M1 TDT

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Messages
193
Location
SE
I broke my Dmax in for the first 22k with a 15-40 dino oils ( 5K intervals). After which I used Amsoil AME 15w40 & EAO 52 filters up until last Month (10K intervals). At 170k I switched to M1 TDT 5w-40 using EAO52 oil filters.
Since I switched to M1 I have gained 4 lbs oil pressure & 1.2 mpg. Fueling up @ same place & using the same fuel additive. I am the only driver
Truck runs better also.
Just my observation.

PS Cold weather wasn't an issue here in Fl. I just got a good deal on the M1
 
I think it is fairly safe to say that 5W-40 HDEO's have the potential to increase fuel economy over a 15w40. In the case of AME which is closer to an 8W-40 if there was such a thing, I would think the mpg difference between the two oils would be small.

Sounds like you found a good oil for your truck. Thanks for sharing your results here.
 
I am doing my own study. Frankly I never believed in the benefits of synthetics.
Just sold my Ford 7.3 (350K when sold), dino all its life except a couple times with synthetic.UOA's here. 1X @ dealer 330K (CPS recall )

Dmax 170K 1x @ dealer 33K EGR motor. UOAs here also. After 2 OCI with M1 I plan to do a UOA to compare with Amsoil UOA's . I plan to do 10K OCI as I have always done.
 
Odd that you gained both pressure and mpg.

Pressure is the resistance to flow. One would think that higher pressure would indicate a greater loss in pumpability; higher pressure is typically indicative of more energy put into pumping the oil. And energy used in pumping the lube is typically an efficiency loss.

Very odd. I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just perplexed. Too soon to tell. Much more data needs to be collected and analyzed.
 
Last edited:
I could not understand the higher pressure either. Especially since I am still using the same oil filters (EAO52)
My Dmax has always been dead on 60 after warming up. Now it's 64.
Course that's when cruise is set @ 59 on the same road I have always travel. Just something I noticed and double checked.
I try to stay in "tune" to the vehicle I am in.
Comes from when I was running a 773B Cat. Which had side boards welded on it so we could haul 15-20 yards more than it was rated for.
Haul was all down hill so we needed to keep an eye on differential temp due to the fact that the only braking done was with retarder. Along with all other gauges of course.

Perhaps the filter is defective. (not that I plan on swapping it).
In reality I was looking for a drop in pressure due to lower viscosity. That's why I kept an eye on it.
 
Last edited:
Interesting.

At 60mph, I'm nowhere near 60 psi; probably closer to 45psi. However, the GM dash gages are notorious for being a bit subjective. But any delta P would presumably be relevant within the same sample vehicle. That you gained 4psi is a bit of a mystery.

Same goes for the fuel increase; find it hard to explain how you got an estimated 7-8% increase simply by going from a 15-40syn to a 5w-40syn. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong; just cannot seem to wrap my head around a reasonable explanation.
 
Last edited:
perhaps I am having wiring issues & gauge is off, as Code P003a just popped up again. That's been happening off & on for 2 years. Truck runs perfect.
Cleared code again. Sometimes it stays gone for as long as 8 months
 
I did some checking on the way into work this morning.

Local temps were high teens this morning, for reference.
Most of you know, but for the record I run 10w30 dino HDEO.

* Upon startup, oil pressure heads to about 94-97"ish" psi at cold idle (hard to tell since the gage is not well marked). I sit and idle for no more than 15-30 seconds while I get situated, belted, etc.
* While still cold and driving at about 10 mph down my 1/2 mile long driveway, the PSI stays around that 90+psi range.
* As I accelerate down the county road, it's already viscosity shifting and the pressure will go to around 70 psi, even at 2000 rpm when the Allison shifts gears.
* Within two miles of driving, the oil pressure is already rising and falling with the rpm changes as I slow down for turns and then accelerate again.
* Within a few more miles, the engine is perhaps 180 degF and the oil pressure is almost settled. The engine will continue to work its way up to about 200 degF.

Once warmed up, this is where my pressure runs:
* When driving at 60mph, I sustain a steady 40"ish" psi at 1450 rpm.
* When driving at 65mph, I sustain a steady 45"ish" psi at 1600 rpm.
* When sitting at a stoplight at idle, it will be about 30psi at 700 rpm. Even last year in the stupid heat of AZ and UT when pulling my travel trailer, it never dropped below 28psi at a stoplight.
* When accelerating firmly, the pressure will jump up to around 60 psi, if I get the rpm's above 2,000; it is very consistent in that manner and will essentially hold that 60psi "ish" pressure, no matter how much above 2,000 rpm I push it, once it is warmed up.

I will note that the old hot-rodder addage of "10psi per 1000 rpm" typically does not apply to a normal engine, and certainly does not apply to a diesel today from my experiences.


Many of us converse with local Dmax owners, as well as compare notes here at BITOG. It is my general perception that 60 psi, when warm at a steady moderate cruise speed, would be "high" contrased to normal results. The Dmax oil pressure will see a very significant response as the rpm moves from 1400rpm to above 2000rpm, but it seems to be fairly predictable overall.

I run the 10w30 dino for four reasons:
1) just to be different and shock the "must use 15w40" crowd
2) compare/contrast wear protection to thicker fluids and syns
3) gain any mpg I can find
4) easier (quicker) starts in uber cold temps (self-defined as below -15F, which are admittedly very rare in IN and only happen once a decade or so)

In my quest, I have found that there is clearly no discernable difference in wear protection; the Dmax simply does not care what's inside as long as it's a qualified HDEO. Further, when cold, the oil pressure seems to be a bit lower with a thinner HDEO, and therefore I presume it flows sooner and "better". But that is a moot point because the wear data I have shows no advantage overall in that manner. So my only "benefits" seen with thinner grades would be to continue to annoy the "thicker is better" crowd, and to gain (perhaps imperceptably) some mpg. I might also be getting a bit quicker spin up, which is easier on the batteries and starter, but it's been so long since I've had a 40 grade in the crankcase I've somewhat lost my perception between the two choices; any gain in that manner would be almost moot in my normal low temps.

I guess what I'm saying, Charles, is that your gain of a bit of pressure really won't make a hoot of difference in more or less wear. This really is anecdotal; it's an interesting side bar but really won't manifest into anything noteworthy as far as wear in the engine.

What I find interesting is the fuel economy. Your mpg gain is enviable, but I cannot explain how you achieved it, unless the TDT you put in somehow is not the full 40 grade it purports to be (a UOA would answer this). To go from at 40 grade syn Amsoil to a 40 grade syn TDT really makes it hard to understand an estimated 7-8% gain. That is great for you, though; fuel savings is always welcome!
 
Last edited:
Numbers I pulled for both oils out of curiosity.

Code:
AMSOIL Synthetic SAE 15w40 Heavy Duty Diesel & Marine Motor Oil (AME)

Kinematic Viscosity @ 100°C, cSt (ASTM D 445)................................14.2

Kinematic Viscosity @ 40°C, cSt (ASTM D 445).................................93.2

Viscosity Index (ASTM D 2270)................................................157

CCS Viscosity @ -20°C, cP (ASTM D 5293).....................................4386

Pour Point °C (°F) (ASTM D 97).............................................-42 (-44)

Flash Point °C (°F) (ASTM D 92).............................................238 (460)

Fire Point °C (°F) (ASTM D 92)...............................................256 (493)

Fo ur-Ball Wear Test (ASTM D 4172), Scar, mm....................................0.35

Noack Volatility, % weight loss (g/100g) (ASTM D 5800)..........................6.0

High-Temperature/High-Shear Viscosity

(ASTM D 5481), cP................................................................4.3

Total Base Number..............................................................12.1


Code:
Mobil 1 Turbo Diesel Truck 5W-40

SAE Grade 5W-40

Viscosity, cSt (ASTM D445)

@ 40ºC..................................................................97.9

@ 100ºC.................................................................14.5

Viscosity Index..........................................................153

Phosporous (ASTM D4951)..................................................0.11

HTHS Viscosity, mPa•s @ 150ºC (ASTM D4683)................................3.8

Sulfated Ash, wt% (ASTM D874).............................................0.95

Total Base #, mg KOH/g (ASTM D2896).......................................10.7

Flash Point, ºC (ASTM D92).................................................215

Density @ 15.6ºC g/ml (ASTM D4052).........................................0.85


Pretty close on most accounts till you see the TDT HTHS number. Only 12% lower but maybe that is enough to improve fuel economy but aside from that Amsoil seems to be the better oil on paper at least.
 
Hi,
ottomatic - I have been a long term user (over aa decade plus/many millions of kms/various engine families) of TDT's "parent" Delvac 1 5w-40

What really makes these products so good is their soot handling abilities and typically their retention of viscosity and TBN

Donaldson LL Synteq filters (EOA Amsoil) are excellent products too
 
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
I have been a long term user (over aa decade plus/many millions of kms/various engine families) of TDT's "parent" Delvac 1 5w-40


If you keep talking like that, Doug, I'm going to use my leftover Delvac 1 5w-40 in my G contrary to the manual recommended 5w30.
wink.gif
 
Hi,
Garak _ I used it with great success in two 928 Porsche (V8s) I owned. Trended UOAs confirmed its performance

It was an outstanding product in that application and is still used in the US and here in OZ by many 928 Owners
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
I have been a long term user (over aa decade plus/many millions of kms/various engine families) of TDT's "parent" Delvac 1 5w-40


If you keep talking like that, Doug, I'm going to use my leftover Delvac 1 5w-40 in my G contrary to the manual recommended 5w30.
wink.gif



Oh my how could you? You realize you could get flamed for that don't you? LOL All kidding aside, my brother used it all summer in his Ford 351 powered boat, it reduced oil use too.
 
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
It was an outstanding product in that application and is still used in the US and here in OZ by many 928 Owners


It certainly did well in the old Audi, especially in the winter and was a much better choice with respect to consumption than the 5w30.

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Oh my how could you? You realize you could get flamed for that don't you?


15w-40 would cause that nicely, too.
wink.gif
 
Checked wiring harness today since P003a mysteriously went away without me clearing it with PPE. gauge still over 60psi.

On my mpg gain I always use to get 18.2 around town. However I am in Fl. where roads are flat& straight.
I've been thinking: Since I bought the 2012 Jetta TDI my driving habits have changed trying to attain the "700 Mile Club" on the TDI Club forum. That and there are hardly any tourists here at this time. Which is why I am now getting 19.3-19.5 mpg.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ottomatic
I've been thinking: Since I bought the 2012 Jetta TDI my driving habits have changed trying to attain the "700 Mile Club" on the TDI Club forum. That and there are hardly any tourists here at this time. Which is why I am now getting 19.3-19.5 mpg.


How's it do for you on the highway?
 
Originally Posted By: ottomatic
Checked wiring harness today since P003a mysteriously went away without me clearing it with PPE. gauge still over 60psi.

On my mpg gain I always use to get 18.2 around town. However I am in Fl. where roads are flat& straight.
I've been thinking: Since I bought the 2012 Jetta TDI my driving habits have changed trying to attain the "700 Mile Club" on the TDI Club forum. That and there are hardly any tourists here at this time. Which is why I am now getting 19.3-19.5 mpg.


That certainly could be a portion of the explanation; your driving habits may have changed. This is one of the most subjective issues within the fuel economy topic. People discount and ignore how their mood and mental state affects driving styles. I do the same thing in some of my vehicles, but I am conscious about it. In my Fusion, I am always trying to maximize the mpg; but no so in my Galant. How much that mentality bleeds from one to another is difficult to ascertain. Fuel economy should not be judged from day to day, but from season to season, so that individual tank fills "normalize" over daily mood shifts, which clearly will affect driving style.

There was a study done a few years ago about "aggressive driving" (it was a CA study to see the cause/effect of road-rage issues). All subjects exhibited variation in their demeanor from day to day, and their aggression varied. Although the study DOE was not predicated to study fuel economy, they did measure the amount of acceleration as a perceived form of aggression. (The acceleration was measured both by electronic throttle position and an accelerometer, and not by a driver seat butt-o-meter, so there was good hard data and not subjective perception). No surprise that all subjects, regardless of their base mood (from self described easy-going to high-strung), all exhibited occasions where more aggression was present after some event triggered aggression, regardless of initiative cause. As we all would be able to agree, acceleration = power consumption = fuel economy loss. The study did not quantify fuel economy as a variable, but it did show anywhere from 5-15% more aggressive driving when conditions triggered the reaction. Obviously, the cause of the aggression varied; work stress, family stress, other drivers, being late, etc; those are varied inputs. But the outputs (defined as more aggressive acceleration and/or lane changing and/or risk taking by forcing a run into a changing traffic signal) were all clearly measurable; it happens to all of us.

So my point is that you really cannot look at a tank or two of fuel and claim much of any change; your mood (even unconsciously) will affect fuel economy. You need to let a long term trends define economy so that moods are muted in the variable data.

There are other things that would affect fuel economy, although perhaps to a lesser degree in FL. Here in IN, when it gets cold, fuel injection system will compensate for much colder temps during that all important "warm up" phase. I have owned my Fusion for three full years now. I can tell you with certainty I drop about 2mph in Winter due to the effect of richer fuel loading during warm up, and also the effect of longer warm up cycles, contrasted to summer. And, folks can even look to seasonal events that trigger the use of the a/c compressor (summer for a/c and winter for the defroster). Those can consume more fuel versus spring and fall, when people tend to drive with windows open. Obviously, that is dependent upon one's regional location, but it does shift the effect.

Less traffic also helps. I will be interesting to see if a return of traffic in the future season would result in any shift.

Conceptually, this falls into the topic I discuss in detail in my "normalcy" article. There are inputs that have great affect from day to day, and the only way to normalize the data in analysis is to set the DOE testing in such a manner that reasonable variance is normalized into the data. Seasons will affect fuel economy; you must run several seasons to nullify that issue. Same goes for human interaction; you have to look at months of data to eliminate mood shifts.

This is a perfect example of how there is often a disconnect between lab results and real world experiences. I am so very often skeptical of any product that claims or exhibits fuel economy changes; the benefits are often touted when conditions are at their best, but the data is not normalized for real world use.

I am not saying, Charles, that you didn't get a tank or two of great economy increase. I trust your methods of measurement are solid. What I'm calling into question is the difference between causation and correlation. The economy shift may not be due solely to the new lube, but also things like mood, traffic, and even your (unconscious) efforts to make that 700 mile club as it bleeds into your driving habits in other vehicles. Did the TDT lube assist in the gain experienced? Perhaps it did. But how much so is certainly up for debate, and you have a lot of variables that have not been normalized.

So, your current fuel economy gain may or may not be sustained over a long term average; only time will tell.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak


How's it do for you on the highway?


Avg 22.3 with amsoil. empty & not hauling when driving from fl to tn cruise set on 62. I have not drove on highway with M1.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom