Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / March 2009
0W-40 in 1970 Cadillac Eldorado
|
|
Thread rating:  |
The Derfer - 16 Feb 2009 14:34 GMT 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.
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 - 16 Feb 2009 15:17 GMT > I've got a great old 1970 Cadillac Eldorado. > The 500 CI motor at its highest-rated-ever 400 HP. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > regular > Mobil-1 0W-40. Any advice on this? Good idea? Bad idea? 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 - 16 Feb 2009 15:24 GMT An enviable car, as long as gas doesn't go back up to $4!
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 - 16 Feb 2009 16:04 GMT > I've got a great old 1970 Cadillac Eldorado. > The 500 CI motor at its highest-rated-ever 400 HP. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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 - 17 Feb 2009 15:48 GMT 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.
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
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
> > I've got a great old 1970 Cadillac Eldorado. > > The 500 CI motor at its highest-rated-ever 400 HP. [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > recommend any oil higher than Mobil 1. Castrol Edge is pretty spectacular as > well. KRP - 17 Feb 2009 18:30 GMT 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.
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.
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 "sh.t." 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. - 17 Feb 2009 22:58 GMT >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 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >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.
ray - 18 Feb 2009 02:02 GMT > I've used 15W-50 Mobil-1 synthetic and other grades of conventional > oil [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 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
KRP - 18 Feb 2009 10:57 GMT >> I've used 15W-50 Mobil-1 synthetic and other grades of conventional >> oil [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 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 - 18 Feb 2009 14:24 GMT > >> I've used 15W-50 Mobil-1 synthetic and other grades of conventional > >> oil [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > 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.)
nate
KRP - 18 Feb 2009 16:24 GMT > >> I've used 15W-50 Mobil-1 synthetic and other grades of conventional > >> oil [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > 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 - 18 Feb 2009 17:52 GMT > 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 - 18 Feb 2009 18:05 GMT >> There are several GOOD standard motor oils. The >> problem with the Eldo 500CID is that in the 70's it was burdened with lots [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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.
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.
Roger Blake - 18 Feb 2009 19:49 GMT > intake with no/insignificant performance loss). Maybe EGR, but I think > EGR was later than '70. EGR was introduced 49-state in 1973. (Not sure about CA.)
Catalytic converters were first introduced by GM in 1975, but catalyst-free new cars were still being sold as late as 1980. (Those used gadgets such as air injection into the exhaust to burn up hydrocarbons.)
 Signature Roger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) "Obama dozed while people froze."
KRP - 18 Feb 2009 21:47 GMT >>> There are several GOOD standard motor oils. The >>> problem with the Eldo 500CID is that in the 70's it was burdened with [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 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 - 19 Feb 2009 00:41 GMT Why is Mobil-1 0W-40 referred to as a "Eurpoean Car formula"?
KRP - 19 Feb 2009 11:22 GMT > Why is Mobil-1 0W-40 referred to as a "Eurpoean Car formula"? To sell OIL?
KRP - 18 Feb 2009 21:46 GMT >> 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. (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.
Anonymous - 19 Feb 2009 06:16 GMT >>> There are several GOOD standard motor oils. The >>> problem with the Eldo 500CID is that in the 70's it was burdened with [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >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 c.nt got third degree burns on her tits and couldn't dance topless for 3 weeks. BWAHAHAHAHA
Anonymous - 19 Feb 2009 06:16 GMT >>> There are several GOOD standard motor oils. The >>> problem with the Eldo 500CID is that in the 70's it was burdened with [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >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 c.nt got third degree burns on her tits and couldn't dance topless for 3 weeks. BWAHAHAHAHA
KRP - 19 Feb 2009 11:26 GMT DAVID MOORE STALKER and BLACKMAILER
>>>> There are several GOOD standard motor oils. The >>>> problem with the Eldo 500CID is that in the 70's it was burdened with [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>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 c.nt 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.
Dan Sullivan - 19 Feb 2009 13:13 GMT zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Anonymous Remailer (austria) - 19 Feb 2009 06:35 GMT >> There are several GOOD standard motor oils. The >> problem with the Eldo 500CID is that in the 70's it was burdened with lots [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >once every few tankfulls. (Should I add it more >often?) do you really want to take mechanical advice from a guy who purchased his education online?
Anonymous Remailer (austria) - 19 Feb 2009 06:47 GMT >> There are several GOOD standard motor oils. The >> problem with the Eldo 500CID is that in the 70's it was burdened with lots [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >once every few tankfulls. (Should I add it more >often?) do you really want to take mechanical advice from a guy who purchased his education online?
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system Per maggiori informazioni |For more info https://www.mixmaster.it
ben91932 - 19 Feb 2009 23:35 GMT > >> 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...
> >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 - 20 Feb 2009 00:24 GMT > >> 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.
The Derfer - 26 Feb 2009 15:27 GMT So my decision at the moment is to change to a regular, 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 - 26 Feb 2009 17:48 GMT > So my decision at the moment is to change to a regular, > nothing-special-about-it, 10W-40 motor oil in the Spring. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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? 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 - 26 Feb 2009 18:30 GMT > So my decision at the moment is to change to a regular, > nothing-special-about-it, 10W-40 motor oil in the Spring. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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? 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 - 27 Feb 2009 16:48 GMT How old is "old" oil? I have an unused/unopened quart bottle of 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 - 27 Feb 2009 17:01 GMT > How old is "old" oil? I have an unused/unopened quart bottle of > 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. 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 - 01 Mar 2009 23:43 GMT > 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.
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 - 02 Mar 2009 00:24 GMT Motorcraft makes a nice 5W-50 full synthetic. Anyone have any thoughts on that for the '70 Eldorado with the 500 CI motor?
jim - 02 Mar 2009 02:50 GMT > Motorcraft makes a nice 5W-50 full synthetic. > Anyone have any thoughts on that for the '70 Eldorado > with the 500 CI motor? Winter is going to be over before you reach a decision.
krp - 02 Mar 2009 03:42 GMT > 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 - 07 Mar 2009 17:30 GMT AutoZone has a brand called 'ValueCraft'. What manufacturing 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?
> > Motorcraft makes a nice 5W-50 full synthetic. > > Anyone have any thoughts on that for the '70 Eldorado [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. krp - 07 Mar 2009 19:04 GMT 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 - 08 Mar 2009 00:29 GMT Do you have an opinion on Mobil Clean 5000 and 7500?
> 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. krp - 08 Mar 2009 00:45 GMT > 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 - 08 Mar 2009 01:04 GMT 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.
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.
> > 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. krp - 08 Mar 2009 08:46 GMT 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. - 08 Mar 2009 19:08 GMT >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 - 10 Mar 2009 23:15 GMT > >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 - 11 Mar 2009 00:07 GMT >> >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 a.s, 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 - 11 Mar 2009 01:29 GMT >> >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. I don't think it would be a good idea to pour Techron into the crankcase. --scott
 Signature "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
krp - 02 Mar 2009 03:40 GMT >> One quart isn't going to do for your engine. Use it in a lubricating can >> for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 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 - 20 Feb 2009 00:22 GMT INTERNET STALKER DAVID MOORE
>>> There are several GOOD standard motor oils. The >>> problem with the Eldo 500CID is that in the 70's it was burdened with [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > do you really want to take mechanical advice from a guy who purchased his > education online? According to YOU Moore? LITTLE ANONYMOUS DAVEY MOORE?
KRP - 20 Feb 2009 00:22 GMT INTERNET STALKER DAVID MOORE
>>> There are several GOOD standard motor oils. The >>> problem with the Eldo 500CID is that in the 70's it was burdened with [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > do you really want to take mechanical advice from a guy who purchased his > education online? According to YOU Moore? LITTLE ANONYMOUS DAVEY MOORE?
Dan Sullivan - 20 Feb 2009 00:31 GMT zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Non scrivetemi - 19 Feb 2009 07:43 GMT >> There are several GOOD standard motor oils. The >> problem with the Eldo 500CID is that in the 70's it was burdened with lots [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >once every few tankfulls. (Should I add it more >often?) do you really want to take mechanical advice from a guy who purchased his education online?
Nomen Nescio - 19 Feb 2009 10:00 GMT >> There are several GOOD standard motor oils. The >> problem with the Eldo 500CID is that in the 70's it was burdened with lots [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >once every few tankfulls. (Should I add it more >often?) do you really want to take mechanical advice from a guy who purchased his education online?
Anonymous Remailer (austria) - 19 Feb 2009 10:00 GMT >> There are several GOOD standard motor oils. The >> problem with the Eldo 500CID is that in the 70's it was burdened with lots [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >once every few tankfulls. (Should I add it more >often?) do you really want to take mechanical advice from a guy who purchased his education online?
Steve - 12 Mar 2009 20:32 GMT > 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.
krp - 13 Mar 2009 02:18 GMT >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 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 - 13 Mar 2009 15:16 GMT >>> 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. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 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.
krp - 13 Mar 2009 17:22 GMT >>>> 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. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> 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.
Steve - 13 Mar 2009 18:36 GMT > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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 - 13 Mar 2009 18:41 GMT >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 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 - 13 Mar 2009 19:03 GMT > 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 - 13 Mar 2009 21:47 GMT >> 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.
Steve - 13 Mar 2009 15:41 GMT > 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.
krp - 13 Mar 2009 17:28 GMT >> If you had followed this discussion several of us have suggested Shell >> Rotella and Texaco Havoline. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > synthetic Rotella base oil will also protect an engine like a Cad 500 just > fine in Death Valley heat if necessary. 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 - 13 Mar 2009 18:56 GMT > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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.
krp - 13 Mar 2009 21:44 GMT >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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.
Scott Dorsey - 13 Mar 2009 22:16 GMT > 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. --scott
 Signature "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
krp - 14 Mar 2009 02:18 GMT >> Sure I do. It deflies the LAW of fluids. Look - ther FACT is that at >> any [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>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 - 15 Mar 2009 00:26 GMT >> Look at the viscosity curve. It doesn't have time on any scale. Yes, >> many [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. --scott
 Signature "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
krp - 15 Mar 2009 01:26 GMT >>> Look at the viscosity curve. It doesn't have time on any scale. Yes, >>> many [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > now are proprietary ester polymers that form corkscrews that unroll > instead of balls. VI technology is pretty nifty stuff. Not strictly a "fluid" in the technical sense.
Steve - 16 Mar 2009 16:39 GMT >>> Sure I do. It deflies the LAW of fluids. Look - ther FACT is that >>> at any [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > 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 - 16 Mar 2009 18:27 GMT >>>> Sure I do. It deflies the LAW of fluids. Look - ther FACT is that at >>>> any [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> 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. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 - 16 Mar 2009 18:43 GMT >>>>> Sure I do. It deflies the LAW of fluids. Look - ther FACT is >>>>> that at any [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Let's start here since notation doesn't transfer to non-binary groups. <irrelevant discussion snipped>
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.
krp - 16 Mar 2009 22:20 GMT >>>>>> Sure I do. It deflies the LAW of fluids. Look - ther FACT is that >>>>>> at any [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > I never mentioned any solid and neither did Scott- he mentioned a > non-Newtonian *liquid*. Yeah you did. The compound you mentioned last week is more SOLID than fluid.
Steve - 16 Mar 2009 19:00 GMT <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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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:
http://tinyurl.com/cctvd9
jim - 16 Mar 2009 19:28 GMT > <this point separated from the rest> > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 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
> What matters is > the fact that one thins out as you warm it up from a cold start (30 wt), [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > http://tinyurl.com/cctvd9 Steve - 18 Mar 2009 17:55 GMT >> 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 - 18 Mar 2009 22:32 GMT > >> By definition a 10w30 and a 30 will be approximately the same thickness > >> AT OPERATING TEMPERATURE (the rating is made at 100C). [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 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
krp - 19 Mar 2009 09:38 GMT >> >> By definition a 10w30 and a 30 will be approximately the same >> >> thickness [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > OPERATING TEMPERATURE. They won't and even at the benchmark temperature > you can easily tell the difference. 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.
Steve - 23 Mar 2009 15:13 GMT >>>> By definition a 10w30 and a 30 will be approximately the same thickness >>>> AT OPERATING TEMPERATURE (the rating is made at 100C). [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > -jim 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 - 28 Mar 2009 15:21 GMT > >>>> By definition a 10w30 and a 30 will be approximately the same thickness > >>>> AT OPERATING TEMPERATURE (the rating is made at 100C). [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > 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
> 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 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > click "Product Sheet" for the PDF. Steve - 30 Mar 2009 15:59 GMT >>>>>> By definition a 10w30 and a 30 will be approximately the same thickness >>>>>> AT OPERATING TEMPERATURE (the rating is made at 100C). [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > 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. 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 - 30 Mar 2009 18:38 GMT > 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 - 30 Mar 2009 22:52 GMT >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 - 31 Mar 2009 13:10 GMT > >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 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
> 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. Steve - 31 Mar 2009 15:27 GMT OK, I swore I wouldn't respond again, but this is just too much.
>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 - 31 Mar 2009 17:11 GMT "Steve"wrote:
...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.
jim - 31 Mar 2009 19:16 GMT > OK, I swore I wouldn't respond again, but this is just too much. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Its not a line, its a curve. Right it is a curve not a line. And you haven't a clue as to what the formula for the curve is in reality. But that doesn't stop you from pretending you are making a mathematical calculation. All you have really done is read some glossy brochures and are parroting the buzzwords that you read therein.
> But apart from that the "simplistic model" also happens to be EXACTLY > correct for a Newtonian fluid, which is precisely what defines a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > end may still be non-Newtonian because of pour-point depressant > additives) and the two curves will never cross again above the What an idiot. If you actually did have even a smattering of understanding of the math you would recognize that I am saying the 2 curves never cross - that is in most comparisons the 30 weight is always going to be thicker than the 10w30 at any temp that you might find in an engine crankcase. I don't know (and neither do you) what the formula is for either curve but it is obvious that they do not intersect. Since you don't actually have a precise formula for the curve for either type of oil it is just babbling nonsense when you claim you can prove your point using mathematics.
> temperature at which the two fluids have equal viscosity (which in the > example is already BELOW the 100c benchmark). Maybe for some particular well chosen examples it will cross at a point below 100C. But in general if you compare what is most commonly available on the market and what is commonly used in engines that won't be the case.
It is not as if all oil comes in perfect discrete steps of 10 20 30 40 weights. These are categories describing a range. And even in your fancy brochure that you offer as proof, there is a disclaimer to that effect.
> Duh. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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. Nothing special except it is not what is in most engines on the road. And in part that is why it costs more than what most people use.
> 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! You mean I should go find my own glossy brochures?
> Its quite likely > that you can find at least one combination of oils that meet your [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > At least I produced actual numbers instead of just waving my hands and > saying the same thing over and over Lloyd Parker style. Who is loyd parker? Another wannabee mathematician?
I'm not the one that made the bogus claim with nothing believable to back it up. I'm perfectly happy with the information I get from observing a pressure gauge or watching as it pours thru an opening. You on the other hand keep insisting that the crap you read in glossy brochures is mathematical proof. Did it ever occur to you that no company ever puts anything but the information that casts them in a good light in their advertising literature? So if a company does make a product that is a cut above average they are going to try to promote that as selling point and put it in their advertising.
> Or talking about > how you "notice it when it drains out of the pan," which means that its [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I'm really done this time. HA HA HA
-jim
John S. - 18 Feb 2009 01:45 GMT > I've got a great old 1970 Cadillac Eldorado. > The 500 CI motor at its highest-rated-ever 400 HP. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > regular > Mobil-1 0W-40. Any advice on this? Good idea? Bad idea? 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 - 18 Feb 2009 02:01 GMT > > I've got a great old 1970 Cadillac Eldorado. > > The 500 CI motor at its highest-rated-ever 400 HP. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > could cause it to start leaking. For those cold northeast mornings > just install a block heater and solve any cold start worries. Second the block heater suggestion....better yet, one in each bank.
The Derfer - 18 Feb 2009 02:24 GMT 62,000 original miles.
> 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. KRP - 18 Feb 2009 10:56 GMT On Feb 16, 9:34 am, The Derfer <derf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've got a great old 1970 Cadillac Eldorado. > The 500 CI motor at its highest-rated-ever 400 HP. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > regular > Mobil-1 0W-40. Any advice on this? Good idea? Bad idea? 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. =========
Good advice.
ben91932 - 19 Feb 2009 01:18 GMT > 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 - 19 Feb 2009 04:38 GMT > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > HTH > Ben So then you'd recommend a conventional 10W-40?
KRP - 19 Feb 2009 11:31 GMT On Feb 18, 8:18 pm, 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 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > HTH > Ben 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.
Scott Dorsey - 19 Feb 2009 16:18 GMT >> > 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 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >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, 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
 Signature "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Steve - 12 Mar 2009 20:51 GMT >> 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.
ben91932 - 19 Feb 2009 17:19 GMT > So then you'd recommend a conventional 10W-40? Yes I would. And 20/50 for the summer. HTH, Ben
Steve - 12 Mar 2009 20:53 GMT >> So then you'd recommend a conventional 10W-40? > > Yes I would. > 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 - 12 Mar 2009 21:07 GMT > >> So then you'd recommend a conventional 10W-40? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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)
nate
Steve - 13 Mar 2009 15:11 GMT >>>> So then you'd recommend a conventional 10W-40? >>> Yes I would. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > nate 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...
N8N - 13 Mar 2009 17:13 GMT > >>>> So then you'd recommend a conventional 10W-40? > >>> Yes I would. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > water-cooled in the US is just... odd. Maybe something that is so > worn-out it can't hold oil pressure with anything else... 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
hawk@eyry.org - 23 Mar 2009 00:11 GMT >>> 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
|
|
|