Originally Posted by PimTac
I'd like to see this freezer that goes to -40F.
Yes my guess is he's lucky if it goes to 10F
I'd like to see this freezer that goes to -40F.
Yes my guess is he's lucky if it goes to 10F
Is Oil Good After 70 Years? Project Farm finds out.
- Thread starter IntegraVT
- Start date
- Status
We used to have lab freezers for premixed epoxy that went down to -80 or something, but those were very expensive.
i worked at a service station in 1973 and we sold quaker state. that can is older than what we sold as ours had writing on top of the can also. the 30w non detergent was green just like that.
It is a lousy old oil that no one should use in any engine they care about keeping running.
In a worst case scenario where you either had to run that or run dry I'd certainly take that old sludge juice. It would probably be fine for the first few hundred miles. Other than that it's just a collectors item.
Cool video. There is more to engines lasting longer than better engines oils although they do contribute. Fuel injection, better material specifications, and more precise manufacturing tolerances, with overall lower friction designs (low tension rings and rollerized valvetrain) have also added to engine life.
Quaker State cans looked like that when I started driving in the mid 70s. The viscosity and SAE service level were all printed on the top of the can. It seems from the VOA that this was a non-detergent oil, which was commonly available in the 1970s.
The more interesting [yet unmentioned] thing about this discussion is the origin of the Viscosity Index. Viscosity index is a dimensionless ratio comparing how oils thin out with increasing temperature. Lubricating oils based upon Pennsylvania crude were the basis for a rating of 100 on this scale. That was the gold standard back in the day. Would you run an oil with a VI of only 100 today? I doubt it!
The more interesting [yet unmentioned] thing about this discussion is the origin of the Viscosity Index. Viscosity index is a dimensionless ratio comparing how oils thin out with increasing temperature. Lubricating oils based upon Pennsylvania crude were the basis for a rating of 100 on this scale. That was the gold standard back in the day. Would you run an oil with a VI of only 100 today? I doubt it!
I have been doing the same thing (QS 10w40 from 1973) but actually run it in my engine for years. 43 year old oil in my 43 year old car at the time. Good TBN , higher lead from wash down of leaded race fuel and leaking carbs before it was fixed.
I'm still running 47 year old Valvoline in it.
I've been running this engine on 40+ year old oil for over 7 years now. No issues but I'm glad Project Farm solved this mystery on his little contraptions he builds.
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...03932/all/44_year_oil_QS_10w40,_4.5_year
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/HMqlWX2.jpg "[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]")
I'm still running 47 year old Valvoline in it.
I've been running this engine on 40+ year old oil for over 7 years now. No issues but I'm glad Project Farm solved this mystery on his little contraptions he builds.
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...03932/all/44_year_oil_QS_10w40,_4.5_year
Originally Posted by sdowney717
It is a lousy old oil that no one should use in any engine they care about keeping running.
That was true even in the 1960s. Non-detergent oil has been obsolete for use in new engines since at least the mid-50s. That specific can may not be 70 years old, but the recipe of the contents might well be.
It is a lousy old oil that no one should use in any engine they care about keeping running.
That was true even in the 1960s. Non-detergent oil has been obsolete for use in new engines since at least the mid-50s. That specific can may not be 70 years old, but the recipe of the contents might well be.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by burla
so if he has a freezer that goes to -40f, why does he routinely test oils at -15f? He has an agenda and knows that at that temp a lower viscosity will flow faster. That if he truly wanted to test cold performance 5 or 10f lower and you would see real base oils.
You completely miss the larger picture. We already know that an oil with an inappropriate winter rating will perform more poorly than one which is appropriately rated. But beyond that this "flow test" is not indicative of anything other than how the oil flows in that setup.
Always trying to push your pet brand aren't you?
did I say anything about brand? seams like your hang up not mine.
Originally Posted by burla
so if he has a freezer that goes to -40f, why does he routinely test oils at -15f? He has an agenda and knows that at that temp a lower viscosity will flow faster. That if he truly wanted to test cold performance 5 or 10f lower and you would see real base oils.
You completely miss the larger picture. We already know that an oil with an inappropriate winter rating will perform more poorly than one which is appropriately rated. But beyond that this "flow test" is not indicative of anything other than how the oil flows in that setup.
Always trying to push your pet brand aren't you?
did I say anything about brand? seams like your hang up not mine.
If you test an oil before the cold clouds it then the thinner oil will simply flow fastest. No need for a test, just look to cSt. If you want to see real results, freeze the oil till clouds. Then you will see where one formula will out perform another formula.
Originally Posted by burla
You would think oil guys would like such a test, but not the oil guys at bob's, because that crushes their posts and challenges everything they "say". lol Like, what are you afraid of? Afraid your oil will be a popsicle while mu oil is flowing? And we all know that is true and no way around it, so attack the poster, LOL. Like, you lost so now let's talk stuff against Burla's character. Sad
You really need to learn some basics about the characterization and testing of finished motor oils. You might be less susceptible to county fair hawkers. As someone who purports to know his stuff about one particular brand you aren't demonstrating that here.
His "test" isn't crushing anything for those who know how oil performance is actually evaluated and reported.
You would think oil guys would like such a test, but not the oil guys at bob's, because that crushes their posts and challenges everything they "say". lol Like, what are you afraid of? Afraid your oil will be a popsicle while mu oil is flowing? And we all know that is true and no way around it, so attack the poster, LOL. Like, you lost so now let's talk stuff against Burla's character. Sad
You really need to learn some basics about the characterization and testing of finished motor oils. You might be less susceptible to county fair hawkers. As someone who purports to know his stuff about one particular brand you aren't demonstrating that here.
His "test" isn't crushing anything for those who know how oil performance is actually evaluated and reported.
Originally Posted by burla
If you test an oil before the cold clouds it then the thinner oil will simply flow fastest. No need for a test, just look to cSt. If you want to see real results, freeze the oil till clouds. Then you will see where one formula will out perform another formula.
So what test evaluates how an oil will flow to the pump pickup screen? And how are the results of that test reported?
You don't need to freeze the oil to prevent it from flowing to the pump screen, it's not necessary. More hyperbole.
If you test an oil before the cold clouds it then the thinner oil will simply flow fastest. No need for a test, just look to cSt. If you want to see real results, freeze the oil till clouds. Then you will see where one formula will out perform another formula.
So what test evaluates how an oil will flow to the pump pickup screen? And how are the results of that test reported?
You don't need to freeze the oil to prevent it from flowing to the pump screen, it's not necessary. More hyperbole.
Originally Posted by burla
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by burla
so if he has a freezer that goes to -40f, why does he routinely test oils at -15f? He has an agenda and knows that at that temp a lower viscosity will flow faster. That if he truly wanted to test cold performance 5 or 10f lower and you would see real base oils.
You completely miss the larger picture. We already know that an oil with an inappropriate winter rating will perform more poorly than one which is appropriately rated. But beyond that this "flow test" is not indicative of anything other than how the oil flows in that setup.
Always trying to push your pet brand aren't you?
did I say anything about brand? seams like your hang up not mine.
I'm not so dumb to miss that.
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by burla
so if he has a freezer that goes to -40f, why does he routinely test oils at -15f? He has an agenda and knows that at that temp a lower viscosity will flow faster. That if he truly wanted to test cold performance 5 or 10f lower and you would see real base oils.
You completely miss the larger picture. We already know that an oil with an inappropriate winter rating will perform more poorly than one which is appropriately rated. But beyond that this "flow test" is not indicative of anything other than how the oil flows in that setup.
Always trying to push your pet brand aren't you?
did I say anything about brand? seams like your hang up not mine.
I'm not so dumb to miss that.
Youtube cold flow tests are far superior, just google it, I wont repost it. You see multiple oil tests at -20f and minus -22f and -22c. It was zero coincidence project farm choose -15 to do his tests. You see what happens to the great oils at just -5f more. Not that any true oil guy would care to look that up, when it is much more fun to call someone hyperbolous.
Originally Posted by burla
Youtube cold flow tests are far superior, just google it, I wont repost it. You see multiple oil tests at -20f and minus -22f and -22c. It was zero coincidence project farm choose -15 to do his tests. You see what happens to the great oils at just -5f more. Not that any true oil guy would care to look that up, when it is much more fun to call someone hyperbolous.
You should contact Infineum (and anyone else for that matter) and tell them that the suite of tests comprising SAE J300 are inferior for characterizing motor oil performance, and that instead they should watch Project Farm and YouTube "cold flow tests" for the real deal. Why on earth have they been futzing around with J300 when a dude with a freezer and some plastic tubes is better?
Youtube cold flow tests are far superior, just google it, I wont repost it. You see multiple oil tests at -20f and minus -22f and -22c. It was zero coincidence project farm choose -15 to do his tests. You see what happens to the great oils at just -5f more. Not that any true oil guy would care to look that up, when it is much more fun to call someone hyperbolous.
You should contact Infineum (and anyone else for that matter) and tell them that the suite of tests comprising SAE J300 are inferior for characterizing motor oil performance, and that instead they should watch Project Farm and YouTube "cold flow tests" for the real deal. Why on earth have they been futzing around with J300 when a dude with a freezer and some plastic tubes is better?
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by burla
Youtube cold flow tests are far superior, just google it, I wont repost it. You see multiple oil tests at -20f and minus -22f and -22c. It was zero coincidence project farm choose -15 to do his tests. You see what happens to the great oils at just -5f more. Not that any true oil guy would care to look that up, when it is much more fun to call someone hyperbolous.
You should contact Infineum (and anyone else for that matter) and tell them that the suite of tests comprising SAE J300 are inferior for characterizing motor oil performance, and that instead they should watch Project Farm and YouTube "cold flow tests" for the real deal. Why on earth have they been futzing around with J300 when a dude with a freezer and some plastic tubes is better?
Comment of the day.
Originally Posted by burla
Youtube cold flow tests are far superior, just google it, I wont repost it. You see multiple oil tests at -20f and minus -22f and -22c. It was zero coincidence project farm choose -15 to do his tests. You see what happens to the great oils at just -5f more. Not that any true oil guy would care to look that up, when it is much more fun to call someone hyperbolous.
You should contact Infineum (and anyone else for that matter) and tell them that the suite of tests comprising SAE J300 are inferior for characterizing motor oil performance, and that instead they should watch Project Farm and YouTube "cold flow tests" for the real deal. Why on earth have they been futzing around with J300 when a dude with a freezer and some plastic tubes is better?
Comment of the day.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked