the hot idle pressure was similar to the the 20wt you ran then the Bruce Blend 0W-10 may indeed have a HTHS vis close to 2.6 cP.

If you have an accurate pressure gauge, an oil temp gauge and a tachometer for reference it makes comparing the actual operating viscosity of different oils quite easy and precise. HTHS vis correlates well with the hot operating viscosity in an engine; kinematic viscosity does not.
So if you know the HTHS of a known oil, that can be you reference. You simply take an oil pressure reading with the engine oil hot (close to 100C or hotter) at close to max rev's.
If one of the reference oils is a 20wt with a HTHS vis of 2.6 cP then you'll know it's oil pressure at the above conditions.
When you try the oil with the unknown HTHS vis under the same parameters, if the oil pressure is the same then so is the HTHS vis. If the oil pressure is lower then so is the HTHS vis. In my experience, a 2.5% drop in pressure equates very approximately to 0.1 cP.

Anyway it give you an idea and it's a lot cheaper than paying a lab for a single HTHS vis test.

Really looking forward to seeing the 10k results on this, Gary.

Are you 'seriously' working with Bruce to come up 'something else' to test, or is this just talk?

If you don't think up anything else to test, will you keep running thin oils in this Jeep, as a matter of 'regular course', or would you go back to 40-weights?

Any Amsoil oils you want to test?

(pardon the length here - good coffee )

Good questions. If Bruce still has interest, and by that I mean thinks he can improve something and wants to tweak it, I'd continue to move on like we are. While a long process, this has been fun for me.

Keep in mind that the market is coming out with their own 0w-10 oil(s), so it's not the novel challenge it once was. Soon anyone with that feels like taking the exam and gets the "test tickles" giggles can do it too. It kinda rained on my self made cooperative parade

"Serious" is a tough term to apply here. While Bruce is seriously applying his skills/knowledge, and I'm seriously bearing any potential liabilities, this has been an interesting and fun "what if?" exercise. I think it was worth the time in the form of "entertainment of higher quality content". It was miles above a home grown project. It had resources not commonly available to just anyone. Of all the stumbling around I have done in my life out of curiosity, this has been one of the more amazing and productive random collision of interests. I'm truly grateful for the associations that have formed.

Any Amsoil product is a non-test for me. They're all good for the long haul if matched up with the right application. They would be telling me mostly what I already know. They would be "demonstrations". For just about anything else (trans/diffs/t-case and my wife's jeep), they're already in use and performing as expected.

If I were to retire to normal habits, I'd probably use something like ACD/HDD to reduce fluid inventory for both jeeps. Outside of this type of activity, I'm a "set it and forget it" kinda guy. It allows me to move on to some other project to allow me to "set it and forget it". I'm basically a dragon slayer. Killed ..dead..never to return ..constructing systems that liberate. Keep in mind that you can expend much thought and toil at getting out of doing stuff. It's often exhausting being lazy.

If I can get the wife to drive my son's 96 NEON, that would be a better platform to test these oils in that it's more typical of a contemporary engine. Getting her to drive a mundane compact is a challenge. I have no trouble getting her to "swap" jeeps. Getting her to sit down at ground level on the highway is another story. She's the one that racks up the mileage.

To keep with the general theme here, it would be fun if Bruce is interested in anything new/radical/oddball. A different base stock, ash free, or play with the new Titanium additives that are available. I've already got a whole new set of creative trademark names for the stuff.

I guess it's safe to assume you won't be going back to a 40wt in the Jeep when you change out the Bruce Blend?
The cheapest 20wt you can get your hands on should to the trick.

A cheaper 5w-20, but I'll be doing year long OCI's so it will probably be the ACD/HDD oil that I use in the wife's.


Depending on the results, I'd be content to top up for the sample size (it's about 16oz) and continue on. I figured 10k would establish the stuff like TBN, oxidation/nitration, stuff like that. I don't have a date that I put it in service handy, but it's got to be almost a year.

It's seen more severe service than it would have with my wife driving it full time. By severe I mean fuel passed through the engine. She would be getting about 18-20mph, while I averaged about 13-15 over the winter. We had a banging year for decent snow falls.