2017 Corvette / Mobil 1 5w30 / 5.6k mi

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
13,663
Location
Frisco, TX
I changed this out when the OLM read 25% and it had about seven track days on it. Blackstone commented that the aluminum was up a bit but called it "barely out of spec", and they also noted that the viscosity was just barely out of grade. Although iron was up from last time, it's actually way down on a per-mile basis.

I had asked if I should consider something like 0w40 or even 15w50 (which is what GM suggests for track use), but they didn't think that would really make a difference. I think I am going to try a shorter interval next time, but I welcome opinions. I still have one more free oil change from GM.



Code:


OIL M1 5w30 M1 5w30

MILES IN USE 5,651 741

MILES 6,392 741

SAMPLE TAKEN 9/22/17 4/12/17



ALUMINUM 10 3

CHROMIUM 2 1

IRON 53 48

COPPER 13 28

LEAD 1 1

TIN 0 0

MOLYBDENUM 76 84

NICKEL 0 0

MANGANESE 2 2

SILVER 0 0

TITANIUM 0 0

POTASSIUM 5 10

BORON 54 106

SILICON 40 74

SODIUM 5 7

CALCIUM 956 1043

MAGNESIUM 682 624

PHOSPHORUS 627 692

ZINC 733 753

BARIUM 0 0



INSOLUBLES 0.1 -

WATER 0 0

FLASHPOINT ºF 390 SHORT

SUS VIS 210ºF 54.8 -

cSt @ 212ºF 8.71 SHORT

TBN 4.6 6.2

TAN 4.7 1.9
 
I'd ditch the M1 and get a better oil.

Why increase viscosity? Increasing viscosity increases wear if it's not needed. Consider getting better UOA testing as well.
 
Originally Posted By: danielLD
I'd ditch the M1 and get a better oil.

Why increase viscosity? Increasing viscosity increases wear if it's not needed. Consider getting better UOA testing as well.

Hey welcome back, you were gone there for a while. Were you busy?
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: danielLD
I'd ditch the M1 and get a better oil.

Why increase viscosity? Increasing viscosity increases wear if it's not needed. Consider getting better UOA testing as well.

Hey welcome back, you were gone there for a while. Were you busy?


Lol, thanks! I come and go, you know? I get in these moods sometimes, where I'll check the forums and see what's going on, chime in and then back to work/etc.
 
I would personally run M1 0W-40 year round, however...

What type of track days? Are you doing HPDE's or actual racing? If you're doing actual racing or the HPDE sessions are much longer than 15 minutes, I would run the 15W-50. It's not a terribly thick oil for a 50, and you could run it with no issues for the warmer six months out of the year.
 
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
I would personally run M1 0W-40 year round, however...

What type of track days? Are you doing HPDE's or actual racing? If you're doing actual racing or the HPDE sessions are much longer than 15 minutes, I would run the 15W-50. It's not a terribly thick oil for a 50, and you could run it with no issues for the warmer six months out of the year.


I guess I'll just ask because I always find it interesting that people always want to go thicker to reduce wear, which is contrary what me and Dyson have proved.

So why don't we go to a SAE70 weight?
 
Originally Posted By: danielLD
I guess I'll just ask because I always find it interesting that people always want to go thicker to reduce wear, which is contrary what me and Dyson have proved.

So why don't we go to a SAE70 weight?

Because his manual SPECIFICALLY calls out Mobil 1 15W-50 as the oil to use for "high performance driving."
 
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
I would personally run M1 0W-40 year round, however...

What type of track days? Are you doing HPDE's or actual racing? If you're doing actual racing or the HPDE sessions are much longer than 15 minutes, I would run the 15W-50. It's not a terribly thick oil for a 50, and you could run it with no issues for the warmer six months out of the year.



The car is spec'd for 5w30, and M1 is the factory fill. These are free oil changes from GM, so for now, I will just stick with that. I had considered the 0w40 after the free changes run out.

These are 20-30 minute HPDE sessions, typically 4 or 5 per track day.
 
With the track time, I'd be running 15W-50 for the warm half of the year and 0W-40/5W-30 for winter.

Or, as previously mentioned, stick with the 5W-30 into next year and see how things look as the engine runs in.
 
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
With the track time, I'd be running 15W-50 for the warm half of the year and 0W-40/5W-30 for winter.

Or, as previously mentioned, stick with the 5W-30 into next year and see how things look as the engine runs in.



I don't drive the car between November 1 and April 1. It sits in a garage.
 
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Originally Posted By: danielLD
I guess I'll just ask because I always find it interesting that people always want to go thicker to reduce wear, which is contrary what me and Dyson have proved.

So why don't we go to a SAE70 weight?

Because his manual SPECIFICALLY calls out Mobil 1 15W-50 as the oil to use for "high performance driving."


roofless, I suggest you get a roof and cap your anger. As an industry professional, not some random guy on a forum, because the manual says something means nothing. That manual was written by GM, because when GM engineers sit down with the tribology dept.(GM is one of few that has official tribologist on staff) they have to know what they can recommend for 90% of people who will buy off the shelf oil.

I track my RC F on 30W oil because I use a quality oil. That M1 shears to a 30W within a few hours, hence why GM has to say start with a 50W. Because they know it will be a 30W quickly, not because he needs a 50W.

Also roofless, you have failed to prove that increasing to a thicker weight reduces wear. Something I HAVE personally done over thousands of UOAs.
 
Originally Posted By: danielLD
roofless, I suggest you get a roof and cap your anger. As an industry professional, not some random guy on a forum, because the manual says something means nothing. That manual was written by GM, because when GM engineers sit down with the tribology dept.(GM is one of few that has official tribologist on staff) they have to know what they can recommend for 90% of people who will buy off the shelf oil.

I track my RC F on 30W oil because I use a quality oil. That M1 shears to a 30W within a few hours, hence why GM has to say start with a 50W. Because they know it will be a 30W quickly, not because he needs a 50W.

Also roofless, you have failed to prove that increasing to a thicker weight reduces wear. Something I HAVE personally done over thousands of UOAs.

I can tell you're going to be real fun to have around here.
 
Originally Posted By: danielLD
I'd ditch the M1 and get a better oil.

Why increase viscosity? Increasing viscosity increases wear if it's not needed. Consider getting better UOA testing as well.



What would you consider "better" than the M1 5w30? That's a pretty nebulous statement.
 
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Originally Posted By: danielLD
roofless, I suggest you get a roof and cap your anger. As an industry professional, not some random guy on a forum, because the manual says something means nothing. That manual was written by GM, because when GM engineers sit down with the tribology dept.(GM is one of few that has official tribologist on staff) they have to know what they can recommend for 90% of people who will buy off the shelf oil.

I track my RC F on 30W oil because I use a quality oil. That M1 shears to a 30W within a few hours, hence why GM has to say start with a 50W. Because they know it will be a 30W quickly, not because he needs a 50W.

Also roofless, you have failed to prove that increasing to a thicker weight reduces wear. Something I HAVE personally done over thousands of UOAs.

I can tell you're going to be real fun to have around here.


No problem, too many people on here spreading all sorts of information that is contrary to what oil analysts have disproven.
 
Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: danielLD
I'd ditch the M1 and get a better oil.

Why increase viscosity? Increasing viscosity increases wear if it's not needed. Consider getting better UOA testing as well.



What would you consider "better" than the M1 5w30? That's a pretty nebulous statement.


Nebulous? You're UOA would be considered "nebulous". There are a few selections off the bat to start with. RL, RLI, Ams, M1EP, Motul to name a few good starting points. With more testing and an UOA that is actually accurate and telling, then you could start to narrow filter, oil and fuel selection for this car. Until you get GC, FTIR, KF and AN, you won't really know what's best. Wear is not linear nor direct. For example, you're diluting right now, uncontrolled this starts to wear the internals some time from now, not today. The wear is also exponential with FD, meaning it becomes accelerated later on.
 
Originally Posted By: danielLD
Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: danielLD
I'd ditch the M1 and get a better oil.

Why increase viscosity? Increasing viscosity increases wear if it's not needed. Consider getting better UOA testing as well.



What would you consider "better" than the M1 5w30? That's a pretty nebulous statement.


Nebulous? You're UOA would be considered "nebulous". There are a few selections off the bat to start with. RL, RLI, Ams, M1EP, Motul to name a few good starting points. With more testing and an UOA that is actually accurate and telling, then you could start to narrow filter, oil and fuel selection for this car. Until you get GC, FTIR, KF and AN, you won't really know what's best. Wear is not linear nor direct. For example, you're diluting right now, uncontrolled this starts to wear the internals some time from now, not today. The wear is also exponential with FD, meaning it becomes accelerated later on.



I posted a UOA which has some objective data -- whether or not you agree with their testing is a different story. Your post was extremely vague: "use something better." What am I supposed to do with advice like that? If you're going to make such a statement, at least expand on it with some reasons why. While I appreciate a useful discussion (it's what this site is all about), this isn't a game of 20-questions.


Glad to see that this thread got totally derailed by people bickering and trolling.
crazy.gif
 
Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: danielLD
Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: danielLD
I'd ditch the M1 and get a better oil.

Why increase viscosity? Increasing viscosity increases wear if it's not needed. Consider getting better UOA testing as well.



What would you consider "better" than the M1 5w30? That's a pretty nebulous statement.


Nebulous? You're UOA would be considered "nebulous". There are a few selections off the bat to start with. RL, RLI, Ams, M1EP, Motul to name a few good starting points. With more testing and an UOA that is actually accurate and telling, then you could start to narrow filter, oil and fuel selection for this car. Until you get GC, FTIR, KF and AN, you won't really know what's best. Wear is not linear nor direct. For example, you're diluting right now, uncontrolled this starts to wear the internals some time from now, not today. The wear is also exponential with FD, meaning it becomes accelerated later on.



I posted a UOA which has some objective data -- whether or not you agree with their testing is a different story. Your post was extremely vague: "use something better." What am I supposed to do with advice like that? If you're going to make such a statement, at least expand on it with some reasons why. While I appreciate a useful discussion (it's what this site is all about), this isn't a game of 20-questions.


Glad to see that this thread got totally derailed by people bickering and trolling.
crazy.gif



dparm, I PMed you two small examples before this post. I can't continuously repeat and write dissertations on Blackstone's testing. I PMed you offering UOA services at a fraction of what you could get them for, basically me taking my time in my life, to help someone get UOA in full power at my expense.

1. Blackstone is not certified, runs internal standards(why they are locked out of Gov work)

2. Use Flashpoint for fuel

3. Use Crackle for water.

4. Provide no suggestions using specific filters, oils and fuels for improvement.

5. Universal standards are applied but universal standards should never be used in automotive tribology. In locomotive tribology it's a bit different.

6. Provides no FTIR, people keep thinking you can see how much additive is left based on the additive's partial atomic foot print. You need to see the additive in the molecular state to determine that, even then, it's not 100%.
 
Daniel, again, I'm all for productive debate about the principles of oil analysis, but I feel like that sort of derails my thread about this specific report. The analysis is already done and the results are here, so at the very least, I was hoping for some insight on that.

A discussion about Blackstone vs others is a good one, but shouldn't that be in a separate thread?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top