18 5.3 Oil Change interval

[Grumpy Bear]

 

Edited November 24, 2019 by Grumpy Bear

[Grumpy Bear]

1 minute ago, flyingfool said:

i've had an old 1990 suburban with 250,000 miles on it when it was sold and was still running great. had it for 27 years . never ran synthetics just uses 180 t-stat and penzoil 10w-30 in it and changed oil every 4000 miles.  yet the inside of the motor was covered in a brown crusty coating of  oil coked on the block ,it never hampered its functionality.  I think we're all getting a little Crazy on synthetics when no one really ownes thier cars more than 8 years. if it wasn't for high engine temps, Cylinder deactivation, and VVT devices, if it wasn't for these factors there would be no reason to use it in our cars , most cars are flipped off after 4-7 years 

Okay

 

Timely example of perception v physics. 

 

Even if the system was designed in such a way as to have enough safety factor built in OR it was utilized in such a way as to never challenge the systems limits; insulation is insulation and it most certainly hampered functionality. Just not in way you could observe or mattered AT THAT LENGTH OF SERVICE. What matters not at 250 K will at a million. But point taken. If the thing is a rusted out POJ at 250K it hardly matters. That is your point, correct?

[flyingfool]

26 years an old simple Suburban I have my doubts about even getting reliable OEM or aftermarket engine parts for our highly advanced Gen V motors in 25 years ,  full synth oil is at the bottom of the list..

[Grumpy Bear]

4 minutes ago, flyingfool said:

26 years an old simple Suburban I have my doubts about even getting reliable OEM or aftermarket engine parts for our highly advanced Gen V motors in 25 years ,  full synth oil is at the bottom of the list..

Fair point indeed! But you can still buy nearly every part for a Model T, right? I expect with the Flathead Ford came to market guys said the same thing about parts for A's and T's. Maybe. I wasn't actually there.  

[Grumpy Bear]

Aside from the fact few keep a vehicle long enough for any of this to matter my interest is in accurate knowledge. How can one answer the OP's question from ignorance or worse, misinformation? 

 

Conventional Group III's advantage over Group I and II is lower wax and sulfur and a higher natural VI. It's downsides are over time it shrinks and hardens some seal materials and has a low thermal and free radical oxidation point. 

 

HC/HT Group III's are a major improvement in thermal and free radical oxidation but still suffer seal issues as a stand alone over long periods.

 

PAO has a higher lubricity and higher thermal limit and in addition is seal 'neutral' to most common sealing materials but is non polar and not additive friendly.  

 

Esters are the most thermally stable with Polyols leading that group. They have the highest natural VI. They are highly polar have a 15% advantage in thermal capacity, (a major) and on their own, sans additives, have the highest natural film strength of all the usual lubricants. Their major downsides are reverse esterification in the presents of significant water and they swell and soften many common sealing materials. 

 

PAG's are not normally used for anything other than a polarity additive in motor oil due to cost. But a little PAG in a PAO is a major improvement in polarity with little impact on sealing requirements. 

 

It ought bee obvious that not a single base oil is the perfect lubricant but you can get pretty close with the right blend of bases and supporting additives. 

 

The actual length of an OCI depends on chemistry, not on cost. Esters are not niche oils but a requirement in most chemistries. Even nearly pure HC/HG Group III's at a low price point contain some esters as a seal conditioner. 3-5%. 

 

 

 

[Cowpie]

22 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

If I'm on the money then I would ask why one would even blend a Group III with a POA if the Group III qualities and performance (are) "is so minor that there is no appreciable difference in performance"?

To have the properties of both base oils in the mix.  There must be a reason for doing it as so many motor oils are mixes like this.  Virtually every brand has similar offerings that are mixes of Group III and Group IV

 

The article I provided a link to offers detail on those properties of each..  

[Cowpie]

20 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

Conventional Group III's advantage over Group I and II is lower wax and sulfur and a higher natural VI. It's downsides are over time it shrinks and hardens some seal materials and has a low thermal and free radical oxidation point. 

 

 

 

You must not be aware that elastomers to protect seals is an additive to any motor oil, right?

[Cowpie]

20 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

PAO has a higher lubricity and higher thermal limit and in addition is seal 'neutral' to most common sealing materials but is non polar and not additive friendly.  

 

Incorrect on the first assertion, correct on the second.  Group III offers higher lubricity than Group IV PAO.

 

Again, read the article.

Edited November 16, 2019 by Cowpie

[TXGREEK]

Wooohooo! 4K miles, time to change oil [emoji13]


Sent from Above

[TXGREEK]

Done!


Sent from Above

[Grumpy Bear]

First you say after I directly quote you: 

15 hours ago, Cowpie said:

"is so minor that there is no appreciable difference in performance"?

Then you say after being asked why then blend the two? :

15 hours ago, Cowpie said:

To have the properties of both base oils in the mix.  

So what you telling me is they blend two bases that in your estimation are for all practical purposed identical in 'performance" to gain an advantage in performance. You know how irrational that is, right? 

 

What I said is they are blending BECAUSE of their differences in properties. Mister, your tying to ride both horses at the same time. 

 

15 hours ago, Cowpie said:

Incorrect on the first assertion, correct on the second.  Group III offers higher lubricity than Group IV PAO.

 

Again, read the article.

Which says and I quote: "A modern Group III oil CAN actually outperform a PAO in several areas important to lubricants, such as additive solubility, lubricity and antiwear performance". end quote.

 

Here's the problem. That little word CAN. In this article can is used to indicate a possibility (Webster) not a certainty and that ability they speak to is the result of the additive packages, not the base oil. That is a Group III CAN outperform a PAO WITH THE RIGHT ADDTIVE PACKAGES FOR LUBRICITY AND WEAR but as far as additive solute is concerned that is solely a function of the base oils polarity and PAO isn't polar, period. One could also say a Group III 10 cSt base CAN outperform a PAO 2 cSt base for anti-wear and tell that story. Single chain PAO's are more PLANAR than the multiple carbon length chains of the Group III. Your tying to convince us that a bag full of jax (highly branched molecules) will flow easier than a bag of marbles (straight chained molecules). I give a crap what they wrote. The chemistry says other. 

 

It's ability to actually do so is dependent on quite a list of choices made by the blender. I am not incorrect. What can be done and what is done are worlds apart. You should try actually getting some experience as a blender instead of just reading about it. 

 

I had a fella with TWO PhDs try to convince me once that you can make a stable water borne alkyd. He even convinced other scholarly types in control of the R & D department to pursue the project and after 20 million and several years in research they don't have one. You can make an emulsion but you can't make a solution from oil and water.  Never will have one. Reason? The chemistry can't be cheated. It's a polarity problem between unlike chemistries. You should have seen the publish papers from people trying to keep their jobs. 

 

16 hours ago, Cowpie said:

 

You must not be aware that elastomers to protect seals is an additive to any motor oil, right?

Not aware? I'm not just aware Cliff, refining and synthesis was my work. That aside lets examine your above quoted statement.

 

What I said was the BASE OILS exhibit the stated properties to a notable degree APART FROM THE ADDTIVES. You are not being consistent, improperly quoting and cherry picking your narratives. 

 

By the way; the meaning of the word Elastomer is:, (quote) a natural or synthetic polymer having elastic properties, e.g. rubber. 

[TXGREEK]

On another note, I found this automotive website with outstanding prices on oil, filters and all sort of name brand automotive parts for cheaper cost

https://www.rockauto.com/


Sent from Above

[TXGREEK]

First you say after I directly quote you: 
Not aware? I'm not just aware Cliff, refining and synthesis was my work. That aside lets examine your above quoted statement.
 
What I said was the BASE OILS exhibit the stated properties to a notable degree APART FROM THE ADDTIVES. You are not being consistent, improperly quoting and cherry picking your narratives. 
 
By the way; the meaning of the word Elastomer is:, (quote) a natural or synthetic polymer having elastic properties, e.g. rubber. 

Very well said, this is why I don’t answer everyone for their inconsistencies. It’s the internet, I’ve learned to not waste my time any longer, just move on.


Sent from Above

[Grumpy Bear]

Here's the thing Cliff is absolutely correct about: Requirements. I've never challenged him or anyone else on about this because it is a fruitless effort with a difference not worth the distinction. In fact I've said it myself many times and witnessed it repeatedly; you could use a 1950's Group I oil and if you change it often enough, keep it cool enough and treat with respect you can make a motor last for decades and a million miles or more. I worked at a Hudson Oil station in high school. Hudson use to recycle bulk oil and sell it for 15 cents a quart. I had a guy there with Jaguars used this oil from day one and get incredible distances out of his motors. He also changed the oil every other weekend.  

 

Cliff gets great results from his program and I mean him no disrespect. I also will not tolerate being subject to it either.

You can't learn off the Internet what you've done for more that four decades. 

 

 

Forrest Gump; "And that's all I have to say about that". 

 

 

[Cowpie]

Well, PAO has lower lubricity than a Group III.  A PAO has to have either a group III or a ester in the mix to provide adequate lubricity.  

 

https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/31106/polyalphaolefin-pao-lubricants

 

And modern Group III base oils can match or even exceed Group IV PAO base oils in several categories.  

 

https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/533/base-oil-trends

 

I like a Group III (75%) and Group IV PAO (25%) blend.  The Group III provides most of what I need while PAO offers a better thermal stability.  Very cost effective.

 

Edited November 24, 2019 by Cowpie