Recent Topics
Web Archive
by Duffyjr
06/22/18 10:25 AM
Sonoma This weekend!
by racin4ds
06/22/18 10:22 AM
low water pressure on new kitchen faucet
by Joe1
06/22/18 09:40 AM
Flashing third tail light
by Brigadier
06/22/18 08:59 AM
Intermittent AC Cooling
by Gebo
06/22/18 08:59 AM
Who includes full size spare in tire rotation?
by Parlay_Slow
06/22/18 08:45 AM
Crude and foul behavior
by mjoekingz28
06/22/18 08:31 AM
Best Off The Shelf Car Wash Liquid ?
by ChrisD46
06/22/18 08:30 AM
Wrecking Yards
by Snagglefoot
06/22/18 08:26 AM
F1 - 2018 French Grand Prix
by gofast182
06/22/18 08:14 AM
AAP 25% Off
by Egg_Head
06/22/18 06:03 AM
GM Ecotec 2.4 - Cracked Exhaust Manifold
by The Critic
06/22/18 05:05 AM
Half Price - Shell Helix HX7, Castrol Edge and GTX
by SR5
06/22/18 03:59 AM
Why hang your bicycle from the ceiling?
by mjoekingz28
06/22/18 03:47 AM
Oil For High Sustained RPM on BMW S52
by ZEK
06/21/18 10:41 PM
Chevy brought the blazer back
by WiskyBadger
06/21/18 10:07 PM
LC20 and uses in modern motor oil
by synman
06/21/18 10:01 PM
Full Synthetic CJ-4 or > 5W-30 or 10W-30
by LeTempt
06/21/18 09:57 PM
2018 RAM 1500 EcoDiesel
06/21/18 08:37 PM
Fram SureGrip coating
by mobilaltima
06/21/18 08:24 PM
Newest Members
Fatbrowndog0822, DRNJR, ZEK, Dudewayne, kmdz
65294 Registered Users
Who's Online
89 registered (alcyon, AandPDan, ArrestMeRedZ, 4WD, Astro14, andyd, 7 invisible), 1510 Guests and 35 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
65294 Members
67 Forums
285761 Topics
4769139 Posts

Max Online: 3590 @ 01/24/17 08:07 PM
Donate to BITOG
Page 1 of 16 1 2 3 ... 15 16 >
Topic Options

Registered: 05/27/02
Posts: 1874
Loc: Ocala, Florida
As previously discussed, We have had many people who feel that a mineral oil cannot produce as good a wear #'s as a synth and therefore not do that well in extending drains. My thoughts as many know is that wear protection rely on the additive package more than the base oil. Because some will take and move from a standard mineral based oil and switch to a synth, and this produces better results with them, the argument I have with this is that when switching, how many actually are switching brands of oils therefore actually switching complete additive packages.

So point is, was it the "synth base oil" that reduced the wear or was it the "different additive package" that made the difference?

So to somewhat but not conclude scientificly my point, I have been running the Schaeffers blend which many know that there is approx 20-25% PAO synth base stock in this oil.

My 2 tests previously with the blend all had the M1 filters. The last test reported here is on the cheapest Fram filter. Driving conditions were approx the same for the last two 4,000 mile drains. This is on a 1.9L ford 4cyl engine in a 95 escort wagon.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> [ M1 filter ] Fram filter
blend blend molybond
miles 10,500 4,022 4,000

Wear Metals
copper 10 19 8
iron 30 17 12
chrom 0 0 0
alum 2 2 2
lead 18 36 2

moly 121 114 99
phos 1146 709 937
zinc 1260 906 1017
magnesum 14 9 9
calc 3587 2976 2809

silicon 7 7 3
%antifreeze,fuel,%h20 all 0

Oil Properties
Vsic 16.65 12.81 14.49
50w 40w 40w
sulfur 4 45 15
oxidation 32 21 13
nitration 35 20 14
soot 0 0 0
[/code]</blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now understand that all of these are schaeffers oils and that the main difference between each is the first 2 are blends and the last is the moly bond mineral which is the same as the blend with minimal additive differences and no pao. The mineral is the same base mineral stock used in the blend.

<small>[ March 06, 2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]</small>

#215546 - 11/15/02 02:14 AM Re: DIFFENT OILS AND NO FITER ON ENGINE
liquidballbearing Offline

Registered: 07/17/02
Posts: 125
Loc: Campbellsville,KY
I currently have two vehicles running the Schaeffer's 7000 blend 10w30. One is a 1992 GMC Sonoma 4.3L with 106,000 which I used Pennzoil 5w30dino in exclusively until discovering this site and switching over to the 7K10w30 blend. The truck never leaked oil, never burned oil and still doesn't--very happy with the blend. The other is a 1998 Chevy Monte Carlo 3.1L with now 40,000 miles which I bought used from a guy who always used Mobil 1 5w30 and I did also in the car until I changed the oil last week. I am on my second change in the truck and plan on having it analyzed at the end of my current 3k interval--would go further on the oil but it rarely gets road miles. Will analyze oil in car also after second change interval. Both vehicles have Wix filters installed on them and were purged with Neutra on their last oil cycles. Sorry for the long, rambling post and thanks for all the advice.

#215547 - 11/15/02 03:25 AM Re: DIFFENT OILS AND NO FITER ON ENGINE
dragboat Offline

Registered: 06/04/02
Posts: 1933
Loc: Oklahoma
First,glad your back from your trip safely !

Looks like the Moly bond will hold it's own and also those lowly Fram filters most "but not I because I still use them and have for years" have nailed,knocked and persacuted seem to work well.

I wonder if the other filters did too good a job and was stopping up making for the filter to go into bypass and the motor ran alot of unfiltered oil?

I posted while you were gone that the Fram filters seem to have a metal endcap put in them now when I looked at some over last weekend but I personaly never had trouble with the cardboard end caps over the years.

[ November 15, 2002, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: dragboat ]

#215548 - 11/15/02 03:42 AM Re: DIFFENT OILS AND NO FITER ON ENGINE

Registered: 05/27/02
Posts: 1874
Loc: Ocala, Florida
Thanks Dragboat,

I too am not so convinced now that the M1 filter is a good choice any more for my engine. One of the things I noticed is that when first starting the engine in the morning, there was more engine rattle at first with the M1 filter as opposed to the fram.(very slight but I notice the little things like this).

Here's my thoughts on this... A lower filtration rate such as fram will allow better flow at startup allowing the oil to establish oil pressure quicker. It also allows oil to pass through the filter media easier as opposed to the high filter media. As the higher quality of filter media used, it requires to be changed more often otherwise it most likely is in bypass mode more than not. In the case of the fram, as the filter accumulates dirt, it becomes more efficient thus over a longer period of time it will maintain better flow but also become more efficient passing the point of mileage where the higher quality filter media wont last as long as it starts to accumulate and since it already has some resistance to flow, becomes more resistant thus providing less flow through the media and more through the by pass.

Another interesting point is that this oil isn't as reliant on a high quality filter to maintain lower wear #'s. You'd thought that this low end filter would allow more trash to pass thus creating higher wear but as it appears, the better the flow through the filter, the better it works unlike M1 in my case, it requires more pressure to go through the media thus more goes around than through IMO.

I have a little experiment I'm going to try at a later time on the flow issues of these filters to take this a little farther

#215549 - 11/15/02 04:17 AM Re: DIFFENT OILS AND NO FITER ON ENGINE
Patman Offline

Registered: 05/27/02
Posts: 20341
Loc: Oakville, Ontario
I wish you had used the same oil filters all along so we could get a direct comparison on the wear metals. It appears that the mineral based stuff drastically reduced your engine wear (copper and lead especially!), however that can't be possible since Schaeffers uses the same additive package in both of those oils right? So how would the one with the lesser quality base oil protect better? Although I do see the viscosity was higher on the mineral oil, possibly this is the reason?

Bob, instead of the Fram or Mobil 1, why not go with a K&N oil filter? These filters offer the high quality construction of a Champion Labs filter, but will flow a great amount of oil too. They might not filter out as many 10 micron particles as the Mobil 1, but are good for most of the 18 micron stuff.

Was there anything else added to the mineral oil that could possibly account for such a big difference?

#215550 - 11/15/02 05:08 AM Re: DIFFENT OILS AND NO FITER ON ENGINE
sprintman Offline

Registered: 05/27/02
Posts: 11006
Loc: Canberra ACT Australia
plsc include PureONE in your filter tests

#215551 - 11/15/02 01:52 PM Re: DIFFENT OILS AND NO FITER ON ENGINE
Patman Offline

Registered: 05/27/02
Posts: 20341
Loc: Oakville, Ontario
Originally posted by sprintman:
plsc include PureONE in your filter tests

I'd be willing to bet that the PureONE is even more restrictive than the M1 filter.

#215552 - 11/15/02 03:28 PM Re: DIFFENT OILS AND NO FITER ON ENGINE
jjbula Offline

Registered: 07/04/02
Posts: 482
Loc: Montgomery, AL
I'm glad I haven't been spending the extra $6 to use M1 filters instead of Bosch premium. Bosch's are nominally rated at 15 micron instead of 10 micron.

Patman--How much do you pay for K&N

#215553 - 11/16/02 02:39 AM Re: DIFFENT OILS AND NO FITER ON ENGINE
Idrinkmotoroil Offline

Registered: 08/04/02
Posts: 922
Loc: Ontario , Canada
Bob I've been meaning to bring up a subject for the longest time since a good friend (with lots of racing experience and engine building experience) mentioned something to me about motor oil. I've probably eluded to it in some of my earlier posts. Anyhow your post is now peaking my curiousity, so here is the question:

Is there some feature about regular or conventional motor oil that perhaps is beneficial while in operation within an engine ?, some feature that we dont pay much attention too and which synthetic oil does not have ?. We keep reading how certain synthetic oils are superior because of their engineering, yet many times now we find really good results from regular conventional oil. I know the gap between conventional oil and synthetics is decreasing and all that stuff, but somehow I just think that conventional oil has some intrinsic feature that makes it perform relatively good compared to synthetic oils. There is no scientific proof to what I am saying, just a gut feeling I get after seeing analysis results. I have always felt that conventional oils have good features and synthetic oils have good features, and perhaps a good blend oil would be the "perfect" oil, the best of both worlds philosophy.

Maybe I've been thinking too much about motor oil lately, and it probably doesn't amount to a hill of beans given the average length of car ownership these days. Any opinion would be interesting though. [Confused]

[ November 16, 2002, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: JSIR ]

#215554 - 11/16/02 04:00 AM Re: DIFFENT OILS AND NO FITER ON ENGINE
Patman Offline

Registered: 05/27/02
Posts: 20341
Loc: Oakville, Ontario
Originally posted by jjbula:
I'm glad I haven't been spending the extra $6 to use M1 filters instead of Bosch premium. Bosch's are nominally rated at 15 micron instead of 10 micron.

Patman--How much do you pay for K&N

Up here I buy them on sale for $14 CDN, which is about $9 US. The PureONE filters are about the same price up here, the Premium Plus filters are about $5-7 and the AC Delcos are $3-4. Frams are $5-6 (not that I'd ever run one!)

If we had the Bosch premiums up here, I'd probably run them, as they probably perform very similar to the K&N, but at a lower price.

#215555 - 11/16/02 06:04 AM Re: DIFFENT OILS AND NO FITER ON ENGINE
Dominic Offline

Registered: 07/04/02
Posts: 1853
Loc: Gilbertsville, PA
That is incredibly interesting.

Were all those 15W-40 weight?

Why did the first blend run with 10,000 miles thicken to a SAE50?

Does this mean the molybond is BETTER than the blend?!?


[ November 16, 2002, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: Dominic ]

#215556 - 11/16/02 07:07 AM Re: DIFFENT OILS AND NO FITER ON ENGINE
mormit Offline

Registered: 07/17/02
Posts: 947
Loc: st. Louis

Very interesting points you bring up. So possibly the Fram starts out with less filtration efficiency but at 4000mi (when it really counts) it's almost filtering as well as the new M1.

How are you designing your upcoming test? I would really like to see flow rates and pressure drop studied on new and used filters. Anybody want to send Bob their dirty oil filters? [LOL!]

#215557 - 11/16/02 04:41 PM Re: DIFFENT OILS AND NO FITER ON ENGINE
TooSlick Offline

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 5785
Loc: Dixie

I noticed you went back to the 15w-40 for this run, instead of the 10w-30 you used last time. I think what this test shows is that for the type of driving you do in Florida, the heavier grades of Schaeffers work better in this high mileage engine. The wear rates from your first and third runs are very comparable, it is the second run with the 10w-30 that shows higher wear rates.
I'm not sure you can draw any conclusions about the effect the difference in basestocks had on these results, since you didn't run the 10w-30 Molybond oil this last time? It would be interesting to do that the next time around, in order to make more sense of this overall data.

What I find most interesting is the big difference in lead content between the first, second and third runs. Did you happen to change brands of gasoline during this time?


#215558 - 11/16/02 06:50 PM Re: DIFFENT OILS AND NO FITER ON ENGINE

Registered: 05/27/02
Posts: 1874
Loc: Ocala, Florida
To answer your question as to why it was a 50wt is because on that run, I was driving like I stole the car for hundreds of miles at a time at speeds excess of 80+. This would put a strong demand on the oil at that temp and the oil pressure would have been such it would push some past the rings, therefore, being I was low 1 qt at the end of that run, I opted to do an analysis before adding any more back in. The increase was to be expected in that case.

Ted, you've got your facts wrong, they are all 15w40. The first two are both the supreme 7000, #700 15w40 and the last is the mineral moly bond 15w40 so yes it does present valid data and the conclusion is that it's not the base stock that is providing wear protection so much as it is the additive package that really plays the strong role in wear protection. This info, given along with the fact that most VOA show synth's are laced with heavier antiwear additives than the mineral counter parts shows that even the synth oils are not relying so much on the base stock oil to provide better protection but the additives.

I have never run a 10w30 in this engine.
When I bought this car it had 70,000 miles on the engine.

#215559 - 11/16/02 07:01 PM Re: DIFFENT OILS AND NO FITER ON ENGINE

Registered: 05/27/02
Posts: 1874
Loc: Ocala, Florida
Mormit, I have to agree with you that the filter would become more effecient as it gets used. Interesting point though it that it is possible that the flow capablilties of this filter may have kept the wear down more since it was allowing better flow. So really, Maybe I should consider going back to the blend with the fram filter and see how this affects the over all. I would think it would perform pretty much the same as the moly bond.

My filter test is not going to do much but try and compare flow capabilities through the media. I have about 4 different ones, just to get an idea on the differences. Nothing conclusive mind you just trying to see another perspective on the puzzle in a different way.

Btw, this data(oil analysis) is consistant with what the lab had stated, that they dont see much if any difference in extended oil drains/wear rates between the moly bond and the blend since the only basic difference is the added PAO synth between the two.

Page 1 of 16 1 2 3 ... 15 16 >