Ultimate Motor Oil Thread or Why we hate CJ4/SM oils

[cnavarro]

It's hard to say about accuracy of the sampling and testing. I've repeated sampling with Staveley and hold their results highest in my opinion, and knowing this, I had Staveley do that last test with the M1 15w50.

[PSJoyce]

I’ve got three gallon jugs of the old, SL, not SM Mobil 1 EP, that were also on close out. From the numbers, it looks OK to use the SL M1 EP, but with the caution about M1 EP, I’m not sure if I should use it or not. I’ve got Brad Penn in the car now, and, totally unscientifically, the car seems to be doing well on it.

Paul

[BLEW911]

Opinions please.

I'm aware of the warnings about switching to synthetic oil after years of using dino. Does that caution also apply when switching to the Brad Penn partial synthetic. I'd like to use this oil in my SC that has 180K. It does'nt leak much now and I don't want it to start. What say you?

Don

[Steve@Rennsport]

I say you go ahead and put that stuff in your SC and never look back.

The only exceptions might be in an engine using some "dirty" oils for a long time. Those include Pennzoil, Quaker State, Castrol, etc.

[BLEW911]

Well.........Castrol 20-50 changed every 4000 mi.?

Don

[Noah930]

Here was my thought process, Don, as I recently went from dino oil to synthetic, as the only stuff on the shelves locally was Rotella T Syn: The synthetic stuff may actually protect the motor better, particularly as I've got a turbo. At reasonable worst, it might start leaking. If so, then just switch back to the mineral based oil, and the leaks should stop. Experienced guys tell me if I'm way off base on that.

[M.D. Holloway]

If you need an oil with higher levels of ZDDP (Non CJ4), let me know via PM.

[Gene Wilkes]

More I read this thread the better I feel about buying the Brad Penn 20-50 racing oil!

[JGalt]

== American Petroleum Institute (API) Basestock Categories ==
================================================== ============================
In a previous article I discussed the issue of "hydrocracked" or Group III
base oils vs. synthetic. I'd like to go a little more in depth with this
issue and discuss the actual refining methods used on petroleum basestocks
and how these methods affect the quality and classification of the basestocks.
First, understand that since 1993 basestocks have been classified by the API
(American Petroleum Institute) as one of 5 groups. The separation of Groups
1-3 (I - III) is based upon contamination and viscosity index (VI) of the
base. Groups IV (4) and V (5) are non-petroleum basestocks which are
classified by their type and not by their relative level of quality and/or
contaminant level.
You can download a PDF a copy of the categorization table below. Use it for
further reference as you go through this article:
http://TheMotorOilSite.com/downloads/06-17...zine-addons.pdf
GROUP I BASESTOCKS
Notice on the chart that Group I basestocks have a sulfur weight of greater
than .03% or 300 ppm. there is no upper cap so a Group I base could have
significantly higher levels of sulfur content (possibly up to 10 times higher,
or 3000 ppm, according to a Machinery Lubrication article - June 2003).
Also, from the chart you'll see that "Saturates" are less than 90%. This is
the useful portion of the base. The other 10%+ is made up of aromatic
compounds which are considered contaminants that are not beneficial to the
lubricating qualities of the base oil. The saturates level of some Group I
bases could be considerably lower than 90% which would leave the aromatic
content even higher (sometimes as high as 20% or more), lowering the
lubricating quality of the oil even further.
Group I base oils are solvent refined/dewaxed which is why their contaminant
levels are so high. The solvent refining/dewaxing processes are not nearly as
effective as hydro-treating/cracking/dewaxing processes.
Of course, the chart also shows that the VI of Group I base oils is pretty
low, ordinarily under 100, which allows for considerable change in viscosity
with temperature changes. Since you want the viscosity of your oil to remain
as consistent as possible over all temperatures you might encounter with your
vehicles and/or equipment, this is not a good thing.
Not to worry, though. It's highly unlikely that you would end up with a Group
I based motor oil in your engine as long as you make sure the oil meets/
exceeds the latest API specifications (SJ/SL for gas engines and CG-4, CH-4,
CI-4 for diesels). Group I oils simply can't pass the tests required to meet
these specs.
GROUP II BASESTOCKS
Group II basestocks, as shown by the chart, are of higher quality than Group
I bases and will thus have better performance characteristics. Group II oils
must have BOTH low sulfur (<= 0.03%) AND low aromatic (ie. high saturate: >=
90%) levels. If either requirement is not met, the base must be classified as
a Group I.
You'll see the VI requirement is the same for both Group I and Group II bases,
but in reality, Group II oils will nearly always have higher VI than Group I
bases simply because of the purification processes used to create Group II
oils.
Hydrocracking
At a bare minimum, to create a Group II basestock, hydrocracking will likely
be used to remove the majority of the sulfur and nitrogen impurities and to
convert aromatic compounds to non-aromatics which add to the lubricating
qualities of the base oil. Hydrocracking is a more severe form of
hydrotreating which is used to improve the oxidation stability and VI of the
base oil while lowering the pour point.
In both processes (treating and cracking) the base oil feed is passed over a
catalyst bed at high temperature and pressure. Hydrotreating will be done at
less than 650º F and under approximately 1000 psi pressure. Hydrocracking is
performed at higher temperature and pressure, so more pronounced molecular
reshaping occurs in hydrocracking. This results in fewer impurities in the
resulting basestock and better VI and pourpoint values.
However, the process is not nearly done when the hydrocracking is finished.
The base oil still needs to go through a dewaxing process to remove paraffins
that will negatively affect the base oil's cold temperature characteristics.
Hydroisomerization
So, Group II base oils will then be put through a dewaxing process called
hydroisomerization. This process is used in place of solvent and/or catalytic
dewaxing which are less effective/efficient and are more likely to be used at
older plants and/or those that are still producing Group I base oils.
Through the wax hydroisomerization process hydrogen is again used to convert
(isomerize) wax into high quality BRANCHED paraffin molecules which have very
good cold temperature characteristics (unlike the wax molecules that were
present before the isomerization process began). The isomerizing process is
less wasteful and produces higher yields and higher VIs than solvent and/or
catalytic dewaxing processes which are used for Group I base oils.
Hydrofinishing
As a final step toward "graduation" to a group II base oil, the base oil will
typically go through a final hydrofinishing phase where sophisticated
catalysts and extremely high pressures are used to remove the few remaining
impurities left in the base.
The final Group II base will be nearly colorless, will have very little
sulfur content and a high level of "Saturates" (useful lubricating compounds)
equal to or greater than 90% of the base oil (leaving 10% or less as
aromatics).
GROUP III BASESTOCKS
Now, on to the more controversial Group III basestocks that were discussed so
heavily in the last newsletter installment. First, let me apologize for being
in the habit of calling these basestocks "hydrocracks" or similar names. It's
a bad habit because, although they ARE hydrocracked oils, so are Group II
base oils, typically. So, from now on, I'll be sure to refer to these base
oils more correctly as simply Group III bases.
Very Similar To Group II
The only real difference between a Group II and Group III base oil,
technically speaking, is the higher viscosity index. This is the only
distinction made by the API Basestock Grouping System to differentiate the
two basestock groups.
In creating a Group III basestock there is also little difference from a
Group II base. The only difference is the original selection of the feed
stock (higher quality/higher VI crude oil for Group III) and/or the severity
of the hydrocracking process. Otherwise, the process is generally identical
for both basestock groupings.

[moneymanager]

Charles,
Your website chart for Mobil 1 15-50 with Super Syn shows only one test entry with 1393 and 1390 ppm for P and Zn respectively. This would appear to meet your 12% standard. I see that the data test or batch variations can and do approach 25%. With one reading like this and all the interest there is in this subject I would think another test or two of this oil might be worth the trouble. It appears on its face to meet handily your sensible guideline and it can be easily acquired over the internet. Also, I have a lot of it I need to use up!
Reading your earlier comment in response to mine about Mobil 1 non EP Super Syn I began to think of mixing Mobil 1 V-Twin motorcycle oil in with my 15-50 Super Syn. This helps greatly with ZN but would actually lower the P level, (assuming slavish reliance on your test numbers which I realize is dumb.) But I'm thinking an additive is a better answer.
There has been very little comment about STP red, which has good P and very impressive Zn numbers on your data sheet. My Porsche carries about 11-12 quarts of oil. If I assume your ZN and P numbers for P and Zn in Mobil 1 15-50 with Super Syn for 11 quarts and add a pint of STP red with its 2115 & 3932 P and Zn, I get a mixture with 1376 and 1500for P and Zn respectively. Not too bad.
Anything wrong with my thinking here in your view?

[JFairman]

Has anyone tested "Comp Cams engine break-in oil additive"?

It says on the back label: "put back what conventional oils no longer provide utilizing a special blend of extreme pressure additives once found in off the shelf oils."

It goes on to say you should add a 12oz bottle to every oil change to get the continued protection.

I bought the last bottle of GM EOS from a local buick dealer for less than $10 the other day and put it into my 930, then got a bottle of the Comp Cams stuff from a local speed shop for $15 for my next oil change with Royal Purple 20-50 regular synthetic which sells for $6.99 a quart at local auto parts stores, and a little less at walmart when they have it in stock.

Summit has the Comp Cams additive for $13 a bottle or a little less if you buy a case of 12.

Seems I remember reading somewhere that this Comp Cams stuff has more ZDDP than anything else...

[Hard-Deck]

Jfairman, cnavarro can chime in here and tell us the correct way to mix Comp Cam break in oil if you're going this route. Just pouring in one bottle per oil change means nothing to me as the Porsche uses 10-13 quarts against the 4-6 quarts of other cars. I think a "correct" mix is best.

Mr. Navarro, what do you say?

[JFairman]

I just took a few pics of the Comp Cams stuff...

[911pcars]

..... or add EOS.

No longer marketed under the GM label, but a subsidiary, AC Delco:


AC-delco part # 10-106
New GM part # 12371532

Seems like the same stuff. But there are other additives besides EOS that are less than $12-$16 a bottle and with more ZDDP for a 9 qt. system.

Besides C. Navarro's excellent info on lube, the suggestions here sound valid:
http://www.oldgmctrucks.com/photos/FlatTappetCamTech.htm

Sherwood

[RWebb]

Hey - good sleuthing, Sherwood!

[Gene Wilkes]

This statement would concern me! If it's suppose to be removed at 1000 miles and then added to new oil, what gives??!!??

[JFairman]

That's the procedure for using it with the initial new or rebuilt engine break in oil...

I think all these types of oil additives or supplements have to be marketed as new or rebuilt engine break-in additives instead of ZDDP replacement supplements just like the GM or AC Delco EOS, because if they marketed it as a ZDDP additive for consumers the EPA (environmental protection ageny) that doesn't have a clue... would force them to take it off the market just like they forced the oil companies to take almost all of it out of consumer grade motor oils.

[hcoles]

David,
thanks for the link... using that link BP got right back to me with the big distributor in Colorado and they hooked me up with a dealer in Santa Cruz CA.... BP Racing 20-50 $41/case....not bad. Of course need to give Arnold an additional 8.25% I think it is over there. No price break until you want a pallet.
Now my oil will match my car color...

[GothingNC]

Does anyone know anything about Lubrication Engineers motor oil?

http://autosportgallery.com/monolec.pdf

http://www.le-inc.com/msds/8820.pdf

[movin]

I seem to recall Castrol GTX High Mileage 20W-50 was a synthetic blend too, just like Brad Penn. It's very available and superior to regular GTX. Is it worth a look?