0W-40 in 1970 Cadillac Eldorado
The Derfer
The 500 CI motor at its highest-rated-ever 400 HP.
Living in the Northeast, it's cold here a lot of the year, especially
in the morning. Though I hardly ever start it up on a cold morning,
I wonder about the overall stress and strain to the engine when it's
bone-cold out there and I'm using (typically) 10W-40 motor oil.
I've used synthetic and conventional at times, and even 10W-30
here and there. None of them have caused any noticeable problems.
Would switching to something like Mobil-1 synthetic 0W-40 be a good
idea to get the oil flowing quicker and more easily to the various
engine
parts in cold weather? I ask because the only cars which are ever
recommended for usage of 0W-40 seem to be European luxury and
sports sedans, not this classic road barge of old. Plus Mobil-1 in
particular seems to be recommending the "0W" grade wherever the "5W"
or "10W" would normally be used such as to promote better cold starts
and increase fuel economy. This, especially with its "Advanced Fuel
Economy"
line of oils (e.g., use 0W-20 where you'd normally use 5W-20).
Although since #W-40 oils aren't offered in that line, I'd consider
regular
Mobil-1 0W-40. Any advice on this? Good idea? Bad idea?
N8N
All I can say is try it and find out. I did try the 0W40 in my 944
once and found that it thinned out at high engine temps enough to
noticeably drop the oil pressure as indicated on the gauge. 5W40 syn
would not do this. If you have an oil pressure gauge try it for a bit
and see what happens. Be aware that if you switch from dino squeezins
to syn you may notice an increase in seal/gasket leaks, even though
the oil mfgrs. have done a lot to mitigate this from the 1st gen of
synthetics.
nate
Ad absurdum per aspera
I'd say that:
* Switching to a synthetic or a high-detergent (fleet; diesel) oil on
a non overhauled "survivor" engine that old is asking for trouble.
* It's coming up on its 40th birthday and counting, so what you've
been doing plainly works.
* Although large and powerful it is not a highly stressed engine.
* There was a fair bit of sophistication in motor oil by 1970; most of
the changes since then have been responses to problems that evolved
since then (hotter-running, higher-revving engines, pollution
concerns, etc.)
* Looking to advanced and/or lighter motor oils to improve the fuel
economy of a 1970 Eldorado is like firing the aft guns to improve the
fuel economy of a battleship.
* Any car of that age is likely to dirty its oil faster than a modern
car in good condition.
I might go with a "high mileage" conventional (dinosaur; non-
synthetic) 5W30 if you are concerned about cold starts for what little
driving you do in winter, 10W40 like you've been using in summer,
changed every 3000 miles with a quality new filter. And many more
happy years of cruising!
One man's opinions, worth what you paid if your ISP is inexpensive,
--Joe
KRP
"The Derfer" <der...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b38cffa9-5b07-43a7...@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> I've got a great old 1970 Cadillac Eldorado.
> The 500 CI motor at its highest-rated-ever 400 HP.
>
> Living in the Northeast, it's cold here a lot of the year, especially
> in the morning. Though I hardly ever start it up on a cold morning,
> I wonder about the overall stress and strain to the engine when it's
> bone-cold out there and I'm using (typically) 10W-40 motor oil.
> I've used synthetic and conventional at times, and even 10W-30
> here and there. None of them have caused any noticeable problems.
It is not wise to switch tyhpes of oil. Synthetic is great if you never
use regular oil. If you have ued regular oil, stick with it. With that
engine, I'd suggest you use an arctic grade oil unless you are going to
drive lots of highway mines. Then a goof 5 w30. Texaco Havoline is good.
Shell has gone good oils as does Castrol. AVOID standard Pennzoil or Quaker
state in that engine. There are some other good oils out there. If you ever
do a complete rebuild of the motor, stick with a good Synthetic like Mobil
1.
> Would switching to something like Mobil-1 synthetic 0W-40 be a good
> idea to get the oil flowing quicker and more easily to the various
> engine parts in cold weather?
Not at this point when you have used conventional oils. Only if you
completely tear down the motor, at least hone the cylinder walls and give
the block and all parts a good bath. I know there will be folks who will
disagree with me on this point, it has been my experience that convention
oil and synthetics don't mix. Pick one and stick with it. There are good and
bad in both. The whole issue of multiple viscosity oil is largely a myth.
There are laws of fluids. All fluids are thicker when cold and thinner when
hot. All this multiple viscosity crap does is plays with the clock. How much
time it takes to get thick and thin.
< I ask because the only cars which are ever
> recommended for usage of 0W-40 seem to be European luxury and
> sports sedans, not this classic road barge of old. Plus Mobil-1 in
> particular seems to be recommending the "0W" grade wherever the "5W"
> or "10W" would normally be used such as to promote better cold starts
> and increase fuel economy. This, especially with its "Advanced Fuel
> Economy" line of oils (e.g., use 0W-20 where you'd normally use 5W-20).
> Although since #W-40 oils aren't offered in that line, I'd consider
> regular Mobil-1 0W-40. Any advice on this? Good idea? Bad idea?
The Mobil 1 is GREAT oil. You won't blow up your motor using it or
anything, but the residue conventional oil will act like a contaminant in
it. You won't get the performance you would have in a new engine. I can't
recommend any oil higher than Mobil 1. Castrol Edge is pretty spectacular as
well.
The Derfer
old)
specifies a rather wide variety of grades for this car. I have to
believe
they were vastly different in 1970 so I pay it no mind.
Everyone always said "10W-40" as the default response for that car.
Can 0W-40 be anything (significantly) different other than it's
viscosity
at cold temps? I think of 10W-40 and 10W-30 (which I've used
occasionally
in the past as well) as identical at cold temperatures.
Speaking of temperature, about how hot DOES this kid of car run?
Everyone
talks about cars "running hot" these days. Is this relative? Did
cars
"run hot" back then? This is a 500 CI motor after all. I just don't
know.
I've used 15W-50 Mobil-1 synthetic and other grades of conventional
oil
(10W-30 up to 20W-50) before. None produced any ill effects that I
can
report. The engine does leak oil to a degree and none of those oils
made
it better (or worse). My real question is would 0W-40 make for easier
starts
in the cold? I want to make the engine last (never have to rebuild
or replace)
so synthetic is an option I'm thinking of returning to, and perhaps
0W-40
is the right grade for every situation. But if people have other
ideas, I'm
always listening.
I have found the posts so far very imformative: a big thanks to N8N,
KRP
and Ad absurdum per aspera.
-The Derfer
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= =
On Feb 16, 11:04 am, "KRP" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "The Derfer" <derf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
KRP
Having had one of those glorious beasts Eldorado with the 500. . . I can say
they are particularly delicate motors. It was not one of GM's better
offerings. Neither was the pain on the Eldos, particularly the metallic. I
think the engine would do okay today if you had a new one and stuck with oil
like Castrol Edge. For some INSANE reason, it seemed like many people used
Pennzoil and Quaker State in those engines. By the time they had 50,000
miles they were full of sludge. Cylinder walls horribly varnished and
scored. They were blowing oil like mad by 65,000 miles. Seems like people
with other GM vehicles were not as prone to use that crappy Pennsylvania
oil. Don't switch. Use a major brand conventional oil. Like I said Texaco
and Shell have really good, inexpensive oils as does Union 76 and Phillips.
Stay away from the off brands and chain store oils. (K-Mart - Wal Mart etc)
House brands. Castrol makes really good oils too.
The 500 isn't a bad engine if you care for it properly. Like I said, if you
got a new 500 it probably would hold up well. GM engines of 1970 generally
weren't the best. That was a dark period for American cars in general.The
bad American cars of the 70's is why you see so many Japanese cars today on
our roads. Detroit was largely building "shit." The engines had all that
emissions crap on them that really didn't work well and burned valves etc.
Rube Goldberg devises thought up by Ralph Nader types who had NO idea what
makes an automobile run. That is another reason Japan & Company got 55% of
the American car market. Japanese cars didn't have to have all that crap
sucking the life out of their motors.
Steve B.
>Interestingly, the manual for this car (which is close to 40 years
>old) specifies a rather wide variety of grades for this car. I have to
>believe they were vastly different in 1970 so I pay it no mind.
Lots of things have changed with engine oil over the years but but the
weight still means what it meant. Your chart in the manual is still
good.
>
>Everyone always said "10W-40" as the default response for that car.
>Can 0W-40 be anything (significantly) different other than it's
>viscosity
>at cold temps? I think of 10W-40 and 10W-30 (which I've used
>occasionally
>in the past as well) as identical at cold temperatures.
It takes more viscosity modifiers in the oil to get the larger spread.
As the oil ages the viscosity can drift off. My understanding is this
isn't as big of an issue with synthetics as it is with regular oil
>Speaking of temperature, about how hot DOES this kid of car run?
>Everyone
Stock thermostat was 195. The temp goes up to 220 ~ 230 on a hot
summer day idling in traffic.
>talks about cars "running hot" these days. Is this relative? Did
>cars "run hot" back then? This is a 500 CI motor after all. I just don't
>know.
On newer cars the computer doesn't turn on the fan until the temp gets
higher than what you would have seen in the old days. A new car may
not even turn on the fan until 220 degrees. Your Cadi's cooling
system is getting is working as hard as it can and loosing ground
around this temp.
>
>I've used 15W-50 Mobil-1 synthetic and other grades of conventional
>oil
>(10W-30 up to 20W-50) before. None produced any ill effects that I
>can
>report. The engine does leak oil to a degree and none of those oils
>made
>it better (or worse). My real question is would 0W-40 make for easier
>starts
>in the cold? I want to make the engine last (never have to rebuild
>or replace)
>so synthetic is an option I'm thinking of returning to, and perhaps
>0W-40
>is the right grade for every situation. But if people have other
>ideas, I'm
>always listening.
Yes 0W-40 can make it easier to start in the cold. What kind of cold
are you talking about? Is this your daily driver? Personally if I
wanted the engine to last forever I wouldn't be starting it at all in
temps where I was worried about oil flow. Will the oil make any
difference long term? Well I guess you pick your pony and take your
chances on that one. I would pick one oil and stick with it though
and quit doing this multiple products and multiple weights stuff.
Honestly at this point in the cars life what you do today isn't nearly
as important as what has been done to it over the last 40 years. On
the plus side the 472/500 was, IMHO, one of the best engines to ever
come out of General Motors. I have had several that were poorly
maintained with a gazillion miles on them and you just can't kill
them. Now the CV joints... that's another matter alltogether and I
wouldn't wish them on my worst enemy!
Steve B.
John S.
How many miles and years on the engine. If it's a long time I would
just switch to 5w30 non-synthetic. Running synthetic in an old engine
could cause it to start leaking. For those cold northeast mornings
just install a block heater and solve any cold start worries.
cavedweller
Second the block heater suggestion....better yet, one in each bank.
ray
> I've used 15W-50 Mobil-1 synthetic and other grades of conventional
> oil
> (10W-30 up to 20W-50) before. None produced any ill effects that I
> can
> report. The engine does leak oil to a degree and none of those oils
> made
> it better (or worse). My real question is would 0W-40 make for easier
> starts
> in the cold? I want to make the engine last (never have to rebuild
> or replace)
> so synthetic is an option I'm thinking of returning to, and perhaps
> 0W-40
> is the right grade for every situation. But if people have other
> ideas, I'm
> always listening.
>
You may wish to investigate GM EOS or Shell Rotella - something high in
zinc for your engine, especially if you want it to live forever.
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/flat_tappet_cam_tech/cam_construction.html
Ray
The Derfer
KRP
"John S." <hjs...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:d1a1940c-1b48-4ed4...@o36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
=========
Good advice.
KRP
"ray" <rollingv...@domain.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:I_Jml.13825$g63....@newsfe24.iad...
>>
>> I've used 15W-50 Mobil-1 synthetic and other grades of conventional
>> oil
>> (10W-30 up to 20W-50) before. None produced any ill effects that I
>> can
>> report. The engine does leak oil to a degree and none of those oils
>> made
>> it better (or worse). My real question is would 0W-40 make for easier
>> starts
>> in the cold? I want to make the engine last (never have to rebuild
>> or replace)
>> so synthetic is an option I'm thinking of returning to, and perhaps
>> 0W-40
>> is the right grade for every situation. But if people have other
>> ideas, I'm
>> always listening.
>>
>
>
> You may wish to investigate GM EOS or Shell Rotella - something high in
> zinc for your engine, especially if you want it to live forever.
Shell Rotella is a GREAT oil for that engine.
N8N
> "ray" <rollingviolat...@domain.invalid.com> wrote in message
Again, I have tried the Rotella synthetic 5W40 in my Porsche 944 and
found the Mobil 1 of the same grade to hold higher oil pressure at
speed. just my experiences... have not experienced this with cooler-
running Studebaker V-8s however (those I've been running the regular
dino 15W40 though.)
nate
KRP
"N8N" <njn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f1e5d50-8279-4189...@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> >> I've used 15W-50 Mobil-1 synthetic and other grades of conventional
> >> oil
> >> (10W-30 up to 20W-50) before. None produced any ill effects that I
> >> can
> >> report. The engine does leak oil to a degree and none of those oils
> >> made
> >> it better (or worse). My real question is would 0W-40 make for easier
> >> starts
> >> in the cold? I want to make the engine last (never have to rebuild
> >> or replace)
> >> so synthetic is an option I'm thinking of returning to, and perhaps
> >> 0W-40
> >> is the right grade for every situation. But if people have other
> >> ideas, I'm
> >> always listening.
>
> > You may wish to investigate GM EOS or Shell Rotella - something high in
> > zinc for your engine, especially if you want it to live forever.
>
> Shell Rotella is a GREAT oil for that engine.
Again, I have tried the Rotella synthetic 5W40 in my Porsche 944 and
found the Mobil 1 of the same grade to hold higher oil pressure at
speed. just my experiences... have not experienced this with cooler-
running Studebaker V-8s however (those I've been running the regular
dino 15W40 though.)
There are two Shell Rotella oils. One is a high quality conventional motor
oil. That was the one he was referring to. It is an extreme duty oil used
lots in trucks.As far as synthetics, until Castrol came out with "EDGE"
Mobil 1 ruled the roost. There are several GOOD standard motor oils. The
problem with the Eldo 500CID is that in the 70's it was burdened with lots
of Ralph Nader imposed gee-gaws that really screwed the motor. Get all the
crap off it, set it up right from a fresh build and it's a great motor.
Well, at least a good one. I had one, they regularly ate valves among other
things. Plus the Eldo was a bloated turkey 900 tons and really junk front
wheel drive. It was a nice riding car, but NOT a pleasure to own. The paint
on the 70's Cadillacs was also awful. Mine was medium metallic blue. it
cracked all over like a cheap egg. Nothing you could do but strip it to bare
metal and work your way back up. GM repainted mine several times. The last
time they authorized taking it to bare metal. Both the primer and paint were
crap, so I bought some BASF primer and used FORD paint. It didn't crack
again. Oh and the CV joints. MAYBE 10,000 miles before they started playing
loose marbles in a can. It really wasn't the best car Caddy ever built.
Try Castrol Edge in your pound puppy, you'll like it.
The Derfer
> There are several GOOD standard motor oils. The
> problem with the Eldo 500CID is that in the 70's it was burdened with lots
> of Ralph Nader imposed gee-gaws that really screwed the motor. Get all the
> crap off it, set it up right from a fresh build and it's a great motor.
But the regulations and devices you speak of are
all post-1970, right? Cat converters etc came out
later in the 1970s (so I thought). Am I right?
This car took regular gas. I add lead substitute
once every few tankfulls. (Should I add it more
often?)
Brent
Unless the car was originally sold in CA all it would have on it would
be a PCV valve (which only cycles the crankcase vapors back into the
intake with no/insignificant performance loss). Maybe EGR, but I think
EGR was later than '70.
49 state emissions didn't get air pumps and the rest of the add on's
until the mid 70s. They got really bad for '75 up models.
KRP
My Eldo was a 74 it had so much CRAP under the hood you barely could see
the engine. PCV and all that crap. I am not sure of 1970. But by 74 the
engine compartment was filled with junk.
Mine took Premium. Regular would knock like a diesel. I thought Tony
Orlando was under the hood. (Knock 3 times.) Could NOT keep CV joints on the
car. Today it makes little difference, you have to add a lead substitute or
the valve stems burn up. Lead was a lubricant. All in all it was NOT
Caddy's best effort.
KRP
"Brent" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gnhike$8cm$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> On 2009-02-18, The Derfer <der...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There are several GOOD standard motor oils. The
>>> problem with the Eldo 500CID is that in the 70's it was burdened with
>>> lots
>>> of Ralph Nader imposed gee-gaws that really screwed the motor. Get all
>>> the
>>> crap off it, set it up right from a fresh build and it's a great motor.
>>
>> But the regulations and devices you speak of are
>> all post-1970, right? Cat converters etc came out
>> later in the 1970s (so I thought). Am I right?
>> This car took regular gas. I add lead substitute
>> once every few tankfulls. (Should I add it more
>> often?)
>
> Unless the car was originally sold in CA all it would have on it would
> be a PCV valve (which only cycles the crankcase vapors back into the
> intake with no/insignificant performance loss). Maybe EGR, but I think
> EGR was later than '70.
My 74 had all that crap on it.
The Derfer
ben91932
> Would switching to something like Mobil-1 synthetic 0W-40 be a good
> idea to get the oil flowing quicker and more easily to the various
> engine
> parts in cold weather?
You might get away with it, but I would never do it.
The only engines the call for 0w40 have micro polished crank journals.
Using 0w40 could cause rapid wear, and it would be a crying shame to
wipe the bearings on such a rare engine.
The Rotella is *great* stuff but would probably show no benefit on
such a low mileage engine. I use it exclusively on both my hi mileage
vehicles.
HTH
Ben
The Derfer
So then you'd recommend a conventional 10W-40?
KRP
> Why is Mobil-1 0W-40 referred to as a "Eurpoean Car formula"?
To sell OIL?
KRP
"Anonymous" <cri...@ecn.org> wrote in message
news:20090219061611.651D61A7922@isole...
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, "KRP" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>"The Derfer" <der...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:da730a88-c192-4cad...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> There are several GOOD standard motor oils. The
>>>> problem with the Eldo 500CID is that in the 70's it was burdened with
>>>> lots
>>>> of Ralph Nader imposed gee-gaws that really screwed the motor. Get all
>>>> the
>>>> crap off it, set it up right from a fresh build and it's a great motor.
>>
>>> But the regulations and devices you speak of are
>>> all post-1970, right? Cat converters etc came out
>>> later in the 1970s (so I thought). Am I right?
>>> This car took regular gas. I add lead substitute
>>> once every few tankfulls. (Should I add it more
>>> often?)
>>
>> My Eldo was a 74 it had so much CRAP under the hood you barely could
>> see
>>the engine. PCV and all that crap. I am not sure of 1970. But by 74 the
>>engine compartment was filled with junk.
>>Mine took Premium. Regular would knock like a diesel. I thought Tony
>>Orlando was under the hood.
> Barbara and her kids were under the hood, as you smuggled the bitch over
> the border. The cunt got third degree burns on her tits and couldn't
> dance
> topless for 3 weeks. BWAHAHAHAHA
Moore there is NO border with Cuba. She wasn't "smuggled" she came
legally, and gets her citizenship this year. POOR YOU! Now after a decade
at it, haven't you figured out yet that your BLACKMAIL attempts don't work
with me????? You are almost 40 and still act like you are 12.
KRP
D> So then you'd recommend a conventional 10W-40?
I suggested Havoline 5 w 40 in the winter, cheaper and does as good a
job with your engine is oil costing 10 times as much. This all depends on
how much you drive the car and many other factors. Is it garaged? With an
engine of that vintage you just won't get anything out of synthetics that
make it worthwhile. Just stay away from Pennsylvania oils. Anything paraphin
based. A good grade major oil company oil, Texaco, Shell, Union 76, Phillips
are ALL good. You can get that stuff dirt cheap in most parts store or Wal
Mart. Just NEVER buy a house brand. Any MAJOR oil company's good grade oils.
Frankly a 10 weight in winter and 30 weight in summer is even better.
Dan Sullivan
Scott Dorsey
The Derfer <der...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 18, 8:18=A0pm, ben91932 <benteac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Would switching to something like Mobil-1 synthetic 0W-40 be a good
>> > idea to get the oil flowing quicker and more easily to the various
>> > engine
>> > parts in cold weather?
>>
>> You might get away with it, but I would never do it.
>> The only engines the call for 0w40 have micro polished crank journals.
>> Using 0w40 could cause rapid wear, and it would be a crying shame to
>> wipe the bearings on such a rare engine.
>> The Rotella is *great* stuff but would probably show no benefit on
>> such a low mileage engine. I use it exclusively on both my hi mileage
>> vehicles.
>
>
The Rotella isn't like a conventional 10W-40... it's made with petroleum
base stock, but it has a lot more ZDDP in it than a modern conventional
oil does. This is a big deal for the cam arrangements in many older engines.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
ben91932
>
> So then you'd recommend a conventional 10W-40?
Yes I would.
And 20/50 for the summer.
HTH,
Ben
ben91932
> >> of Ralph Nader imposed gee-gaws that really screwed the motor. Get all the
> >> crap off it, set it up right from a fresh build and it's a great motor.
Actually, the 1970 500 has virtually no smog equipment beyond the pcv,
which doesnt hurt a thing.
400 HP and 515 ft/lbs with a perfectly smooth 700 rpm idle and 15 mpg
is crazy good.
I've swapped them into a 84 camero and a 71 chevy truck.
Even better is a smogger 500 from 73-75 with closed chamber heads from
a 60's 425.
13.5-1 compression with good flow, 450 hp. Cant run pump gas though...
>
> >But the regulations and devices you speak of are
> >all post-1970, right? Cat converters etc came out
> >later in the 1970s (so I thought). Am I right?
71 500 had 400 hp, 72 500 had less than 300. To comply with federal
smog laws (not nader...)
the compression went from 11-1 to 8-1 and rthe cam was changed
drastically.
But I digress...
HTH,
Ben
KRP
"Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixm...@remailer.privacy.at> wrote in
message news:f8426a4f0b40939a...@remailer.privacy.at...
> education online?
According to YOU Moore? LITTLE ANONYMOUS DAVEY MOORE?
KRP
"Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixm...@remailer.privacy.at> wrote in
message news:f8426a4f0b40939a...@remailer.privacy.at...
>
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, The Derfer <der...@gmail.com> wrote:
KRP
"ben91932" <bente...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a70247a2-1b67-434c...@d1g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> >> problem with the Eldo 500CID is that in the 70's it was burdened with
> >> lots
> >> of Ralph Nader imposed gee-gaws that really screwed the motor. Get all
> >> the
> >> crap off it, set it up right from a fresh build and it's a great motor.
Actually, the 1970 500 has virtually no smog equipment beyond the pcv,
which doesnt hurt a thing.
400 HP and 515 ft/lbs with a perfectly smooth 700 rpm idle and 15 mpg
is crazy good.
I've swapped them into a 84 camero and a 71 chevy truck.
Even better is a smogger 500 from 73-75 with closed chamber heads from
a 60's 425.
13.5-1 compression with good flow, 450 hp. Cant run pump gas though...
=================
I am fairly sure it had a smog pump on it, and a bunch of other stuff. My
74 sure did.
Dan Sullivan
The Derfer
nothing-special-about-it, 10W-40 motor oil in the Spring.
I'll use a K&N oil filter, though I've never found them any better
or worse than any other oil filters. Mobil-1 doesn't make the
filter for this car anymore.
Any suggestions for a good oil filter for this car while we're at it?
Anyone disagree with my ultimate conclusion about oil grade?
Someone suggested 20W-50 for the Summer. Dealership told me
that'd be a bit on the thick side. Moving to South Florida later in
the year, so is that an even better incentive to go to 20W-50?
KRP
Take a look at the Purolator ONE filter. You won't need 20 w 50 unless
you plan on either racing the Eldo or doing LOTS of highway driving.
Conventional oil, Texaco Havoline is about as good as it gets. Shell isn't
bad. Havoline is dirt cheap in most auto parts stores, Wal Mart etc. You
won't find any conventional oil that's better. There are several just as
good. Shell, Union etc. The fact is you can get Havoline anywhere.
N8N
only way to really answer is to watch your oil pressure gauge. if
it's in spec don't worry about it. Purolator, Wix, Luber-Finer all
make good filters. If you want to "drive it forever" check out the
Canton Mecca replaceable element filters. Not cheap but supposedly
the best full flow filters you can buy. Just use a good quality oil
with a decent amount of ZDDP.
nate
The Derfer
Mobil Drive Clean 10W-30 that I'd like to find a use for.
They haven't made Drive Clean in a few years.
Generally how long is a bottle of conventional oil good for?
I understand synthetic is good for quite a few years.
krp
One quart isn't going to do for your engine. Use it in a lubricating can for
bicycle chains chain saws etc. Never MIX oils in a good engine. Or give it
to a friend who has an oil burner.
The Derfer
> bicycle chains chain saws etc. Never MIX oils in a good engine. Or give it
> to a friend who has an oil burner.
Yes I know. The car takes 5 quarts.
But lets say I have some oil from, e.g., 2003 still hanging around in
unsealed bottles. (Mobil Drive Clean).
Should I recycle it or is it still fresh enough to use in a car
that requires that grade (10W-30 in this case)?
The Derfer
Anyone have any thoughts on that for the '70 Eldorado
with the 500 CI motor?
jim
Winter is going to be over before you reach a decision.
krp
>> One quart isn't going to do for your engine. Use it in a lubricating can
>> for
>> bicycle chains chain saws etc. Never MIX oils in a good engine. Or give
>> it
>> to a friend who has an oil burner.
>
> Yes I know. The car takes 5 quarts.
Which is WHY I reccomend AGAINST mixing types and brands of oil.Use that
solo can for something else.
> But lets say I have some oil from, e.g., 2003 still hanging around in
> unsealed bottles. (Mobil Drive Clean).
> Should I recycle it or is it still fresh enough to use in a car
> that requires that grade (10W-30 in this case)?
I don't think motor oil has a great shelf life. I'd be leery of using it
in a good engine. It breaks down. Ever see gasoline that has sat around in a
tank for a long time?
krp
> Motorcraft makes a nice 5W-50 full synthetic.
> Anyone have any thoughts on that for the '70 Eldorado
> with the 500 CI motor?
Most synthetics are good oils. But is is not good to mix type of oils. Stick
with whatever you have been using. Don't just switch back and forth because
somebody tells you synthetics are good. Pick a lane and stay in it.
The Derfer
differences
exist between something like that (the cheapest in their store) and,
say,
the major brand names? And in another forum I saw someone get really
DOWN on the Pennsylvania oils (Quaker State, Pennzoil) as awful.
What's the bias there?
On Mar 1, 10:42 pm, "krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "The Derfer" <derf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
krp
D> AutoZone has a brand called 'ValueCraft'. What manufacturing differences
D> exist between something like that (the cheapest in their store) and,
D> say, the major brand names?
Literal answer I don't know. If the package doesn't tell you, it could
be almost anything. Could be old product Shell one can, old product Union
oil in the next can. If it doesn't say on the package my bet is that the
folks at the AZ store won't know any more than you would. I like to stick
with what I KNOW is good.
D> And in another forum I saw someone get really DOWN on the Pennsylvania
oils (Quaker State, Pennzoil) as awful.
D> What's the bias there?
Sure and I share the bias against paraffin based oils. (Pennsylvania).
If you have ever seen engines torn down you would too. They gunk the hell
out of engines. Especially I would never use it in a modern high rev
engines. They deposit sludge everywhere. Which is why I like the synthetics
so well. With an older car like your eldo, where you have been using
conventional oil, stick with it, but stick with the majors. Texaco, Union,
Shell, Phillips etc. Just be consistent. Avoid the cheap oil unless your
motor is shot.
The Derfer
krp
> Do you have an opinion on Mobil Clean 5000 and 7500?
5000 is a conventional oil. Very good. 7500 is a synthetic, not as good
as Mobil 1 but good. Both are older versions of newer oils. Look for the
expiration dates on the case they came in.
The Derfer
think that's what I'd prefer to go with in a 10W-40.
I trust the brand well enough.
Last questions, slightly off-topic:
Does anyone recommend a "crank-case cleaner" to
wash the gunk out of the engine? The type of fluid that
you put into an empty crankcase, run the car for 10-15
minutes and then empty, and refill with oil afterward?
I've heard those are mostly kerosene. I'm not sure if that's
such a great idea since it may strip away deposits
that maintain clearances within acceptable tolerance.
At that point, I might have to go with 20W-50 all day
every day, for example. Consider, though, that this is an
OLD engine with low miles (actually closer to 57,000; I
checked the other day). Would a regular diet of a double-
does of Techron do just as well?
And what happened to SNAP brand lead substitute?
It used to be the cheapest out there, now I have to buy 'Gunk'
brand which is almost 2X more expensive. So few places
carry a lead substitute on the shelves anymore. Frustrating.
I always use 93 Octane.
I've tried Octane Boosters with varying success. This motor
was used to 100-104 octane in its younger years. Is there an
effective Octane booster that can get the engine a little more
responsive these days? Someone suggested aviation fuel
but with its explosive qualities, I wonder if plutonium would be
just as wise.
krp
D> Interesting. Mobil Clean 5000 comes in a 10W-40, I
D> think that's what I'd prefer to go with in a 10W-40.
D> I trust the brand well enough.
I am not sure they are still making it. But it was known to be a very
good oil.
D> Last questions, slightly off-topic:
D> Does anyone recommend a "crank-case cleaner" to
D> wash the gunk out of the engine? The type of fluid that
D> you put into an empty crankcase, run the car for 10-15
D> minutes and then empty, and refill with oil afterward?
Old mechanic's trick is to run automatic transmission fluid. I am not
sure I really reccomend it. I have heard of engines giving up the ghost when
cleaned like that. ATF is highly detergent. The process is to drain the oil
and put on a CHEAP new filter. Fill with ATF. Drain replace with clean oil
and a new filter. It may clean out TOO MUCH of the gunk. The engine may be
depending on that gunk to function.
D> I've heard those are mostly kerosene. I'm not sure if that's
D> such a great idea since it may strip away deposits
D> that maintain clearances within acceptable tolerance.
ATF is highly detergent. It cleans everything. On an old engine it may
have all kinds of problems. Better to either rebuild the engine or just use
good oil and stick it out.
Steve B.
<der...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Interesting. Mobil Clean 5000 comes in a 10W-40, I
>think that's what I'd prefer to go with in a 10W-40.
>I trust the brand well enough.
MobilClean is designed to be an extended change motor oil. Do you
really plan to put enough miles on the engine for this to be an issue?
On my '59 I change the oil in the spring and again in the fall and
find that this is often less than 1500 miles on the oil.
>
>Last questions, slightly off-topic:
>
>Does anyone recommend a "crank-case cleaner"
Have you ever heard the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?
Steve B.
The Derfer
> >Does anyone recommend a "crank-case cleaner"
>
> Have you ever heard the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?
I suppose a bottle of Techron every few months will be just as good.
krp
>
>> >Does anyone recommend a "crank-case cleaner"
>>
>> Have you ever heard the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?
>
>
> I suppose a bottle of Techron every few months will be just as good.
One of the problems with doing that to an OLD engine is that often they stop
running and a rebuild becomes mandatory. The advice, "If it ain't broke
don't fix it" is the best you'll ever get. Pouring lots of crap (chemicals)
in an engine makes the companies that make the crap very happy, and can also
serve to make all the companies that sell rebuild parts for engines VERY
happy as well. One of my pet peeves is shadetree mechanic engine rebuilds.
What you slap new rings and gaskets and hope like hell it runs when it is
back together. If you are going to rebuild an engine, take it completely
out of the vehicle. Strip it to the bare block. Send to to somebody
reputable to be magnafluxed to check for any small cracks. Then "tank it" to
clean all the gunk off its innards. They you have to check all of your
tolerances for your crank journals and the cam. Most likely you'll need a
new cam. New lifters etc... Redo the heads.
Big job. Not all rebuilt "crate engines" are very good. Be sure of the
source. I was in the parts business for a time. LOTS of bad crate motors
especially on the big block engines. Like a 500 CID. Yes, a GOOD engine is
going to cost you up the ass, but a cheap one costs even more.
Best to leave sleeping dogs lie. There are no miracles in a can. Just keep
on with good oil and decent filters and stop playing games. Synthetic oil is
good in a new engine. Even a new OLD engine. But screwing around with an
old, old engine changing this is a high risk thing. It keeps coming back to;
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Scott Dorsey
I don't think it would be a good idea to pour Techron into the crankcase.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Steve
> It is not wise to switch tyhpes of oil. Synthetic is great if you
> never use regular oil. If you have ued regular oil, stick with it.
Why won't this myth die after 30+ years of synthetic oils that are
COMPLETELY compatible with all seal materials used since the 50s and all
conventional oils????
As for the original question- you might join the forums on
bobistheoilguy.com and bring it up there. I think the general consensus
is that the Mobil "0wXX" oils have a very good base oil stock and are
typically higher viscosity index (thin less as they get hotter) than the
"5wXX" and "10wXX" versions (whether XX be 30 or 40). So I'd say give
0w40 a try if you want to. There is a subset on there who think Mobil is
overpriced and will recommend Pennzoil Platinum or Castrol Edge... but
any of the 3 are interchangeable in my book. I've had a longer history
with Mobil 1 personally.
If it were me, I'd also seriously consider Shell RotellaT Synthetic
5w40. Its a diesel (really "heavy duty" is more accurate- it also meets
all the gasoline ratings) engine oil and works very well in torquey,
slow-turning engines like big-block v8s. And interestingly, the Subaru
guys who autocross their WRX turbos also love it. I know for a fact that
it doesn't thin out at high temperature as much as Mobil 1 5w30 does,
having tried both in one of my old Mopar 440s. I've been using RotellaT
for about 2 years now.
Steve
>>
>> So then you'd recommend a conventional 10W-40?
>
> The Rotella isn't like a conventional 10W-40... it's made with petroleum
> base stock,
Depends on which Rotella you're talking about. Regular Rotella T is
conventional base stock. Rotella T Synthetic is Shell's XHVI (extreme
high viscosity index) base stock. Its a "Group III+" base stock, refined
from hydrocracker bottom slack wax and severely hydroprocessed, dewaxed,
and further refined. Its wonderful stuff, and performs almost
identically to Polyalphaolefin (Group IV) synthetics. In fact it carries
additives a little BETTER than Group IV base stocks. Often PAO
synthetics like Mobil 1 and others will add some conventional group
II/III stock to the mix to carry additives that the PAO won't.
>but it has a lot more ZDDP in it than a modern conventional
> oil does. This is a big deal for the cam arrangements in many older engines.
> --scott
It appears that scare may have been greatly overblown. Certainly once a
cam has been initially broken in, its need for high doses of ZDDP is
about nil. Especially with factory valve springs that don't have a seat
pressure of more than 300 lb or so. The latest diesel oils (Rotella-
both flavors, Delvac and Delvac 1, Valvoline Premium Blue, Delo 400,
etc.) are also reducing their zinc content, but at a slower rate than
gasoline oils. The latest Rotellas are now gasoline SM and diesel CJ
rated, which means that the zinc is coming way down.
Steve
>> So then you'd recommend a conventional 10W-40?
>
> And 20/50 for the summer.
> HTH,
> Ben
Why would you EVER run a 20w50 in anything that doesn't consume oil like
a mosquito fogger?
N8N
Because that is what the book recommends for the climate I live in?
(several old VWs and a Porsche 944)
nate
krp
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:K6KdndxOk6Gs_iTU...@texas.net...
>
>> It is not wise to switch types of oil. Synthetic is great if you never
>> used regular oil. If you have used regular oil, stick with it.
> Why won't this myth die after 30+ years of synthetic oils that are
> COMPLETELY compatible with all seal materials used since the 50s and all
> conventional oils????
Completely? That's going overboard. Generally compatible. The POINT is
that when you have been using regular oil there is NO benefit in switching
to synthatic. The fault isn't in the synthetic oil, which is VASTLY superior
to regular oil, but when you have 50,000 miles on an egine that has used
conventional oils you already have the internal parts varnished. Synthetic
do nothing for you. WHen you go from a buck something a quart to 6 bucks a
quart it's stupid.
> As for the original question- you might join the forums on
> bobistheoilguy.com and bring it up there. I think the general consensus is
> that the Mobil "0wXX" oils have a very good base oil stock and are
> typically higher viscosity index (thin less as they get hotter) than the
> "5wXX" and "10wXX" versions (whether XX be 30 or 40). So I'd say give 0w40
> a try if you want to. There is a subset on there who think Mobil is
> overpriced and will recommend Pennzoil Platinum or Castrol Edge... but any
> of the 3 are interchangeable in my book. I've had a longer history with
> Mobil 1 personally.
>
> If it were me, I'd also seriously consider Shell RotellaT Synthetic 5w40.
> Its a diesel (really "heavy duty" is more accurate- it also meets all the
> gasoline ratings) engine oil and works very well in torquey, slow-turning
> engines like big-block v8s. And interestingly, the Subaru guys who
> autocross their WRX turbos also love it. I know for a fact that it doesn't
> thin out at high temperature as much as Mobil 1 5w30 does, having tried
> both in one of my old Mopar 440s. I've been using RotellaT for about 2
> years now.
If you had followed this discussion several of us have suggested Shell
Rotella and Texaco Havoline.
Steve
OK, air-coolers are a different story. But 20w50 in anything
water-cooled in the US is just... odd. Maybe something that is so
worn-out it can't hold oil pressure with anything else...
Steve
>
> "Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> news:K6KdndxOk6Gs_iTU...@texas.net...
>>
>>> It is not wise to switch types of oil. Synthetic is great if you
>>> never used regular oil. If you have used regular oil, stick with it.
>
>> Why won't this myth die after 30+ years of synthetic oils that are
>> COMPLETELY compatible with all seal materials used since the 50s and
>> all conventional oils????
>
> Completely? That's going overboard.
No, just true.
> The POINT
> is that when you have been using regular oil there is NO benefit in
> switching to synthatic.
Yes, there is. Synthetic oils can let you extend your oil change
interval even further than you can with conventional oil.
> The fault isn't in the synthetic oil, which is
> VASTLY superior to regular oil, but when you have 50,000 miles on an
> egine that has used conventional oils you already have the internal
> parts varnished.
50,000 miles is a drop in the bucket, and if you have varnish or sludge
at 50k you must either a) have a Toyota, or b) have found a stash of
1940s non-detergent oil. Good conventional oils don't "varnish" anything.
> Synthetic do nothing for you. WHen you go from a buck
> something a quart to 6 bucks a quart it's stupid.
The difference between 1 buck for oil you'd damn well better change
every 5000 miles, and 6 bucks per quart for oil that you change every
9000 miles is NEGLIGIBLE in comparison to the other costs of operating
the vehicle. Especially for a rarely-driven car like this which needs
the better acid buffering and moisture tolerance of a top grade oil.
Steve
> If you had followed this discussion several of us have suggested
> Shell Rotella and Texaco Havoline.
>
I did read the thread. I saw multiple references to Rotella T
(conventional) 15w40, which is too heavy for anything but a worn-out
beater gasoline engine or an air-cooled gasoline engine. Which is why I
SPECIFICALLY mentioned the synthetic 5w40 version, which gets down much
closer to the 0w40 that the OP asked about. IMO, Rotella synthetic 5w40
will provide all the cold flow he's looking for, but the high VI of the
synthetic Rotella base oil will also protect an engine like a Cad 500
just fine in Death Valley heat if necessary.
N8N
I am talking about water cooled engines. It's in the book. normal
summer temperature ranges around here call for either xW40 or xW50
based on the chart in the owner's manual. xW30 is for winter only.
nate
krp
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
>>>> It is not wise to switch types of oil. Synthetic is great if you
>>>> never used regular oil. If you have used regular oil, stick with it.
>>
>>> Why won't this myth die after 30+ years of synthetic oils that are
>>> COMPLETELY compatible with all seal materials used since the 50s and all
>>> conventional oils????
>>
>> Completely? That's going overboard.
>
> No, just true.
> > The POINT
>> is that when you have been using regular oil there is NO benefit in
>> switching to synthatic.
> Yes, there is. Synthetic oils can let you extend your oil change interval
> even further than you can with conventional oil.
Not long enough to make up the price difference.
>> The fault isn't in the synthetic oil, which is VASTLY superior to regular
>> oil, but when you have 50,000 miles on an
>> egine that has used conventional oils you already have the internal parts
>> varnished.
> 50,000 miles is a drop in the bucket, and if you have varnish or sludge at
> 50k you must either a) have a Toyota, or b) have found a stash of 1940s
> non-detergent oil. Good conventional oils don't "varnish" anything.
The guy has a 70 Eldorado. Not sure how many times this car has seen 5K,
or this engine. I suspect more than once. I have a new Honda CR-V and use
Castrol Edge. Never used anything but synthetic oil since I got it. The
engine will never see anything else. All conventional oils DO leave some
varnish. Now Pennsylvania oils leave SLUDGE. I'd only use a Pennsylvania oil
in a Russian car that I HATED.
Like a LADA (Fiat) or a Muscovitch. Doesn't make any difference what you use
in those damn things.
krp
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
Not from ME. Rotella OIL straight weights were made for SEVERE engine use.
(Trucks etc) and are great on cars with high revving engines. I have my own
opinions of what weight to use. Depending on climate. In Wisconsin where I
grew up 10 weight in winter and 30 weight in summer. I don't really believe
in multi-weight oil. We could get into a hot debate on that. I used to work
for Texaco and had fun arguing with the refinery engineers and making them
agree with me that THERE IS REALLY NO SUCH THING. You see, all you do with
multi-weight oils is change the clock. The amount of time it takes to change
the viscosity from what it is at the ambient temperature to run hot. The oil
is still the same - ALL fluids change when heated and cooled. You can't
escape that, just fudge with how long it takes to get from point A to Point
B.
Steve
> The guy has a 70 Eldorado. Not sure how many times this car has seen
> 5K, or this engine. I suspect more than once. I have a new Honda CR-V
> and use Castrol Edge. Never used anything but synthetic oil since I got
> it. The engine will never see anything else. All conventional oils DO
> leave some varnish. Now Pennsylvania oils leave SLUDGE. I'd only use a
> Pennsylvania oil in a Russian car that I HATED.
> Like a LADA (Fiat) or a Muscovitch. Doesn't make any difference what you
> use in those damn things.
Suffice it to say, you're reguritating myths and legends that are 30
years old. Today's "dino" oils are highly refined. Even the most basic
Group II base stocks are so refined that it really doesn't matter where
the original crude came from, the waxes and other contaminants are long
since removed before it gets put in a bottle and sold as motor oil.
Group III+ oils are synthetics derived from petroleum that has gone
through multiple refining steps that basically dismantle the molecules
and put them back together in a very consistent way. Group IV synthetics
are synthesized from natural gas. The idea that there is something
different about "Pennsylvania" motor oil is just a myth, Pennzoil and
Quaker State may have been pretty crappy oils back in the 70s, but today
both of them (even the low-end lines, not just Q or Pennzoil Platinum)
consistently yield some of the best used oil analysis results reported.
krp
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> krp wrote:
>
>> The guy has a 70 Eldorado. Not sure how many times this car has seen
>> 5K, or this engine. I suspect more than once. I have a new Honda CR-V and
>> use Castrol Edge. Never used anything but synthetic oil since I got it.
>> The engine will never see anything else. All conventional oils DO leave
>> some varnish. Now Pennsylvania oils leave SLUDGE. I'd only use a
>> Pennsylvania oil in a Russian car that I HATED.
>> Like a LADA (Fiat) or a Muscovitch. Doesn't make any difference what you
>> use in those damn things.
>
> Suffice it to say, you're reguritating myths and legends that are 30 years
> old. Today's "dino" oils are highly refined. Even the most basic Group II
> base stocks are so refined that it really doesn't matter where the
> original crude came from, the waxes and other contaminants are long since
> removed before it gets put in a bottle and sold as motor oil. Group III+
> oils are synthetics derived from petroleum that has
Quaker State and Pennzoil are paraffin based. Other oil companies are
asphalt based. Pennsylvania oil is not the idea for today's engines. Which
is why both companies are now heavy into synthetics.
Have you see Castrol's latest data on testing oils? Edge versus everything
else?
Steve
>
> I don't really believe in multi-weight oil. We could get into a hot
> debate on that. I used to work for Texaco and had fun arguing with the
> refinery engineers and making them agree with me that THERE IS REALLY NO
> SUCH THING. You see, all you do with multi-weight oils is change the
> clock. The amount of time it takes to change the viscosity from what it
> is at the ambient temperature to run hot. The oil is still the same -
> ALL fluids change when heated and cooled. You can't escape that, just
> fudge with how long it takes to get from point A to Point B.
>
Its obvious that you don't really understand what a "multi weight" oil
means. "The time it takes to change viscosity" doesn't even come into
play at all. All measurements are made with the fluid fully cold or
fully hot.
Yes, all oils change thickness with temperature. But grossly
oversimplyfing- the AMOUNT (not the speed) that a fluids thickness
changes with temperature varies a huge amount from fluid to fluid. The
way that you qualify a fluid to be a "multi weight" oil is to have a
very high viscosity index- meaning that the viscosity change with
temperature is low. A low viscosity index means that thickness changes
greatly with temperature. So whereas a "straight 30 weight" oil may be
as thick as honey at 0 degrees F and as thin as water at 212 F, a 5w40
will be as thick as room-temperature maple syrup at 0F and as thin as
lukewarm syrup at 212F. IOW it doesn't change thickness NEARLY as much,
even after its fully heated or fully cooled and allowed to come to
equilibrium.
Example time: How much does the thickness of honey change when you take
it from 40 degrees F to 180 degrees F? A lot. Honey has a low viscosity
index over that temperature change. Now, how much does the thickness of
water change when you take it from 40 degrees F to 180 degrees F? Hardly
at all, in fact not enough to measure without sensitive instruments.
Water has a high VI over that temperature range. You want your engine
oil to behave more like water (although it needs to be thicker) than you
want it to behave like honey.
Making an oil have a high VI used to be done primarily with viscosity
modifiers- long-chain polymers that coil up tightly at low temperatures
letting the fluid flow easily, then uncoil and "tangle" at high
temperatures to thicken the fluid. VI modifiers are used far less these
days since base stock oils are now made with much higher inherent VI.
This is another good reason to use a synthetic in any engine- Rotella T
Synthetic for example is made using Shell's XHVI base fluid (a group
III+ hydroprocessed slack wax derivative) which has a viscosity index
much higher than most conventional oils, and in fact higher than many
Group IV PAO base oils. This means that it can flow easily when cold and
stay thick when hot WITHOUT adding the long coily polymers, which
themselves do not lubricate and in fact contribute to deposit formation
when they break down. This USED to be a good argument for sticking with
a single-grade oil. No more.
These characteristics (high VI base oil, combined with less need for VI
improving polymers) are a good reason to consider a synthetic or
semi-synthetic for any vehicle regardless of age- ESPECIALLY given the
OP's desire for an oil that both flows in cold and protects in heat.
Steve
> Quaker State and Pennzoil are paraffin based.
False.
> Which is why both companies are now heavy into synthetics.
Pennzoil "yellow bottle" is not synthetic, yet it consistently yields
superb oil analysis results. I used to be a Pennzoil hater too, but the
facts today say its among the best conventional oils out there. Welcome
to this century, quit living in the previous one.
> Have you see Castrol's latest data on testing oils? Edge versus
> everything else?
I could care less about any oil company's self-test results. What
impresses me more is that Castrol Edge does well on independent tests
too. Edge, Pennzoil Platinum, Mobil 1, Valvoline SynPower, etc. are all
very comparable.
krp
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
>> I don't really believe in multi-weight oil. We could get into a hot
>> debate on that. I used to work for Texaco and had fun arguing with the
>> refinery engineers and making them agree with me that THERE IS REALLY NO
>> SUCH THING. You see, all you do with multi-weight oils is change the
>> clock. The amount of time it takes to change the viscosity from what it
>> is at the ambient temperature to run hot. The oil is still the same - ALL
>> fluids change when heated and cooled. You can't escape that, just fudge
>> with how long it takes to get from point A to Point B.
> Its obvious that you don't really understand what a "multi weight" oil
> means. "The time it takes to change viscosity" doesn't even come into play
> at all. All measurements are made with the fluid fully cold or fully hot.
Sure I do. It deflies the LAW of fluids. Look - ther FACT is that at any
given temperature the fluid is constant as far as thickness and lubrication
potential is. It gets thicker when it is cold and thinner when it is hot.
ALL fluids behave that way. All that molecule chaining does is to change the
curve of the change. It modifies time. In other words it stays thicker
longer at higher temperatures.
> Yes, all oils change thickness with temperature. But grossly
> oversimplyfing- the AMOUNT (not the speed) that a fluids thickness changes
> with temperature varies a huge amount from fluid to fluid. The way that
> you qualify a fluid to be a "multi weight" oil is to have a very high
> viscosity index- meaning that the viscosity change with temperature is
> low. A low viscosity index means that thickness changes greatly with
> temperature. So whereas a "straight 30 weight" oil may be as thick as
> honey at 0 degrees F and as thin as water at 212 F, a 5w40 will be as
> thick as room-temperature maple syrup at 0F and as thin as lukewarm syrup
> at 212F. IOW it doesn't change thickness NEARLY as much, even after its
> fully heated or fully cooled and allowed to come to equilibrium.
ALL fluids get thicker when they are cold and thinner when they are HOT.
That includes motor oil. What you do when you screw with the chemistry is
you change the RATE of change over time.In simple terms a multi-weight oil
takes longer to get thin when the engine gets hot, but thin it gets. The
FACT is also that when you deal with a "straight weight" oil - say 30W -
technically it doesn't STAY 30 weight, it THINGS out. But it stays thicker
than a 20 weight. Thinner than a 50 weight. a 10 W. 30 oil supposedly acts
like a 10 weight when hot and a 30 weight when cold. In reality it doesn't
act all that much differently than a 20 weight.
krp
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> krp wrote:
>
>> Quaker State and Pennzoil are paraffin based.
Well those that aren't synthetics. That's what both companies packaging
says.
> False.
>> Which is why both companies are now heavy into synthetics.
> Pennzoil "yellow bottle" is not synthetic, yet it consistently yields
> superb oil analysis results. I used to be a Pennzoil hater too, but the
> facts today say its among the best conventional oils out there. Welcome to
> this century, quit living in the previous one.
Actually not. SHell Rotella and Taxaco Havoline are considerably better.
>> Have you see Castrol's latest data on testing oils? Edge versus
>> everything else?
> I could care less about any oil company's self-test results. What
> impresses me more is that Castrol Edge does well on independent tests too.
> Edge, Pennzoil Platinum, Mobil 1, Valvoline SynPower, etc. are all very
> comparable.
I was speaking to the independent tests.. It performs much better than
the other synthetics. Remember,"Edge" is not Castrol's only synthetic, nor
is Mobil One Mobil's only synthetic. Head to head, Edge is the best.
Scott Dorsey
>
> Sure I do. It deflies the LAW of fluids. Look - ther FACT is that at any
>given temperature the fluid is constant as far as thickness and lubrication
>potential is. It gets thicker when it is cold and thinner when it is hot.
>ALL fluids behave that way. All that molecule chaining does is to change the
>curve of the change. It modifies time. In other words it stays thicker
>longer at higher temperatures.
Not really, no.
Look at the viscosity curve. It doesn't have time on any scale. Yes, many
people measure viscosity as a rate of flow through a fixed size hole, but
that doesn't mean there's a T in the definition.
>ALL fluids get thicker when they are cold and thinner when they are HOT.
No, not all fluids do this. Some fluids aren't even Newtonian at all.
krp
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:gpeifl$dsh$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <wAzul.7$6%.6@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, krp <kr...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> Sure I do. It deflies the LAW of fluids. Look - ther FACT is that at
>> any
>>given temperature the fluid is constant as far as thickness and
>>lubrication
>>potential is. It gets thicker when it is cold and thinner when it is hot.
>>ALL fluids behave that way. All that molecule chaining does is to change
>>the
>>curve of the change. It modifies time. In other words it stays thicker
>>longer at higher temperatures.
> Not really, no.
I had this argument with a refinery engineer almost 30 years ago. We did
measurements together. ALL fluids behave the same way. They get thinner when
they are heated, and thicken when they get colder. It's a law of physics.
> Look at the viscosity curve. It doesn't have time on any scale. Yes,
> many
> people measure viscosity as a rate of flow through a fixed size hole, but
> that doesn't mean there's a T in the definition.
Actually it is a measure of the specific DENSITY ot the fluid, and how
it changes at various temperattures.
>>ALL fluids get thicker when they are cold and thinner when they are HOT.
> No, not all fluids do this. Some fluids aren't even Newtonian at all.
Name one that doesn't. ON THIS PLANET.
Scott Dorsey
>
>> Look at the viscosity curve. It doesn't have time on any scale. Yes,
>> many
>> people measure viscosity as a rate of flow through a fixed size hole, but
>> that doesn't mean there's a T in the definition.
>
> Actually it is a measure of the specific DENSITY ot the fluid, and how
>it changes at various temperattures.
No, density and viscosity are related but they are not the same thing.
>>>ALL fluids get thicker when they are cold and thinner when they are HOT.
>
>> No, not all fluids do this. Some fluids aren't even Newtonian at all.
>
> Name one that doesn't. ON THIS PLANET.
Atactic polypropylene. The molecule is a little ball, but when it gets
hotter, the ball unrolls and the molecule turns into a long straight
string. A solution of the stuff gets thicker when you heat it up, because
the resistance to flow of the unrolled molecule is greater than the
rolled up one.
Typical multigrade motor oils use this principle, although more popular
now are proprietary ester polymers that form corkscrews that unroll
instead of balls. VI technology is pretty nifty stuff.
krp
Not strictly a "fluid" in the technical sense.
Steve
>
> "Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:gpeifl$dsh$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>> In article <wAzul.7$6%.6@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, krp
>> <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sure I do. It deflies the LAW of fluids. Look - ther FACT is that
>>> at any
>>> given temperature the fluid is constant as far as thickness and
>>> lubrication
>>> potential is. It gets thicker when it is cold and thinner when it is
>>> hot.
>>> ALL fluids behave that way. All that molecule chaining does is to
>>> change the
>>> curve of the change. It modifies time. In other words it stays thicker
>>> longer at higher temperatures.
>
>> Not really, no.
>
> I had this argument with a refinery engineer almost 30 years ago.
You were wrong then, and you are wrong now if you think that the time
you hold the fluid at a given temperature matters. The thickness
measurements are taken *after* the fluid stabilizes at a given temperature.
> ALL fluids behave the same way. They get
> thinner when they are heated, and thicken when they get colder. It's a
> law of physics.
Both Scott and I have said this. You are still missing the point. If you
plot the curve of thickness vs temperature (no "time" axis comes into
play), the viscosity index is the SLOPE of that curve. Different oils
have different slopes (change thickness LESS as the temperature
changes), and the less steep the slope the higher the VI and the wider
the multi-viscosity rating can be.
krp
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
>>>> Sure I do. It deflies the LAW of fluids. Look - ther FACT is that at
>>>> any
>>>> given temperature the fluid is constant as far as thickness and
>>>> lubrication
>>>> potential is. It gets thicker when it is cold and thinner when it is
>>>> hot.
>>>> ALL fluids behave that way. All that molecule chaining does is to
>>>> change the
>>>> curve of the change. It modifies time. In other words it stays thicker
>>>> longer at higher temperatures.
>>
>>> Not really, no.
>>
>> I had this argument with a refinery engineer almost 30 years ago.
> You were wrong then, and you are wrong now if you think that the time you
> hold the fluid at a given temperature matters. The thickness measurements
> are taken *after* the fluid stabilizes at a given temperature.
NOTE: That FLUIDS (and NOT solids as you gave an example) behave
Let's start here since notation doesn't transfer to non-binary groups.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/NewtonsLawforFluids.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_cooling#Newton.27s_law_of_cooling
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/compression-expansion-gases-d_605.html
If a compression or expansion takes place under constant temperature
conditions - the process is said to be isothermal. The isothermal process
can with the Ideal Gas Law be expressed as
p / ρ = constant (1)
where
p = absolute pressure
ρ = density
http://www.answers.com/topic/thermal-expansion
physics) The dimensional changes exhibited by solids, liquids, and gases for
changes in temperature while pressure is held constant.
Most materials are subject to thermal expansion: a tendency to expand when
heated, and to contract when cooled. For this reason, bridges are built with
metal expansion joints, so that they can expand and contract without causing
faults in the overall structure of the bridge. Other machines and structures
likewise have built-in protection against the hazards of thermal expansion.
But thermal expansion can also be advantageous, making possible the workings
of thermometers and thermostats.
How It Works
Molecular Translational Energy
In scientific terms, heat is internal energy that flows from a system of
relatively high temperature to one at a relatively low temperature. The
internal energy itself, identified as thermal energy, is what people
commonly mean when they say "heat." A form of kinetic energy due to the
movement of molecules, thermal energy is sometimes called molecular
translational energy.
Temperature is defined as a measure of the average molecular translational
energy in a system, and the greater the temperature change for most
materials, as we shall see, the greater the amount of thermal expansion.
Thus, all these aspects of "heat"—heat itself (in the scientific sense), as
well as thermal energy, temperature, and thermal expansion—are ultimately
affected by the motion of molecules in relation to one another.
Molecular Motion and Newtonian Physics
In general, the kinetic energy created by molecular motion can be understood
within the framework of classical physics—that is, the paradigm associated
with Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) and his laws of motion. Newton was the
first to understand the physical force known as gravity, and he explained
the behavior of objects within the context of gravitational force. Among the
concepts essential to an understanding of Newtonian physics are the mass of
an object, its rate of motion (whether in terms of velocity or
acceleration), and the distance between objects. These, in turn, are all
components central to an understanding of how molecules in relative motion
generate thermal energy.
The greater the momentum of an object—that is, the product of its mass
multiplied by its rate of velocity—the greater the impact it has on another
object with which it collides. The greater, also, is its kinetic energy,
which is equal to one-half its mass multiplied by the square of its
velocity. The mass of a molecule, of course, is very small, yet if all the
molecules within an object are in relative motion—many of them colliding
and, thus, transferring kinetic energy—this is bound to lead to a relatively
large amount of thermal energy on the part of the larger object
>> ALL fluids behave the same way. They get thinner when they are heated,
>> and thicken when they get colder. It's a law of physics.
>
> Both Scott and I have said this. You are still missing the point. If you
> plot the curve of thickness vs temperature (no "time" axis comes into
> play), the viscosity index is the SLOPE of that curve. Different oils have
> different slopes (change thickness LESS as the temperature changes), and
> the less steep the slope the higher the VI and the wider the
> multi-viscosity rating can be.
Duhhh that's what I said. The molecular CHAINING in multi-weight oils do
NOT change fluid properties, they alter only the TIME frame in which the
changes occur. In other words - when the fluid (in this case motor oil)
absorbs heat from the engine, a 10 W. 30 weight oil will thin to equivalent
of a 10 weight oil in a longer span of time than a straight 30 weight would.
But when both fluids attain the destination temperature their viscosity will
be essentially the same as will their lubrication potential. The standard
test for lubrication potential of motor oils has been for many decades to
heat them to a specific temperature akin to the operating temperature of a
motor oil in an average internal combustion engine. Then to apply pressure
to bearings on a rotating shaft to determine at what point the oil loses its
lubrication potential. Texaco for some years was running a TV ad comparing
their Havoline 10 W 30 against other oil companies 10 w 30. My argument with
the refinery engineer was along the lines that I thought Havoline straight
30 weight would actually perform better than the multi-grade. He said that
they had never compared it to our own oils. He then performed the tests in
the Texaco labs. He bought me the steak dinner.
That was before 10 W 40 and 10 W 50 came around and later 20 W 50. Long
before synthetics which has a very improved lubrication potential. Recently
Castrol's Edge deposed Mobil 1 as the champ.
By a remarkable degree. I am sure that Mobil won't take that sitting down.
Steve
>
> "Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> news:POqdnelOSKMF7yPU...@texas.net...
>
>>>>> Sure I do. It deflies the LAW of fluids. Look - ther FACT is
>>>>> that at any
>>>>> given temperature the fluid is constant as far as thickness and
>>>>> lubrication
>>>>> potential is. It gets thicker when it is cold and thinner when it
>>>>> is hot.
>>>>> ALL fluids behave that way. All that molecule chaining does is to
>>>>> change the
>>>>> curve of the change. It modifies time. In other words it stays thicker
>>>>> longer at higher temperatures.
>>>
>>>> Not really, no.
>>>
>>> I had this argument with a refinery engineer almost 30 years ago.
>
>> You were wrong then, and you are wrong now if you think that the time
>> you hold the fluid at a given temperature matters. The thickness
>> measurements are taken *after* the fluid stabilizes at a given
>> temperature.
>
> NOTE: That FLUIDS (and NOT solids as you gave an example) behave
>
> Let's start here since notation doesn't transfer to non-binary groups.
>
I never mentioned any solid and neither did Scott- he mentioned a
non-Newtonian *liquid*.
What I have said is that the rate of change of thickness with
temperature is different for different base oils. For example, shell
XHVI Group III+ base oil (Rotella synthetic, Pennzoil Platinum) thins
out FAR less as you heat it up than a garden-variety group II or III
base oil (plain old Valvoline or Castrol non-synthetic, Pennzoil "yellow
bottle", etc.) even before you start putting in additives. If you still
deny this fact, then you're still wrong.
Its just like my water vs. honey example. Honey changes thickness a lot
as you warm it up, water hardly changes at all. The XHVI base oil is
more like water in that regard. So are the Group IV PAO base fluids that
other synthetics like Mobil 1, Redline, Royal Purple, etc. use. And
THAT is why multi-grade motor oils made from high VI base oils are
superior to single-grade oils.
Steve
<this point separated from the rest>
>> Both Scott and I have said this. You are still missing the point. If
>> you plot the curve of thickness vs temperature (no "time" axis comes
>> into play), the viscosity index is the SLOPE of that curve. Different
>> oils have different slopes (change thickness LESS as the temperature
>> changes), and the less steep the slope the higher the VI and the wider
>> the multi-viscosity rating can be.
>
>
> Duhhh that's what I said.
No that's NOT what you said. And look: you're about to say the same
wrong thing again:
> The molecular CHAINING in multi-weight oils
> do NOT change fluid properties, they alter only the TIME frame in which
> the changes occur. In other words - when the fluid (in this case motor
> oil) absorbs heat from the engine, a 10 W. 30 weight oil will thin to
> equivalent of a 10 weight oil in a longer span of time than a straight
> 30 weight would. But when both fluids attain the destination temperature
> their viscosity will be essentially the same as will their lubrication
> potential.
By definition a 10w30 and a 30 will be approximately the same thickness
AT OPERATING TEMPERATURE (the rating is made at 100C). What matters is
the fact that one thins out as you warm it up from a cold start (30 wt),
the other more nearly stays constant (10w30).
Besides that, many modern multi-weight oils DO NOT DEPEND on what you
call "molecular chaining" additives in order to achieve their thickness
stability- it is just inherent in the base oil that it does not thin as
much when you heat it as an older oil.
And with or without "chaining," you are missing the point that time is
irrelevant. If you take a 10w30 oil and a 30 weight oil and hold them at
40 degrees C for a whole year before you measure the thickness, the 30
weight oil will be far, far thicker than the 10w30. Conversely, if you
hold them both at 100 degrees C for a year and then measure the
thickness, they will be about the same thickness. "Time" is irrelevant!
The slope of the thickness/temperature plot is the issue.
Here, go read this thread:
jim
Steve wrote:
>
> krp wrote:
>
> <this point separated from the rest>
>
> >> Both Scott and I have said this. You are still missing the point. If
> >> you plot the curve of thickness vs temperature (no "time" axis comes
> >> into play), the viscosity index is the SLOPE of that curve. Different
> >> oils have different slopes (change thickness LESS as the temperature
> >> changes), and the less steep the slope the higher the VI and the wider
> >> the multi-viscosity rating can be.
> >
> >
> > Duhhh that's what I said.
>
> No that's NOT what you said. And look: you're about to say the same
> wrong thing again:
>
> > The molecular CHAINING in multi-weight oils
> > do NOT change fluid properties, they alter only the TIME frame in which
> > the changes occur. In other words - when the fluid (in this case motor
> > oil) absorbs heat from the engine, a 10 W. 30 weight oil will thin to
> > equivalent of a 10 weight oil in a longer span of time than a straight
> > 30 weight would. But when both fluids attain the destination temperature
> > their viscosity will be essentially the same as will their lubrication
> > potential.
>
> By definition a 10w30 and a 30 will be approximately the same thickness
> AT OPERATING TEMPERATURE (the rating is made at 100C).
No your wrong about that. The specification does not require them to be exactly
the same but that only the difference to be within a specified amount. At 110C
the difference in viscosity becomes significantly larger. 110C or higher would
not be an unusual temp for oil in the average car on warm summer day. I don't
know if that is what krp is trying to say or not. He is correct that 10w30 will
be thinner than straight 30 in the typical car on a typical summer day.
-jim
krp
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
Yeah you did. The compound you mentioned last week is more SOLID than fluid.
Steve
>> By definition a 10w30 and a 30 will be approximately the same thickness
>> AT OPERATING TEMPERATURE (the rating is made at 100C).
>
> No your wrong about that. The specification does not require them to be exactly
> the same but that only the difference to be within a specified amount.
Hence the word "approximately."
At 110C
> the difference in viscosity becomes significantly larger. 110C or higher would
> not be an unusual temp for oil in the average car on warm summer day. I don't
> know if that is what krp is trying to say or not. He is correct that 10w30 will
> be thinner than straight 30 in the typical car on a typical summer day.
>
> -jim
By the very factor you pointed out, the actual thickness depends on
where both the straight 30 and and the 10w30 fall within the allowable
range at the measurement temperature.
jim
I was disagreeing with your statement that they would be the same AT
OPERATING TEMPERATURE. They won't and even at the benchmark temperature
you can easily tell the difference.
-jim
krp
"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
news:ndOdnV21vcMQ9VzU...@bright.net...
The point I made was this. Using the identical benchmark testing that
Texaco and independent labs used to compare Havoline 10 w 30 to other major
brand 10 w 30 oils that showed a slight advantage to Havoline, when coaxed
to compare Havoline 10 W 30 to Havoline straight 30 - the straight 30 had a
significant advantage. What wasn't much discussed was some testing Shell did
with identical motors with very sensitive temperature sensors. Engines that
were run for thousands of hours. The multiweight oils did not fare well at
all. The "stress" testing is still the benchmark for testing oil. To this
point, the new Castrol Edge is by a significant margin the best performing
oil on today's market. But as I said, do not expect Exxon Mobil to take this
laying down. Like Arnold - they'll be back with an even better oil.
Better living through chemistry.
ha...@eyry.org
Steve <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>N8N wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 3:53 pm, Steve <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>>> Why would you EVER run a 20w50 in anything that doesn't consume oil like
>>> a mosquito fogger?
>> Because that is what the book recommends for the climate I live in?
>> (several old VWs and a Porsche 944)
>OK, air-coolers are a different story. But 20w50 in anything
>water-cooled in the US is just... odd. Maybe something that is so
>worn-out it can't hold oil pressure with anything else...
We had a 1983 Mercury Cougar. We loved the car, but it needed regular
repairs and died at 99,960. (Yes, as a matter of fact, I *did*
contemplate renting a Clydesdale to pull it the other 40 miles . . . but
we were packing for grad school, and I just got rid of it.)
Anyway, it called for 20w50 in its factory handbook. Then again, it
called for three different oils throughout the year in some climates. I
think I got away with only two here in Las Vegas.
hawk
Steve
That is _simply_ _not_ _true_.
In just about 30 seconds of web searching, I found the spec page for
Royal Purple oils (I'm not promoting RP oils, just found this example
and they are API certified oils unlike some other botique synthetics).
At 100C (the benchmark temperature), their 5w30 oil has a viscosity of
11 centistokes, but their straight SAE 30 is *thinner* at 10.6
centistokes! And their 10w30, while thinner than the 5w30, is still
slightly thicker than the straight 30 weight, at 10.8 centistokes.
Furthermore, the 5w30 has a VI of 157, but the SAE 30 only has a vI of
119, which tells me that you can go WAY above the benchmark temperature
and the 5w30 will remain thicker than the SAE 30.
Here's the link, knock yourself out:
http://royalpurple.com/motor-oil-pp.html
click "Product Sheet" for the PDF.
jim
Steve wrote:
>
> jim wrote:
> >
> > Steve wrote:
> >> jim wrote:
> >>
> >>>> By definition a 10w30 and a 30 will be approximately the same thickness
> >>>> AT OPERATING TEMPERATURE (the rating is made at 100C).
> >>> No your wrong about that. The specification does not require them to be exactly
> >>> the same but that only the difference to be within a specified amount.
> >> Hence the word "approximately."
> >>
> >> At 110C
> >>> the difference in viscosity becomes significantly larger. 110C or higher would
> >>> not be an unusual temp for oil in the average car on warm summer day. I don't
> >>> know if that is what krp is trying to say or not. He is correct that 10w30 will
> >>> be thinner than straight 30 in the typical car on a typical summer day.
> >>>
> >>> -jim
> >> By the very factor you pointed out, the actual thickness depends on
> >> where both the straight 30 and and the 10w30 fall within the allowable
> >> range at the measurement temperature.
> >
> >
> > I was disagreeing with your statement that they would be the same AT
> > OPERATING TEMPERATURE. They won't and even at the benchmark temperature
> > you can easily tell the difference.
> >
> > -jim
>
> That is _simply_ _not_ _true_.
Well no it simply is and was true. Your originally statement that at operating
temperature the viscosity of 10w30 is the same as 30 w is still false. Does that
mean you can't google and find some oil company advertisement. Well of course
you can find advertisements no body said you couldn't.
Your original statement is still false. Most of the 30 weight oil tends to
have higher viscosity than most of the 10w30 at operating temperature. This is
not speaking of some ideal car and oil. It is just how things generally work in
the real world where most of the cars on the road don't use synthetic oil and
many operate with oil temps higher than 100c on hot days.
**There is a allowable range for viscosity at the standardized temps.
**The economics physical realities of producing motor oils for sale puts most of
the 10w30 at the bottom of the allowable viscosity range and the 30w at the top.
**Most engine oil operates at a temperature above 100C on hot summer days
Those facts combined make it generally incorrect to state (as you did) that the
30w and 10w30 oil will have the same viscosity at operating temperature.
-jim
Steve
I never actually said that, I said that they would be "approximately"
the same, and that means that the 30 could be either thinner or thicker
than the 10w30 at operating temperature, depending on where operating
temperature falls in relation to the SAE benchmark temperature.
You, however, claimed that (quoting from text reprinted above), "He is
correct that 10w30 will be thinner than straight 30 in the typical car
on a typical summer day," and that is what is categorically false. If
you assume that the 30 and 10w30 are within a small percentage of the
same viscosity at the benchmark temperature, then the 30 will have to
be *thinner* than the 10w30 as you go above the benchmark temperature
because it has a lower viscosity index (in other words, a steeper slope
to its temp. vs. viscosity curve).
That much is just math.
Does that
> mean you can't google and find some oil company advertisement.
Specification sheet, not advertisment. And you can go look up similar
numbers for Pennzoil Platinum, Castrol Syntec, GTX, Edge, Mobil 1, Mobil
conventional, Kendall, Delo, Rotella, etc. etc. Brand doesn't matter.
> Well of course
> you can find advertisements no body said you couldn't.
>
> Your original statement is still false. Most of the 30 weight oil tends to
> have higher viscosity than most of the 10w30 at operating temperature.
See above, this is the part of your argument that is the most incorrect.
It is in fact, generally backwards. You seem to think that 30 weights
will stay thicker at higher temperatures, but the opposite is in fact
true. The simple combination of the fact that the 10w30 and 30 wt. have
to be pretty close in viscosity at the benchmark temperature, and the
fact that the 10w30 has a higher VI *generally* means that the 30 wt.
will be significantly THINNER than the 10w30, not thicker, at
temperatures above the benchmark point. It will be thicker when the
engine is COLDER than the benchmark temperature.
What makes things interesting is that today it is quite possible to
formulate a synthetic oil that meets the requirements for, say, a 10w30
rating and to do it *without* any viscosity index improvers at all.
Synthetic base stocks in both group III+ (eg, Shell XHVI base used in
Rotella and Pennzoil Platinum and similar stock used by Valvoline and
others) and group IV (such as PAOs used by Mobil, Royal Purple, Amsoil,
Shaeffers, etc.) have inherent VIs of 140 and higher now. That means
that the oil company could, if they wanted to, sell it as a 30 weight as
well. And if they do have to add some VIIs to create a multigrade oil
of, say, 5w40, then the amount needed is so extremely small that there's
very minimal benefit, if any, to the single grade oil. Its not like the
old days where making a 10w40 required such a large percentage of VIIs
that they, not the base oil, dominated the deposit formation and
degradation characteristics of the product.
jim
Steve wrote:
> I never actually said that, I said that they would be "approximately"
> the same, and that means that the 30 could be either thinner or thicker
> than the 10w30 at operating temperature, depending on where operating
> temperature falls in relation to the SAE benchmark temperature.
No not approximately the same -they will be noticeably different. It will be
noticeable in oil pressure and in the way that it will drain from the oil pan.
>
> You, however, claimed that (quoting from text reprinted above), "He is
> correct that 10w30 will be thinner than straight 30 in the typical car
> on a typical summer day," and that is what is categorically false.
You believe this because you rely only on glossy brochures for information?
Steve
>
> Steve wrote:
>
>> I never actually said that, I said that they would be "approximately"
>> the same, and that means that the 30 could be either thinner or thicker
>> than the 10w30 at operating temperature, depending on where operating
>> temperature falls in relation to the SAE benchmark temperature.
>
> No not approximately the same -they will be noticeably different. It will be
> noticeable in oil pressure and in the way that it will drain from the oil pan.
So you keep saying. Dig that hole deeper if you want, I'm done.
>
>> You, however, claimed that (quoting from text reprinted above), "He is
>> correct that 10w30 will be thinner than straight 30 in the typical car
>> on a typical summer day," and that is what is categorically false.
>
> You believe this because you rely only on glossy brochures for information?
No, I believe it both because the math predicts it and because
measurements prove it. If you don't believe me, go over to one of the
oil forums and pose the question. Make it simple, ask them if a 30wt
will be thinner or thicker than a 10w30 at temperatures significantly
above 100C.
I'm done beating the dead horse, Jim. You can have the last word now if
it'll make you feel better.
jim
Steve wrote:
>
> jim wrote:
> >
> > Steve wrote:
> >
> >> I never actually said that, I said that they would be "approximately"
> >> the same, and that means that the 30 could be either thinner or thicker
> >> than the 10w30 at operating temperature, depending on where operating
> >> temperature falls in relation to the SAE benchmark temperature.
> >
> > No not approximately the same -they will be noticeably different. It will be
> > noticeable in oil pressure and in the way that it will drain from the oil pan.
>
> So you keep saying. Dig that hole deeper if you want, I'm done.
>
> >
> >> You, however, claimed that (quoting from text reprinted above), "He is
> >> correct that 10w30 will be thinner than straight 30 in the typical car
> >> on a typical summer day," and that is what is categorically false.
> >
> > You believe this because you rely only on glossy brochures for information?
>
> No, I believe it both because the math predicts it
The math is based on a simplistic model that is little more than taking 2 points
and drawing a line thru them. The model is designed to do not much more than
prove a claim to the simple minded and it does that as long as one is willing to
completely ignore the real world.
>and because
> measurements prove it.
What measurements? You have provided only 2 measurements for one particular
brand and that comes with a caveat that you may see some variance from the
measurements in the actual product. You are talking about one particular brand
of synthetic that has a tiny tiny share of the market. That is pretty thin soup
you are calling proof.
-jim
?If you don't believe me, go over to one of the
Steve
jim wrote:
>The math is based on a simplistic model that is little more than
taking 2 points
>and drawing a line thru them.
Its not a line, its a curve.
But apart from that the "simplistic model" also happens to be EXACTLY
correct for a Newtonian fluid, which is precisely what defines a
straight-grade oil (no viscosity index improvers are permitted in
straight-grade rated oils). Therefore, the only deviation from the model
in the "real world" will be for the non-Newtonian fluid, which the
multi-grade may or may not be depending on whether it has VII additives
or not. Assuming it does, then it's viscosity will always be higher at
high temperatures and lower at low temperatures than the Newtonian fluid
up to the temperature at which the VIIs disintegrate, but by then both
oils are oxidizing as well! Assuming that it does not have VIIs, then
the "2 point" model is also correct for *it* at the high end (the low
end may still be non-Newtonian because of pour-point depressant
additives) and the two curves will never cross again above the
temperature at which the two fluids have equal viscosity (which in the
example is already BELOW the 100c benchmark).
Duh.
> What measurements? You have provided only 2 measurements for one particular
> brand and that comes with a caveat that you may see some variance from the
> measurements in the actual product. You are talking about one particular brand
> of synthetic that has a tiny tiny share of the market.
Chosen only because they make their data readily available and popped up
first on a Google search. It also happens to be representative of all
PAO-based synthetics in this regard, there's nothing special about it.
In fact in doing a little more research, that brand's multi-grade oils
are apparently considered in the thin side and prone to shearing for
their rating, so in that sense they are a bad case for my argument. Pick
any brand you want, or pick a different brand of straight from
multi-grade. Go ahead. Find a counter-example! Please! Its quite likely
that you can find at least one combination of oils that meet your
criteria, especially since so many of the synthetic single-grades could
easily qualify as multi-grades if dual rating were allowed. I didn't
find such an example, but then I didn't go looking very hard for the
oddball counter-example that may be out there.
> That is pretty thin soup
> you are calling proof.
>
At least I produced actual numbers instead of just waving my hands and
saying the same thing over and over Lloyd Parker style. Or talking about
how you "notice it when it drains out of the pan," which means that its
already well below the 100C benchmark for one thing, and I seriously
question your eyeballs as an accurate measure of viscosity for another.
If my soup is thin, yours isn't even soup yet.
I'm really done this time.
Rodan
...non-Newtonian model .... then it's [SIC] viscosity will ...
.. when it drains out, its [SIC] below the 100C benchmark..
...Duh...
____________________________________________________________________
A long esoteric pedantic treatise is awesome to behold but its
impact is marred by the misuse of language. Some common
writing errors are so glaring they overwhelm the undoubtedly
valuable information being presented. Please have someone
edit for proper English usage then re-post for full credit.
Rodan.