CATERHAM's influence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Y_K
CATERHAM influenced BITOG like Caravaggio influenced other tenebrosi artists. New Era has downed upon some folks with poor arithmetic skills and lack of training. With all due respect for the tremendous effort, hisapproach it is too linear and unidirectional, but it is largely harmless for his followers. This was not meant as an attack in any way..


+1

Agree his logic is harmless. And at least he uses mathematics and science, unlike many, although I dont always agree with it.
 
His "linear and unidirectional" approach is much more appreciated than the meaningless circumlocution and prodigious bullpies spouted by other vapid nebishes here.
 
Originally Posted By: CMMeadAM
His "linear and unidirectional" approach is much more appreciated than the meaningless circumlocution and prodigious bullpies spouted by other vapid nebishes here.


Come on man!!....dictionary.com is really slow tonight!
grin.gif
 
My Hyundai Accent really likes the Idemitsu 0w20. I ended up buying 5 cases of the Honda stuff on closeout before Honda switched to CP. Thanks Cat....
 
CATERHAM knows his stuff pretty well and i have no problems with him as a poster.

The ONE THING i have to point out is that the HTHS is more important than an oil's SAE specs... because SOME posters get hung up on the SAE "xW-20, xW-30, etc" naming and it doesnt 100% relate to the application and does in fact cause some confusion, sometimes. Prime example is when 5W is thinner than 0W, "at all temps." You would THINK the 0W has better flow at startup, but if the 5W is a thinner oil then that oil, in fact, has better flow. Happens sometimes. (The other number, the HTHS number, is also something that can get lost in translation with SAE numbering system.)
 
Originally Posted By: 45ACP
The ONE THING i have to point out is that the HTHS is more important than an oil's SAE specs... because SOME posters get hung up on the SAE "xW-20, xW-30, etc" naming and it doesnt 100% relate to the application and does in fact cause some confusion, sometimes.


Quite true. However, a lot of consumers get hung up on the SAE specifications because that's what most owner's manuals call for. There are exceptions, of course, like proprietary specifications (various German specs can include multiple viscosities; dexos1 is only 5w-30). They don't directly call for a certain HTHS range, and the oil companies don't provide such information on the labeling. So, we're stuck with the SAE specifications, for better or for worse.

However, I'm not so sure about a properly labelled 5w-30 being thinner at all temps than a 0w-30. That certainly can happen at higher temperatures, but at the critical -35 range, the 0w-30 should perform better. That is, of course, assuming that the 5w-30 couldn't pass the specification tests for a 0w-30 in the first place.

As for 10w-30 synthetic being obsolete, I certainly understand what CATERHAM mans. If you're splurging on synthetic, there aren't a lot of reasons to get 10w-30, unless the 10w-30 is a warranty requirement, which is rather unlikely in this day and age.

Considering how much conventional has improved over the past few years, I don't see a huge use for 10w-30 conventional, either, at least in the PCMO market. I would have a use for it in HDEO, though, of course.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: 45ACP

Considering how much conventional has improved over the past few years, I don't see a huge use for 10w-30 conventional, either, at least in the PCMO market. I would have a use for it in HDEO, though, of course.

Really, but why should the case be any different for a 10W-30 synthetic HDEO assuming one has a choice?
And outside of the US (like Canada) there is plenty of choice.
In fact I'd say it's easier to get a robust 0W-30 HDEO than a 10W-30 syn' HDEO, which is proof positive that the 10W-30 grade is virtually dead; it's just a matter of waiting for the fat lady to sing (to quote Yogi Berra).
 
Ahh, I was referring to a 10w-30 conventional HDEO, as in something I'd use in my old Ford truck, rather than a synthetic 10w-30 HDEO. Of course, in synthetic HDEOs, there are better choices than a 10w-30, too, as you point out. For the old truck, I prefer higher ZDDP levels in a 30 or 40 grade. I also would prefer conventional, considering it has a carb and would also definitely fall within a "severe service" OCI. If I hypothetically were to use a synthetic HDEO in that vehicle, it would, almost without a doubt, be a 0w-30 - not much else would make sense.

This is more thinking out loud than anything else, but it might be nice if 10w-30 was treated as the legacy grade it really is (be it conventional or synthetic) and have elevated ZDDP levels, while yanking the ILSAC certification altogether.
 
When I was growing up my father acted like 100k was the kiss of certain death, and he usually traded well before that. Now I buy vehicles with nearly 100k on them...they simply run longer than they used to.
 
Originally Posted By: Jeff_in_VABch
I dont know how vehicles even ran in the 60s and earlier. Maybe they never drove in the winter or summer, just spring.


As others have pointed out, engine longevity has improved. Also, unaided starts in -40 with a straight weight oil simply aren't feasible. Conventional multigrades came about for a reason. Synthetic has simply expanded the choices.
 
The rebuild intervals on those motors were much shorter. Also, the motors were much lower-tech with low compression, low redlines, low specific output, etc.

Case in point: my car has a 4.2L 40V V8 that puts out 340hp and 302 ft-lb of torque. It can do this all day, every day, with a smooth idle and low NVH. 30 years ago that would've been impossible, and 50 years ago that sort of power would've been considered a "race" motor.
 
A lot of Catherham's points are mere reiterations of what Dr Haas has been saying all along. For example, his emphasis on thinner oils, getting an oil gauge, all oils being too thick on start-up, the advantage of synthetics over dinos, etc. But, yes, Catheram is very knowledgable and I am glad that he contributes here often.
 
Originally Posted By: Capa
A lot of Catherham's points are mere reiterations of what Dr Haas has been saying all along.


Not sure this is the case. For example Haas pays little attention to the HTHS # but instead relying on the traditional kinematic viscosity statistics. By comparison CATERHAM as you know focuses greatly on the HTHS stat and relegates the 100C and 40C viscosity numbers to the back burner.
 
Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
Originally Posted By: Capa
A lot of Catherham's points are mere reiterations of what Dr Haas has been saying all along.


Not sure this is the case. For example Haas pays little attention to the HTHS # but instead relying on the traditional kinematic viscosity statistics. By comparison CATERHAM as you know focuses greatly on the HTHS stat and relegates the 100C and 40C viscosity numbers to the back burner.


There are some differences and i am in no way indicating that they agree on everything but the similarities are glaring.
 
Originally Posted By: Capa
Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
Originally Posted By: Capa
A lot of Catherham's points are mere reiterations of what Dr Haas has been saying all along.


Not sure this is the case. For example Haas pays little attention to the HTHS # but instead relying on the traditional kinematic viscosity statistics. By comparison CATERHAM as you know focuses greatly on the HTHS stat and relegates the 100C and 40C viscosity numbers to the back burner.


There are some differences and i am in no way indicating that they agree on everything but the similarities are glaring.


If the glaring similarity is "as thin as possible, as thick as necessary" then many on BITOG are like CATERHAM and HAAS?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top