PUP beats Amsoil again

[Pape]

I didn't know they had an issue

The L87 recall to switch from 0w20 to 0w40. Rumor is about cam out of tolerance from the factory

Sponsored

 

[Pape]

That was just one example. I don't have to give an exhaustive list for my point to be valid

Well ya, but provide one for the wear section not juste the contaminate.
My point is UOA is a tool and while not ideal for wear measurement certainly provide some information about it, maybe not definitive, something is better than nothing.
Ya my entire point in all this: something while not perfect is better than nothing

 

[grimmjeeper]

Well ya, but provide one for the wear section not juste the contaminate.
My point is UOA is a tool and while not ideal for wear measurement certainly provide some information about it, maybe not definitive, something is better than nothing.
Ya my entire point in all this: something while not perfect is better than nothing

https://gprivate.com/6huc8

 

[ASSFROW]

Fully agree and that was not my point--it was that a UOA is not a tool for measuring wear.

Didn't watch the video and am not arguing that you are correct about engine wear. Would this not be a test of oil durability, therefor with enough tests you could tell which oil is offering better protection? A hundred years ago when I worked at a motorcycle shop, the service manager was also an Amsoil rep and had been for many years. Their tests were to determine whether the oil had degraded to the point of needing to be replaced, not to determine engine wear. I believe this is the point of oil testing, not whether the engine is wearing. Obviously one would hope that healthy oil is preventing wear.

 

[ASSFROW]

Except maybe the people who complain about them...

I wouldn't even know what Amsoil is without people making fun of their fanboys.

They are much like vegans, be happy you haven't met one.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Didn't watch the video and am not arguing that you are correct about engine wear. Would this not be a test of oil durability, therefor with enough tests you could tell which oil is offering better protection? A hundred years ago when I worked at a motorcycle shop, the service manager was also an Amsoil rep and had been for many years. Their tests were to determine whether the oil had degraded to the point of needing to be replaced, not to determine engine wear. I believe this is the point of oil testing, not whether the engine is wearing. Obviously one would hope that healthy oil is preventing wear.

This is still the case. UOA test = Oil Health Test

 

[Old Dogger]

Very interesting conversation, regarding engine oil. Since I am the old coot in this Forum, I go way back in time with vehicles, probably before most of you existed. Back in the 50's 60's 70's and 80's, I ran nothing but Quaker state 30W engine oil. Three Corvettes, a GTO 389, a CJ5 304 V8 and many more. I never had any engine failures caused by the engine oil. When we purchased our new Cadillac Escalade in 2003, I still stuck with quaker state but started using 10W30. Next was our TJ 4.0 also received the Quaker state 10W30. From this point on, with our JK's and JL's it has been PUP 5W30. Once again, no major engine failures caused by the engine oil being used. But in the early days, the engine oil was changed every 1000 miles, and from that point on every 3000 miles. So based on this, I really believe that it doesn't make any difference what engine oil Brand that is used, as long as it meets factory recommended specs. But I am not into this 0W20 FED CAFE nonsense. I really feel that viscosity, along with changing one's engine oil, is very important for engine longevity. You may dis-agree, but that is my take on it!

 

[ASSFROW]

This is still the case. UOA test = Oil Health Test

I think Pape is missing this and misunderstands what is being tested.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Interesting question, can you describe what is included in the word failure here ?

In this example, failure = worn out; i.e., there will not be a substantial difference in engine life between any oils that meets the required specifications.

The question is: why invest in equipment to measure or even include the wear number in the report if the information is irrelevant ?

It is part of the report, but it is not worthless. If you suddenly see a huge spike in wear metals, it can indicate that something is failing just as a spike in potassium and/or sodium indicates a coolant leak. But that is not the same as attempting to use those numbers to determine wear or engine life.

 

[CarbonSteel]

How do you classify GM changing oil viscosity as band aid to their engine issue ?
Oil property have a certain influence other than making sure it is in best life span.

I classify this as either a design issue or a manufacturing issue that GM is "fixing" by using a higher viscosity oil.

Off topic here, but there is irrefutable proof that higher viscosity oil provides more protection and produces less wear than a lower viscosity one.

 

[BDinTX]

Off topic here, but there is irrefutable proof that higher viscosity oil provides more protection and produces less wear than a lower viscosity one.

The tradeoff being increased heat and power loss?

 

[jeepingib]

The tradeoff being increased heat and power loss?

To a certain degree, yes. But which is more important? Would you rather have very slightly less heat, and very slightly less efficiency... Or would you rather prevent metal on metal contact from lack of lubrication barrier, which would lead to increased heat, less efficiency and possible bearing failure? I know my answer.

 

[CarbonSteel]

The tradeoff being increased heat and power loss?

Yes; however, it is not THAT much and in some cases it takes a lab to determine how much. I switched from a 10.8 cSt oil to a 12.2 cSt oil in 2.7TT and did not see a power loss or an increase in heat.

Granted, the increase in viscosity in that example was not excessive, but it was enough to combat the fuel dilution and keep the oil in grade during the run.

With that said, if you were switching from a 0W-8 to a 0W-40 in a small displacement engine, I would assume that you would feel more "drag".

 

[BDinTX]

To a certain degree, yes. But which is more important? Would you rather have very slightly less heat, and very slightly less efficiency... Or would you rather prevent metal on metal contact from lack of lubrication barrier, which would lead to increased heat, less efficiency and possible bearing failure? I know my answer.

My diesel is already running much hotter than I'd like. Texas summers give me 230 oil temps all day long and 239-241 on hills with a headwind... So I'm not going to push the limits of my cooling system and go to a 10w50. I just think it's fair to point out the tradeoff, there is no free lunch.

 

[jeepingib]

My diesel is already running much hotter than I'd like. Texas summers give me 230 oil temps all day long and 239-241 on hills with a headwind... So I'm not going to push the limits of my cooling system and go to a 10w50. I just think it's fair to point out the tradeoff, there is no free lunch.

It's not a drastic change in viscosity, so it likely wouldn't even be perceptible, but you are already running a much thicker oil than we have generally been discussing here, so I don't believe that you have issues with running beyond the hydrodynamic range and sheer of that oil in your engine. Can you do the RPM fan controller to increase fan speed sooner?

Sponsored