Lubricating a Subaru
22 July 2004 | 03:56 PM
#1
Lubricating a Subaru
This is probably the longest post on this Forum but certainly one of the most interesting and relevant to all Subaru Owners.
It is the "FULL" unedited transcript of the article written by John Rowland (Chief R&D Chemist for Silkolene) with 40 years experience.
It is great educational reading as it is written by a Chemist, not a Salesman so totally based in facts - If you do one thing, read this, it's worth it!
I do not work for Silkolene, I'm a car enthusiast who owns an Oil Company that sells their products amongst others. I have Johns express permission to post this article to clear up as he says "the mis-information" on the internet.
Lubricating the Subaru.
Basically
Basically, to use that irritating in-word, engine lubrication is simple, and consequently boring. So I intend to treat the subject “complicatedly”, which may not be an in-word, but makes life far more interesting!
So, to take a quick look at the simple picture; the oil keeps moving parts apart, reducing friction and carrying away heat. Where there is metal-to-metal contact there are chemicals in the oil to reduce damage. Because the internal combustion process is always less than perfect, some soot is produced and this must be washed off the pistons and rings by the oil, so it has a cleaning or detergent function as well.
The trouble is, all this is just as true for Henry Ford’s original Model T engine as it is for the Subaru or any other high output motor. So where is the difference? The Model T, with 10bhp/litre at 2,000rpm and a single underhead camshaft, was filled with a thick, greenish liquid from somewhere near the bottom of the distillation colums on the Pennsylvania oilfields. It did a vague tour of the internals by guesswork (there was no oil pump) at a temperature around 50 degC, and lasted for 1,000 miles. On the plus side, some of the impurities acted as anti-wear and detergent chemicals. They didn’t work very well, but it was better than nothing. The engine wore out in around 20,000 miles, but even ordinary people, not just amateur rally drivers, were happy to put up with this.
The difference begins with the first turn of the key. The modern high-pressure pump would cavitate on the old heavy monogrades, starving the bearings for a vital couple of seconds, even in warm weather. Likewise, cam lobes would suffer as the sluggish oil found its way along narrow oil ways to the valve gear. The turbo bearing (if fitted as the handbooks say) already spinning fast, would also starve, and when it got going, how long would it be before the heat soak-back fried the primitive oil into a lump of carbon? (This was the problem with “modern” oils only 15 years ago).
So, a good oil must be quite low in viscosity even in the cold, so that it gets around the engine in a fraction of a second on start-up. On the other hand, it must protect engine components (piston rings for example) at temperatures up to 300 degC without evaporating or carbonising, and maintain oil pressure.
Unmodified thin oils simply can’t manage this balancing act. The answer is to use a mixture of thin oil and temperature-sensitive polymer, so as the thin oil gets even thinner with increasing temperatures as the engine warms up, the polymer expands and fights back, keeping the viscosity at a reasonable level to hold oil pressure and film thickness on the bearings. This is called a multigrade.
But, this is all too basic! What I have just written was and is relevant to a 1958 Morris Minor.
The questions that Subaru owners need to ask are: “Will this thin oil evaporate and be drawn into the intake manifold (via the closed circuit crankcase ventilation), leading to combustion chamber deposits and de-activated catalysts?” and “Will the polymer shear down at high engine revolutions and high temperatures, causing low oil pressure and component wear?” and “Will it carbonise on the turbo bearing?” These are 21st century questions which cannot be answered by a basic 1990’s approach.
BUT! Before we head into more complications, some figures………
The SAE Business (American Society of Automotive Engineers)
Viscosity is the force required to shear the oil at a certain speed and temperature. Oils work because they have viscosity; the drag of a rotating part pulls oil from a low-pressure area into a high pressure area and “floats” the surfaces apart. This is called “hydrodynamic lubrication”, and crank bearings depend on it. In fact a plain bearing running properly shows literally no metal-to-metal contact. Experimental set-ups have shown that electrical current will not flow from a crank main bearing to the shells. Also, the energy loss due to friction (the co-efficient of friction) is incredibly low, around 0.001. So for every kilogram pulling one way, friction fights back with one gram. This is very much better than any “dry” situation. For example, the much over-rated plastic PTFE has a co-efficient of friction on steel of 0.1, 100 times worse than oil.
Oil viscosities are accurately measured in units called “Centistokes” at exactly 100 degC. These fall into five high temperature SAE catagories:-
SAE No. 20 30 40 50 60
Viscosity Range 5.6 - <9.3 9.3 - <12.5 12.5 - <16.3 16.3 - <21.9 21.9 - <26
A decent quality oil usually has a viscosity that falls in the middle of the spec, so a SAE 40 will be about 14 Centistoke units, but SAE ratings are quite wide, so it’s possible for one 40 oil to be noticeably thicker or thinner than another.
When the polymer modified multigrades appeared, a low temperature range of tests were brought in, called “W” for winter (it doesn’t mean weight). These simulate cold starta at different non-ferrous monkey endangering temperatures from –15 degC for the 20w test to a desperate –35 degC for 0w. So, for example, an SAE 5w-40 oil is one that has a viscosity of less than 6600 units at –30 degC, and a viscosity of about 14 units at 100 degC.
Now, those of you who have been paying attention will say “Just a minute! I thought you said these multigrade polymers stopped the oil thinning down, but 6600 to 14 looks like a lot of thinning to me!”. Good point, but the oil does flow enough to allow a marginal start at –30 degC, and 14 is plenty of viscosity when the engine is running normally. (A lot more could damage the engine. Nobody uses the 24 viscosity SAE 60 oils any more.) The vital point is, a monograde 40 would be just like candle wax at –30 degC, and not much better at –10 degC. It would even give the starter motor a fairly difficult time at 0 degC. (At 0 degC, a 5w-40 has a viscosity of 800 but the monograde 40 is up at 3200!)
Another basic point about wide ranging multigrades such as 5w-40 or 0w-40 is that they save fuel at cruising speeds, and release more power at full throttle. But complications arise……..
Building a good oil
A cave may not be the best place to live, but it’s ready-made and cheap. This is the estate agent’s equivalent of an old style monograde oil. Or you could get Hengist Pod to fit a window and a door; this is moving up to a cheap and cheerful mineral 20w-50. But an architect-designed “machine for living in”, built up brick by brick, is an allegory of a high performance synthetic oil.
It is impossible to make a good 5w-40, or even 10w-40, using only mineral oil. The base oil is so thin, it just evaporates away at the high temperatures found in a powerful engine that is being used seriously. Although there are chemical compounds in there to prevent oil breakdown by oxygen in the atmosphere (oxidation) they cannot adequately protect vulnerable mineral oil at the 130 degC plus sump temperatures found in hard worked turbocharged or re-mapped engines.
Synthetics are the answer. They are built up from simple chemical units, brick by brick so as to speak; to make an architect-designed oil with properties to suit the modern engine.
But sometimes, if you look behind the façade, there is a nurky old cave at the back! This is because the marketing men have been meddling!
The Synthetic Myth
What do we mean by the word “synthetic”? Once, it meant the “brick by brick” chemical building of a designer oil, but the waters have been muddied by a court case that took place in the USA a few years ago, where the right to call heavily-modified mineral oil “synthetic”, was won. This was the answer to the ad-man’s dream; the chance to use that sexy word “synthetic” on the can….without spending much extra on the contents! Most lower cost “synthetic” or “semi-synthetic” oils use these hydrocracked mineral oils. They do have some advantages, particularly in commercial diesel lubricants, but their value in performance engines is marginal.
TRUE synthetics are expensive (about 6 times more than top quality mineral oils). Looked at non-basically there are three broad catagories, each containing dozens of types and viscosity grades:-
PIB’s (Polyisobutanes)
These are occasionally used as thickeners in motor oils and gear oils, but their main application is to suppress smoke in 2-strokes.
The two important ones are:
Esters
All jet engines are lubricated with synthetic esters, and have been for 50 years, but these expensive fluids only started to appear in petrol engine oils about 20 years ago. Thanks to their aviation origins, the types suitable for lubricants (esters also appear in perfumes; they are different!) work well from –50 degC to 200 degC, and they have a useful extra trick.
Due to their structure, ester molecules are “polar”; they stick to metal surfaces using electrostatic forces. This means that a protective layer is there at all times, even during that crucial start-up period. This helps to protect cams, gears, piston rings and valve train components, where lubrication is “boundary” rather than “hydrodynamic”, i.e. a very thin non-pressure fed film has to hold the surface apart. Even crank bearings benefit at starts, stops or when extreme shock loads upset the “hydrodynamic” film. (Are you listening, all you rally drivers and off road fanatics?)
Synthetic Hydrocarbons or POA’s (Poly Alpha Olefins)
These are, in effect, very precisely made equivalents to the most desirable mineral oil molecules. As with esters, they work very well at low temperatures, and equally well when the heat is on, if protected by anti-oxidants. The difference is, they are inert, and not polar. In fact, on their own they are hopeless “boundary” lubricants, with LESS load carrying ability than a mineral oil. They depend entirely on the correct chemical enhancements.
PAO’s work best in combination with esters. The esters assist load carrying, reduce friction, and cut down seal drag and wear, whilst the PAO’s act as solvents for the multigrade polymers and a large assortment of special compounds that act as dispersants, detergents, anti-wear and oxidant agents, and foam suppressants. Both are very good at resisting high-temperature evaporation, and the esters in particular will never carbonise in turbo bearings even when provoked by anti-lag systems.
Must Have MORE Power!
Motorcars are bought for all sorts of reasons, but enthusiasts like lots of power. To get more power, a lot of fuel must be burnt, and more than half of it, sadly, gets thrown away as waste heat. For every litre of fuel burnt, 60% of the energy goes as waste heat into the exhaust and cooling system. A turbocharger can extract a few percent as useful energy and convert it into pressure on the intake side, but only 40-45% is left, and only 25% actually shows up as BHP at the flywheel. 6% goes in pumping air into the engine, 6% as oil drag losses and 2-3% as engine friction. The oil deals with 97% of the friction; so reducing the remaining few percent is not easy. If you doubt that even ordinary oil has a massive effect, take a clean, dry 200 bhp engine, connect it to a dyno and start it up. It will only make 1 bhp for a few seconds. Now that’s real friction for you!
Oddly enough, people get starry-eyed about reducing friction, especially those half-wits who peddle silly “magic additives”, which have not the smallest effect on friction but rapidly corrode bearings and wallet contents. In fact, even a virtually impossible 50% reduction in the remaining engine friction would be no big deal, perhaps one or two bhp or a couple of extra miles per gallon.
Even More Power!
He place to look for extra power is in that 6% lost as oil drag. In a well-designed modern motor, the oil doesn’t have to cover up for wide clearances, poor oil pump capacity or flexy crankshafts, so it can be quite thin. How thin? Well take a look at these dyno results.
A while ago now, we ran three Silkolene performance oils in a Honda Blackbird motorcycle. this fearsome device is fitted with a light, compact, naturally aspirated 1100cc engine which turns out 120+ bhp at the back wheel. The normal fill for this one-year-old engine was 15w-50, so the first reading was taken using a fresh sump-fill of this grade. (The dyno was set up for EEC horsepower, i.e. Pessimistic)
15w-50
Max Power 127.9 bhp @ 9750 rpm
Torque 75.8 ft-lbs @ 7300 rpm
After a flush-out and fill up with 5w-40 the readings were;
5w-40
Max Power 131.6 bhp @ 9750 rpm
Torque 77.7 ft-lbs @ 7400 rpm
Then we tried an experimental grade, 0w-20 yes, 0w-20! This wasn’t as risky as you may think, because this grade had already done a season’s racing with the Kawasaki World Superbike Team, giving them some useful extra power with no reliability problems. (But it must be said, they were only interested in 200 frantic miles before the engines went back to Japan)
0w-20
Max Power 134.4 bhp @ 9750 rpm
Torque 78.9 ft-lbs @ 7400 rpm
In other words, 3.7 bhp / 2.9% increase from 15w-50 to 5w-40, a 2.8 bhp / 2.1% increase from 5w-40 to 0w-20 or a 6.5 bhp / 5% overall. Not bad, just for changing the oil! More to the point, a keen bike owner would have paid at least £1000 to see less improvement than this using the conventional approach of exhaust/intake mods, ignition re-mapping etc.
Am I recommending that you use 0w-20 in your Subaru’s? Well, perhaps not! The 5w-40, which is a “proper” PAO/Ester shear-stable synthetic, will look after a powerful engine better than a heavier viscosity “cave at the back” conventional oil, and provide a useful extra few BHP.
The End
However, as with all good things in life, we don’t live in a world of perfect motor cars and therefore we have to look at the lubrication trade-off between longevity, reliability, power and cost, relative to the vehicle in which the oil is being used (a scruffy old XR2i with 192,000 miles on the clockis a very different proposition to your spanking new Impreza). Which is why Subaru (and probably your local dealer) recommends a 10w-50 (Such as PRO S); you could look at a 5w-40 for competition and track-day use, but only the most committed competitor would want, or need, the 0w-20 for the extra 5% power.
Cheers
Simon
It is the "FULL" unedited transcript of the article written by John Rowland (Chief R&D Chemist for Silkolene) with 40 years experience.
It is great educational reading as it is written by a Chemist, not a Salesman so totally based in facts - If you do one thing, read this, it's worth it!
I do not work for Silkolene, I'm a car enthusiast who owns an Oil Company that sells their products amongst others. I have Johns express permission to post this article to clear up as he says "the mis-information" on the internet.
Lubricating the Subaru.
Basically
Basically, to use that irritating in-word, engine lubrication is simple, and consequently boring. So I intend to treat the subject “complicatedly”, which may not be an in-word, but makes life far more interesting!
So, to take a quick look at the simple picture; the oil keeps moving parts apart, reducing friction and carrying away heat. Where there is metal-to-metal contact there are chemicals in the oil to reduce damage. Because the internal combustion process is always less than perfect, some soot is produced and this must be washed off the pistons and rings by the oil, so it has a cleaning or detergent function as well.
The trouble is, all this is just as true for Henry Ford’s original Model T engine as it is for the Subaru or any other high output motor. So where is the difference? The Model T, with 10bhp/litre at 2,000rpm and a single underhead camshaft, was filled with a thick, greenish liquid from somewhere near the bottom of the distillation colums on the Pennsylvania oilfields. It did a vague tour of the internals by guesswork (there was no oil pump) at a temperature around 50 degC, and lasted for 1,000 miles. On the plus side, some of the impurities acted as anti-wear and detergent chemicals. They didn’t work very well, but it was better than nothing. The engine wore out in around 20,000 miles, but even ordinary people, not just amateur rally drivers, were happy to put up with this.
The difference begins with the first turn of the key. The modern high-pressure pump would cavitate on the old heavy monogrades, starving the bearings for a vital couple of seconds, even in warm weather. Likewise, cam lobes would suffer as the sluggish oil found its way along narrow oil ways to the valve gear. The turbo bearing (if fitted as the handbooks say) already spinning fast, would also starve, and when it got going, how long would it be before the heat soak-back fried the primitive oil into a lump of carbon? (This was the problem with “modern” oils only 15 years ago).
So, a good oil must be quite low in viscosity even in the cold, so that it gets around the engine in a fraction of a second on start-up. On the other hand, it must protect engine components (piston rings for example) at temperatures up to 300 degC without evaporating or carbonising, and maintain oil pressure.
Unmodified thin oils simply can’t manage this balancing act. The answer is to use a mixture of thin oil and temperature-sensitive polymer, so as the thin oil gets even thinner with increasing temperatures as the engine warms up, the polymer expands and fights back, keeping the viscosity at a reasonable level to hold oil pressure and film thickness on the bearings. This is called a multigrade.
But, this is all too basic! What I have just written was and is relevant to a 1958 Morris Minor.
The questions that Subaru owners need to ask are: “Will this thin oil evaporate and be drawn into the intake manifold (via the closed circuit crankcase ventilation), leading to combustion chamber deposits and de-activated catalysts?” and “Will the polymer shear down at high engine revolutions and high temperatures, causing low oil pressure and component wear?” and “Will it carbonise on the turbo bearing?” These are 21st century questions which cannot be answered by a basic 1990’s approach.
BUT! Before we head into more complications, some figures………
The SAE Business (American Society of Automotive Engineers)
Viscosity is the force required to shear the oil at a certain speed and temperature. Oils work because they have viscosity; the drag of a rotating part pulls oil from a low-pressure area into a high pressure area and “floats” the surfaces apart. This is called “hydrodynamic lubrication”, and crank bearings depend on it. In fact a plain bearing running properly shows literally no metal-to-metal contact. Experimental set-ups have shown that electrical current will not flow from a crank main bearing to the shells. Also, the energy loss due to friction (the co-efficient of friction) is incredibly low, around 0.001. So for every kilogram pulling one way, friction fights back with one gram. This is very much better than any “dry” situation. For example, the much over-rated plastic PTFE has a co-efficient of friction on steel of 0.1, 100 times worse than oil.
Oil viscosities are accurately measured in units called “Centistokes” at exactly 100 degC. These fall into five high temperature SAE catagories:-
SAE No. 20 30 40 50 60
Viscosity Range 5.6 - <9.3 9.3 - <12.5 12.5 - <16.3 16.3 - <21.9 21.9 - <26
A decent quality oil usually has a viscosity that falls in the middle of the spec, so a SAE 40 will be about 14 Centistoke units, but SAE ratings are quite wide, so it’s possible for one 40 oil to be noticeably thicker or thinner than another.
When the polymer modified multigrades appeared, a low temperature range of tests were brought in, called “W” for winter (it doesn’t mean weight). These simulate cold starta at different non-ferrous monkey endangering temperatures from –15 degC for the 20w test to a desperate –35 degC for 0w. So, for example, an SAE 5w-40 oil is one that has a viscosity of less than 6600 units at –30 degC, and a viscosity of about 14 units at 100 degC.
Now, those of you who have been paying attention will say “Just a minute! I thought you said these multigrade polymers stopped the oil thinning down, but 6600 to 14 looks like a lot of thinning to me!”. Good point, but the oil does flow enough to allow a marginal start at –30 degC, and 14 is plenty of viscosity when the engine is running normally. (A lot more could damage the engine. Nobody uses the 24 viscosity SAE 60 oils any more.) The vital point is, a monograde 40 would be just like candle wax at –30 degC, and not much better at –10 degC. It would even give the starter motor a fairly difficult time at 0 degC. (At 0 degC, a 5w-40 has a viscosity of 800 but the monograde 40 is up at 3200!)
Another basic point about wide ranging multigrades such as 5w-40 or 0w-40 is that they save fuel at cruising speeds, and release more power at full throttle. But complications arise……..
Building a good oil
A cave may not be the best place to live, but it’s ready-made and cheap. This is the estate agent’s equivalent of an old style monograde oil. Or you could get Hengist Pod to fit a window and a door; this is moving up to a cheap and cheerful mineral 20w-50. But an architect-designed “machine for living in”, built up brick by brick, is an allegory of a high performance synthetic oil.
It is impossible to make a good 5w-40, or even 10w-40, using only mineral oil. The base oil is so thin, it just evaporates away at the high temperatures found in a powerful engine that is being used seriously. Although there are chemical compounds in there to prevent oil breakdown by oxygen in the atmosphere (oxidation) they cannot adequately protect vulnerable mineral oil at the 130 degC plus sump temperatures found in hard worked turbocharged or re-mapped engines.
Synthetics are the answer. They are built up from simple chemical units, brick by brick so as to speak; to make an architect-designed oil with properties to suit the modern engine.
But sometimes, if you look behind the façade, there is a nurky old cave at the back! This is because the marketing men have been meddling!
The Synthetic Myth
What do we mean by the word “synthetic”? Once, it meant the “brick by brick” chemical building of a designer oil, but the waters have been muddied by a court case that took place in the USA a few years ago, where the right to call heavily-modified mineral oil “synthetic”, was won. This was the answer to the ad-man’s dream; the chance to use that sexy word “synthetic” on the can….without spending much extra on the contents! Most lower cost “synthetic” or “semi-synthetic” oils use these hydrocracked mineral oils. They do have some advantages, particularly in commercial diesel lubricants, but their value in performance engines is marginal.
TRUE synthetics are expensive (about 6 times more than top quality mineral oils). Looked at non-basically there are three broad catagories, each containing dozens of types and viscosity grades:-
PIB’s (Polyisobutanes)
These are occasionally used as thickeners in motor oils and gear oils, but their main application is to suppress smoke in 2-strokes.
The two important ones are:
Esters
All jet engines are lubricated with synthetic esters, and have been for 50 years, but these expensive fluids only started to appear in petrol engine oils about 20 years ago. Thanks to their aviation origins, the types suitable for lubricants (esters also appear in perfumes; they are different!) work well from –50 degC to 200 degC, and they have a useful extra trick.
Due to their structure, ester molecules are “polar”; they stick to metal surfaces using electrostatic forces. This means that a protective layer is there at all times, even during that crucial start-up period. This helps to protect cams, gears, piston rings and valve train components, where lubrication is “boundary” rather than “hydrodynamic”, i.e. a very thin non-pressure fed film has to hold the surface apart. Even crank bearings benefit at starts, stops or when extreme shock loads upset the “hydrodynamic” film. (Are you listening, all you rally drivers and off road fanatics?)
Synthetic Hydrocarbons or POA’s (Poly Alpha Olefins)
These are, in effect, very precisely made equivalents to the most desirable mineral oil molecules. As with esters, they work very well at low temperatures, and equally well when the heat is on, if protected by anti-oxidants. The difference is, they are inert, and not polar. In fact, on their own they are hopeless “boundary” lubricants, with LESS load carrying ability than a mineral oil. They depend entirely on the correct chemical enhancements.
PAO’s work best in combination with esters. The esters assist load carrying, reduce friction, and cut down seal drag and wear, whilst the PAO’s act as solvents for the multigrade polymers and a large assortment of special compounds that act as dispersants, detergents, anti-wear and oxidant agents, and foam suppressants. Both are very good at resisting high-temperature evaporation, and the esters in particular will never carbonise in turbo bearings even when provoked by anti-lag systems.
Must Have MORE Power!
Motorcars are bought for all sorts of reasons, but enthusiasts like lots of power. To get more power, a lot of fuel must be burnt, and more than half of it, sadly, gets thrown away as waste heat. For every litre of fuel burnt, 60% of the energy goes as waste heat into the exhaust and cooling system. A turbocharger can extract a few percent as useful energy and convert it into pressure on the intake side, but only 40-45% is left, and only 25% actually shows up as BHP at the flywheel. 6% goes in pumping air into the engine, 6% as oil drag losses and 2-3% as engine friction. The oil deals with 97% of the friction; so reducing the remaining few percent is not easy. If you doubt that even ordinary oil has a massive effect, take a clean, dry 200 bhp engine, connect it to a dyno and start it up. It will only make 1 bhp for a few seconds. Now that’s real friction for you!
Oddly enough, people get starry-eyed about reducing friction, especially those half-wits who peddle silly “magic additives”, which have not the smallest effect on friction but rapidly corrode bearings and wallet contents. In fact, even a virtually impossible 50% reduction in the remaining engine friction would be no big deal, perhaps one or two bhp or a couple of extra miles per gallon.
Even More Power!
He place to look for extra power is in that 6% lost as oil drag. In a well-designed modern motor, the oil doesn’t have to cover up for wide clearances, poor oil pump capacity or flexy crankshafts, so it can be quite thin. How thin? Well take a look at these dyno results.
A while ago now, we ran three Silkolene performance oils in a Honda Blackbird motorcycle. this fearsome device is fitted with a light, compact, naturally aspirated 1100cc engine which turns out 120+ bhp at the back wheel. The normal fill for this one-year-old engine was 15w-50, so the first reading was taken using a fresh sump-fill of this grade. (The dyno was set up for EEC horsepower, i.e. Pessimistic)
15w-50
Max Power 127.9 bhp @ 9750 rpm
Torque 75.8 ft-lbs @ 7300 rpm
After a flush-out and fill up with 5w-40 the readings were;
5w-40
Max Power 131.6 bhp @ 9750 rpm
Torque 77.7 ft-lbs @ 7400 rpm
Then we tried an experimental grade, 0w-20 yes, 0w-20! This wasn’t as risky as you may think, because this grade had already done a season’s racing with the Kawasaki World Superbike Team, giving them some useful extra power with no reliability problems. (But it must be said, they were only interested in 200 frantic miles before the engines went back to Japan)
0w-20
Max Power 134.4 bhp @ 9750 rpm
Torque 78.9 ft-lbs @ 7400 rpm
In other words, 3.7 bhp / 2.9% increase from 15w-50 to 5w-40, a 2.8 bhp / 2.1% increase from 5w-40 to 0w-20 or a 6.5 bhp / 5% overall. Not bad, just for changing the oil! More to the point, a keen bike owner would have paid at least £1000 to see less improvement than this using the conventional approach of exhaust/intake mods, ignition re-mapping etc.
Am I recommending that you use 0w-20 in your Subaru’s? Well, perhaps not! The 5w-40, which is a “proper” PAO/Ester shear-stable synthetic, will look after a powerful engine better than a heavier viscosity “cave at the back” conventional oil, and provide a useful extra few BHP.
The End
However, as with all good things in life, we don’t live in a world of perfect motor cars and therefore we have to look at the lubrication trade-off between longevity, reliability, power and cost, relative to the vehicle in which the oil is being used (a scruffy old XR2i with 192,000 miles on the clockis a very different proposition to your spanking new Impreza). Which is why Subaru (and probably your local dealer) recommends a 10w-50 (Such as PRO S); you could look at a 5w-40 for competition and track-day use, but only the most committed competitor would want, or need, the 0w-20 for the extra 5% power.
Cheers
Simon
22 July 2004 | 04:10 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,472
Likes: 0
From: SMACS member,Resident valeter/pc installer
I`m unsure having read that?
I`ve got Silkolene 10/50 in my car at the mo, I`m considering going to a certain Pro garage in Stockport and they use 10/30...
Is that still ok? Or should I take some more Silk 10/50 to them instead.
Oh I`ve got a my95 classic.
*****
I`ve got Silkolene 10/50 in my car at the mo, I`m considering going to a certain Pro garage in Stockport and they use 10/30...
Is that still ok? Or should I take some more Silk 10/50 to them instead.
Oh I`ve got a my95 classic.
*****
22 July 2004 | 04:15 PM
#3
I would stick with the 10w-50 PRO S if I were you, the man's research thorough and his knowledge is truly awesome!
You can always contact me for a price.
Cheers
Simon
You can always contact me for a price.
Cheers
Simon
Trending Topics
23 July 2004 | 01:02 AM
#8
Subaru Tuning Specialist
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 6,654
Likes: 1
From: 7.74 @179 mph 1/4 mile - road legal
No reference specifically to the possible Subaru weakness of the big end bearings ?
The EJ20/22/25 big ends are relatively narrow in comparison to other high output turbo engines.
The lower shear strength of a low viscosity oil may reduce the protection in this critical area under extreme loadings ?
Andy
The EJ20/22/25 big ends are relatively narrow in comparison to other high output turbo engines.
The lower shear strength of a low viscosity oil may reduce the protection in this critical area under extreme loadings ?
Andy
23 July 2004 | 10:49 AM
#11
Originally Posted by Andy.F
The lower shear strength of a low viscosity oil may reduce the protection in this critical area under extreme loadings ?
Andy
Andy
For example, you could have a 10w-40 which has "low grade" VI Improvers in it and it could "shear down" to a 10w-20 within a couple of thousand miles whereas a good "shear stable" 10w-40 would not "shear" for 10,000 miles if the oil has "good quality" VI Improvers in it.
You see, its the VI Improvers that give the oil the strength and "shear stability" not the viscosity unless you are talking about ester which are very "shear stable" anyway and need less VI Improvers.
Hope this clarifies.
Cheers
Simon
23 July 2004 | 10:52 AM
#12
Originally Posted by dij
So what do you think of additives like slick 50 etc?
Originally Posted by dij
Are they worth while?
Would be interested in the answer to the specific problem that the ej2# engines have too.
Don't use them, here's some reasons why you will be in effect wasting your money.
A WORD OF CAUTION ON ADDITIVES!
This is the transcript of an AA article published in Motor May 10th 1986.
The widely-advertised oil additive Slick 50 has been soundly slammed by the AA’s Technical Services.
The AA claim that their tests show Slick 50 provides no fuel savings when it is added to a cars engine oil – and there is no evidence of any other benefits under normal operating conditions.
The AA have made no press or public announcement of their report, but have produced a leaflet for the benefit of any paid-up members who apply for one. An AA member on Motor’s staff applied for a report in the normal way.
The report states that whilst there is no evidence the product will do harm to the engine, one good point is that most of it will be very rapidly removed by the oil filter. “At about £12 per treatment”, say the AA, “it is a very expensive way of coating your oil filter element”.
The AA performed tests by taking three identical cars and carefully running them in, splitting the driving equally among their test drivers. Oils were changed at 1500 miles, the cars were run a further 500 miles to stabilise the oils’ viscosity, the cars’ tuning was carefully checked and steady speed fuel consumptions and power outputs were measured.
The report says: “The procedure is so sensitive that, for instance, leaving the headlamps of the car switched on will make a nonsense of the results due to the extra drag of the charging system”.
Engineers added Slick 50 to two of the cars in the recommended way at 3000 miles.
After a further 2000 miles, further dynamometer tests were carried out. “One car should show the sort of gradual change expected of a car in good condition” says the report, “whereas two should show a noticeable improvement . Here came the big disappointment. After our several months of careful testwork, we could not distinguish any difference between the three cars.”
The AA claimed that all cars were performing well, but performance was remarkably consistent , within a few percent.
The AA say that a detailed examination of the claims made for the product will explain what happens when Slick 50 is added to an engine. Of one gallon of petrol burnt in an engine, says the report, some 60 percent of the energy will be lost as heat from the exhaust and cooling system. That leaves 40 percent and some 25 percent is used to drive the car and its accessories. The remaining 15 percent goes to losses such as pumping air into the engine (6 percent) and some 9 percent is lost as engine friction. Of that 9 percent, 6 percent is lost in churning the oil and only 3 percent of the total input goes into the sort of “boundary” friction that a solid lubricant could affect. “If tests of Slick 50 did show a 16 percent decrease in this friction, as claimed in current advertisements”, says the report, “it would only affect the car’s overall consumption by a half of one percent”.
The AA also claim that their tests show there is no evidence that Slick 50 produces a surface layer on the engine wearing surfaces, let alone one that could last for 100,000 miles.
On questioning John Rowland, I received the following reply.
Quote:
The AA report encapsulates my opinion of Slick 50, it is an expensive way of blocking your oil filter, Believe me, it does precisely nothing beneficial. It has been proven time and time again that it just blocks oil filters and oilways.
For all other “magic” additives, most are based on 1930’s technology corrosive chlorinated paraffins. (synthetic anti-seize compounds originally made 70 years ago. They are cheap, toxic and corrosive. We use them in certain types of cutting oil!) Do not touch them with somebody else’s bargepole!
UCL’s on the other hand can be useful. After all, 2-strokes in effect run entirely on UCL. So……the best UCL’s are 2-stroke oils! I always tell people to use a decent 2-stroke at 0.5% or 1%, because they are superior to the UCL’s sold as UCL’s if you get my drift. A litre of Super 2 Injector or Comp-2 will be better than a cupful of cheap mineral oil dyed red (no prizes for guessing the name) any day.
Vee engines (twins, to V8’s) benefit from UCL’s because the upper walls of the RH cylinder bank, looking from the front, always run dry. Think about it!
Unquote:
So, there you have it.
Cheers,
Simon
NOTE: UCL = Upper Cylinder Lubricant
23 July 2004 | 11:28 AM
#13
Subaru Tuning Specialist
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 6,654
Likes: 1
From: 7.74 @179 mph 1/4 mile - road legal
Simon
The article states
"Viscosity is the force required to shear the oil at a certain speed and temperature. Oils work because they have viscosity; the drag of a rotating part pulls oil from a low-pressure area into a high pressure area and “floats” the surfaces apart. This is called “hydrodynamic lubrication”, and crank bearings depend on it"
and
"extreme shock loads upset the “hydrodynamic” film."
So, where I was coming from was if you use equally high quality oils, which viscosity (higher/lower) gives the best bearing protection under extreme loads ?
I'd say the higher viscosity and that's why I personally would not use the lower viscosity in a highly tuned Subaru, regardless of the few bhp that can be saved.
Andy
The article states
"Viscosity is the force required to shear the oil at a certain speed and temperature. Oils work because they have viscosity; the drag of a rotating part pulls oil from a low-pressure area into a high pressure area and “floats” the surfaces apart. This is called “hydrodynamic lubrication”, and crank bearings depend on it"
and
"extreme shock loads upset the “hydrodynamic” film."
So, where I was coming from was if you use equally high quality oils, which viscosity (higher/lower) gives the best bearing protection under extreme loads ?
I'd say the higher viscosity and that's why I personally would not use the lower viscosity in a highly tuned Subaru, regardless of the few bhp that can be saved.
Andy
23 July 2004 | 11:37 AM
#14
Moderator
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 38,052
Likes: 301
From: The hell where youth and laughter go
Originally Posted by sooby
I don't know any dealer that recommends 10w-50 for an Impreza and certainly Subaru don't!
dij,
I have never read anything good about any additives!
dij,
I have never read anything good about any additives!
But Yes, dealers prefer to use 10w40
That being Castrol GTX Magnatec in the majority of circumstances - do you have any views of how this oil handles high temperatures Oilman? Would you know it's breakdown temperatures and if oil temperatures in a subaru engine reach or exceed this temperature limit?
Also I'd like to ask what your opinions of engine flush is. You hear many shout at the top of their lung it's a big no no. Again - curiously for Subaru Turbo engine, yet they never give any real factual reasoning behind it.
My understanding is that engine flush was never to be used in a vehicle of undertermined service history (where excessive deposits could be loosened and cause blockages in oil strainers/tappets/oilways etc). So, I can't see how this applies to the average well maintained Subaru Turbo engine. Although I will accept that a well and very regulary maintained engine will never need engine flush and it should never get dirty enough to need it.
Oilman's insight on this would be interesting
23 July 2004 | 11:59 AM
#15
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
I haven't got the manual with me but I thought an example of Severe Driving Conditions was towing a caravan?
Yesterday I had 4 opinions on engine flushing - no one recommends it. IM said that it shouldn't be necessary as long as you change your oil at the prescribed intervals.
I am about to switch to 10W40 RedLine.
No, I'm not oilman, but I figured I'd add my 0.02!
Yesterday I had 4 opinions on engine flushing - no one recommends it. IM said that it shouldn't be necessary as long as you change your oil at the prescribed intervals.
I am about to switch to 10W40 RedLine.
No, I'm not oilman, but I figured I'd add my 0.02!
23 July 2004 | 12:09 PM
#16
Moderator
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 38,052
Likes: 301
From: The hell where youth and laughter go
Originally Posted by sooby
I haven't got the manual with me but I thought an example of Severe Driving Conditions was towing a caravan?
Yesterday I had 4 opinions on engine flushing - no one recommends it. IM said that it shouldn't be necessary as long as you change your oil at the prescribed intervals.
I am about to switch to 10W40 RedLine.
No, I'm not oilman, but I figured I'd add my 0.02!
Yesterday I had 4 opinions on engine flushing - no one recommends it. IM said that it shouldn't be necessary as long as you change your oil at the prescribed intervals.
I am about to switch to 10W40 RedLine.
No, I'm not oilman, but I figured I'd add my 0.02!
23 July 2004 | 12:26 PM
#17
Originally Posted by Andy.F
Simon
The article states
"Viscosity is the force required to shear the oil at a certain speed and temperature. Oils work because they have viscosity; the drag of a rotating part pulls oil from a low-pressure area into a high pressure area and “floats” the surfaces apart. This is called “hydrodynamic lubrication”, and crank bearings depend on it"
and
"extreme shock loads upset the “hydrodynamic” film."
So, where I was coming from was if you use equally high quality oils, which viscosity (higher/lower) gives the best bearing protection under extreme loads ?
I'd say the higher viscosity and that's why I personally would not use the lower viscosity in a highly tuned Subaru, regardless of the few bhp that can be saved.
Andy
The article states
"Viscosity is the force required to shear the oil at a certain speed and temperature. Oils work because they have viscosity; the drag of a rotating part pulls oil from a low-pressure area into a high pressure area and “floats” the surfaces apart. This is called “hydrodynamic lubrication”, and crank bearings depend on it"
and
"extreme shock loads upset the “hydrodynamic” film."
So, where I was coming from was if you use equally high quality oils, which viscosity (higher/lower) gives the best bearing protection under extreme loads ?
I'd say the higher viscosity and that's why I personally would not use the lower viscosity in a highly tuned Subaru, regardless of the few bhp that can be saved.
Andy
The bit about BHP is really only a test to prove that thinner oils can give better performance in the true sense of th word.
Cheers
Simon
23 July 2004 | 12:43 PM
#18
Originally Posted by ALi-B
But Yes, dealers prefer to use 10w40
That being Castrol GTX Magnatec in the majority of circumstances - do you have any views of how this oil handles high temperatures Oilman? Would you know it's breakdown temperatures and if oil temperatures in a subaru engine reach or exceed this temperature limit?
That being Castrol GTX Magnatec in the majority of circumstances - do you have any views of how this oil handles high temperatures Oilman? Would you know it's breakdown temperatures and if oil temperatures in a subaru engine reach or exceed this temperature limit?
I know for sure that it's not an ester although it claims to do the same thing, by that I mean it claims to be "surface active" which I assume is achieved by an additive of some sort that makes it "polar" although as stated in that long post, all synthetics apart from ester are inert.
Originally Posted by ALi-B
Also I'd like to ask what your opinions of engine flush is. You hear many shout at the top of their lung it's a big no no. Again - curiously for Subaru Turbo engine, yet they never give any real factual reasoning behind it.
My understanding is that engine flush was never to be used in a vehicle of undertermined service history (where excessive deposits could be loosened and cause blockages in oil strainers/tappets/oilways etc). So, I can't see how this applies to the average well maintained Subaru Turbo engine. Although I will accept that a well and very regulary maintained engine will never need engine flush and it should never get dirty enough to need it.
My understanding is that engine flush was never to be used in a vehicle of undertermined service history (where excessive deposits could be loosened and cause blockages in oil strainers/tappets/oilways etc). So, I can't see how this applies to the average well maintained Subaru Turbo engine. Although I will accept that a well and very regulary maintained engine will never need engine flush and it should never get dirty enough to need it.
It is also known that flushing an old engine which has been running on a mineral oil and built up deposits over the years reducing clearances can cause problems as flushing removes the deposits, widening clearances etc and suddenly the engine sounds rattly.
You're basically right in what you say, a well maintained modern engine using a good quality oil should never need flushing, that's why we don't recommend it generally.
Cheers
Simon
23 July 2004 | 12:47 PM
#19
Originally Posted by sooby
I am about to switch to 10W40 RedLine.
It may be best that all fans of US oils close their ears or look away at this point, you may not like what you read!
Some basics first.
A good oil must be quite low in viscosity even in the cold, so that it gets around the engine in a fraction of a second on start-up. On the other hand, it must also protect engine components (piston rings for example) at temperatures up to 300 deg C without evaporating or carbonising, and maintain oil pressure.
Unmodified thin oils simply can't manage this balancing act. The answer is to use a mixture of thin oil and temperature sensitive polymer, so as the thin oil gets even thinner with increasing temperatures as the engine warms up, the polymer expands and fights back, keeping the viscosity at a reasonable level to hold oil pressure and film thickness on the bearings.
All oils have a viscosity index which is the number indicating that rate of change in viscosity of an oil within a given temperature range. Higher numbers indicate a low change, lower numbers indicate a relatively large change. The higher the number the better. This is one major property of an oil that keeps your bearings happy. These numbers can only be compared within a viscosity range (10w-40 vs 10w-40) but here it the important thing...............
They do not give an indication of how well the oil resists thermal breakdown! (The oil film tearing or shearing)
This is all down to a very important additive called a Viscosity Index improver
and it is critical that this is shear stable.
VI improvers like all other things in life vary in quality and this is down to cost and availability.
In other words, an oil can look great on paper and make impressive claims but, unless all the components are of high quality it will fail to perform under the most arduous conditions.
I asked John Rowland of Silkolene/Fuchs to give me his opinion on U.S. oils for another car club and below was his reply:
Quote:
Simon,
The main problem with these is that most American Oils have "low grade" Viscosity improvers in them. Good ones are just not available in the states due to the fact that they are just not required for the majority of American engines.
The consequence of this is, although the oils look good on paper with high VI indexes etc they have low grade inprovers so they have a tendency to "shear down" causing a lack of oil pressure.
For example, the oil you are using may be a 10w-40 when new but after a couple of thousand miles could be operating as a 10w-20! It's the use that sorts them out.
JR
Unquote:
I was intrigued by Johns answer and wanted to know how he knew it was the case in the U.S. that good quality VI improvers were not available. His reply was as follows:
Quote:
We have found it is impossible to source shear stable VI improvers in the U.S.A. even for ready money!
Unquote:
Bear in mind here that Fuchs/Silkolene is the largest independent Lube Oil Manufacturer in the World and has facilities in the U.S.
So, there you have it, another expensive oil that may not be as good as the marketing blurb would have you believe!
Mis-information abounds in the oil world and looking behind the marketing hype and claims is impossible unless of course you are a chemist and able to look deep into the oils make-up which neither you nor I can do!
Cheers
Simon
23 July 2004 | 01:00 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Interesting point of view. There is as much information on RedLine as there is Motul 300V 15-50. Which is definitely more than is available from Shell! I spent last week trying to get information on Shell but they feel details like %Sulphated Ash and Zinc ppm would compromise their secret formulae.
RedLine and many others have passed *all* the API designations. Shell and others fog the issue with European standards also. I am not saying that Shell or any other is bad. Let's see.
RedLine and many others have passed *all* the API designations. Shell and others fog the issue with European standards also. I am not saying that Shell or any other is bad. Let's see.
23 July 2004 | 01:23 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by sooby
RedLine and many others have passed *all* the API designations. Shell and others fog the issue with European standards also. I am not saying that Shell or any other is bad. Let's see.
23 July 2004 | 01:33 PM
#23
If you want technical data on some brands of oil then look here, it will save you trawling the internet. http://www.opieoils.co.uk/lubricants.htm
Or you could always contact me with your questions: sales@opieoils.co.uk
I would be more than happy to help with no obligation.
Cheers
Simon
Or you could always contact me with your questions: sales@opieoils.co.uk
I would be more than happy to help with no obligation.
Cheers
Simon
23 July 2004 | 01:35 PM
#24
Yep, American, here is a description of the API's and the tests conducted.
Cheers
Simon
API = American Petroleum Institute
S = Service - Petrol Engine Performance
C = Commercisl - Diesel Engine Performance
PETROL
SG - Introduced 1989 has much more active dispersant to combat black sludge.
SH - Introduced 1993 has same engine tests as SG, but includes phosphorus limit 0.12%, together with control of foam, volatility and shear stability.
SJ - Introduced 1996 has the same engine tests as SG/SH, but phosphorus limit 0.10% together with variation on volatility limits
SL - Introduced 2001, all new engine tests reflective of modern engine designs meeting current emmissions standards
DIESEL
CD - Introduced 1955, international standard for turbo diesel engine oils for many years, uses single cylinder test engine only
CE - Introduced 1984, improved control of oil consumption, oil thickening, piston deposits an wear, uses additional multi cylinder test engines
CF4 - Introduced 1990, further improvements in control of oil consumption and piston deposits, uses low emmission test engine
CF - Introduced 1994, modernised version of CD, reverts to single cylinder low emission test engine. Intended for certain indirect injection engines
CF2 - Introduced 1994, defines effective control of cylinder deposits and ring face scuffing, intended for 2 stroke diesel engines
CG4 - Introduced 1994, development of CF4 giving improved control of piston deposits, wear, oxidation stability and soot entrainment. Uses low sulphur diesel fuel in engine tests
CH4 - Introduced 1998, development of CG4, giving further improvements in control of soot related wear and piston deposits, uses more comprehensive engine test program to include low and high sulphur fuelsSG - Introduced 1989 has much more active dispersant to combat black sludge.
Cheers
Simon
API = American Petroleum Institute
S = Service - Petrol Engine Performance
C = Commercisl - Diesel Engine Performance
PETROL
SG - Introduced 1989 has much more active dispersant to combat black sludge.
SH - Introduced 1993 has same engine tests as SG, but includes phosphorus limit 0.12%, together with control of foam, volatility and shear stability.
SJ - Introduced 1996 has the same engine tests as SG/SH, but phosphorus limit 0.10% together with variation on volatility limits
SL - Introduced 2001, all new engine tests reflective of modern engine designs meeting current emmissions standards
DIESEL
CD - Introduced 1955, international standard for turbo diesel engine oils for many years, uses single cylinder test engine only
CE - Introduced 1984, improved control of oil consumption, oil thickening, piston deposits an wear, uses additional multi cylinder test engines
CF4 - Introduced 1990, further improvements in control of oil consumption and piston deposits, uses low emmission test engine
CF - Introduced 1994, modernised version of CD, reverts to single cylinder low emission test engine. Intended for certain indirect injection engines
CF2 - Introduced 1994, defines effective control of cylinder deposits and ring face scuffing, intended for 2 stroke diesel engines
CG4 - Introduced 1994, development of CF4 giving improved control of piston deposits, wear, oxidation stability and soot entrainment. Uses low sulphur diesel fuel in engine tests
CH4 - Introduced 1998, development of CG4, giving further improvements in control of soot related wear and piston deposits, uses more comprehensive engine test program to include low and high sulphur fuelsSG - Introduced 1989 has much more active dispersant to combat black sludge.
23 July 2004 | 01:49 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,838
Likes: 0
I'm still now not 100% sure what the numbers translate to 10w-40 10w-50 they both have a viscosity of 10 but the 50 doesn't get much thinner at higher temp but the 40 does ?
I always thought it was like viscosity 10 when cold but 40 when hot ? is that a bit of an abbreviation of the truth.
Also where can I get the cheapest oil from ?
Very interesting article though...
I always thought it was like viscosity 10 when cold but 40 when hot ? is that a bit of an abbreviation of the truth.
Also where can I get the cheapest oil from ?
Very interesting article though...
23 July 2004 | 02:32 PM
#27
Originally Posted by CataIunya
Also my bro's garage use Fuch's 15w40 by the tankfull, I take its prolly TITAN UNIVERSAL HD 15W-40 is that stuff any good for a scoob ?
Titan Universal HD is a high quality 15w-40 mineral oil with a better diesel than petrol specification, the data sheet is here: http://www.opieoils.co.uk/lubricants.htm.
Cheers
Simon
23 July 2004 | 02:34 PM
#28
Scooby Newbie
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
I am Technical Sales Manager for Delta Oil Ltd. the European distributor for Red Line Synthetic Oil - thought I had better get that in the open before I passed comment!
Oilman, I agree with your comments wholeheartedly concerning thin oils mixed with poor quality VI Improvers - they are rubbish. You have however concluded that as this is how the majority of US blended oils are produced, then all US oils are rubbish. Red Line is in the minority in that we use negligible amounts of VI Improvers - we are unique in that ALL our motor oils use only poly-ol ester basestocks which do not require the use of VI Improvers to change their viscosity profiles. Our 10w40 motor oil for instance is a 'straight' 40 weight oil, therefore having the advantage of being thin for start up and giving the correct protection at 100 deg C. The equivalent straight weight mineral oil would be a 20w40 or even 25w40.
I have enormous respect for John Rowland, (Indeed I use a number of his excellent articles as sales aids for ourselves!) He will confirm the wonderful advantages of building oils out of straight esters - but alas not when the accountants are looking over your shoulder!
In conclusion - yes, the majority of US oils are rubbish - but please don't lump Red Line, a small privately owned speciality competition lubricant producer with them.
Oilman, I agree with your comments wholeheartedly concerning thin oils mixed with poor quality VI Improvers - they are rubbish. You have however concluded that as this is how the majority of US blended oils are produced, then all US oils are rubbish. Red Line is in the minority in that we use negligible amounts of VI Improvers - we are unique in that ALL our motor oils use only poly-ol ester basestocks which do not require the use of VI Improvers to change their viscosity profiles. Our 10w40 motor oil for instance is a 'straight' 40 weight oil, therefore having the advantage of being thin for start up and giving the correct protection at 100 deg C. The equivalent straight weight mineral oil would be a 20w40 or even 25w40.
I have enormous respect for John Rowland, (Indeed I use a number of his excellent articles as sales aids for ourselves!) He will confirm the wonderful advantages of building oils out of straight esters - but alas not when the accountants are looking over your shoulder!
In conclusion - yes, the majority of US oils are rubbish - but please don't lump Red Line, a small privately owned speciality competition lubricant producer with them.
23 July 2004 | 02:57 PM
#29
Originally Posted by Gavin S
I am Technical Sales Manager for Delta Oil Ltd. the European distributor for Red Line Synthetic Oil - thought I had better get that in the open before I passed comment!
Oilman, I agree with your comments wholeheartedly concerning thin oils mixed with poor quality VI Improvers - they are rubbish. You have however concluded that as this is how the majority of US blended oils are produced, then all US oils are rubbish. Red Line is in the minority in that we use negligible amounts of VI Improvers - we are unique in that ALL our motor oils use only poly-ol ester basestocks which do not require the use of VI Improvers to change their viscosity profiles. Our 10w40 motor oil for instance is a 'straight' 40 weight oil, therefore having the advantage of being thin for start up and giving the correct protection at 100 deg C. The equivalent straight weight mineral oil would be a 20w40 or even 25w40.
I have enormous respect for John Rowland, (Indeed I use a number of his excellent articles as sales aids for ourselves!) He will confirm the wonderful advantages of building oils out of straight esters - but alas not when the accountants are looking over your shoulder!
In conclusion - yes, the majority of US oils are rubbish - but please don't lump Red Line, a small privately owned speciality competition lubricant producer with them.
Oilman, I agree with your comments wholeheartedly concerning thin oils mixed with poor quality VI Improvers - they are rubbish. You have however concluded that as this is how the majority of US blended oils are produced, then all US oils are rubbish. Red Line is in the minority in that we use negligible amounts of VI Improvers - we are unique in that ALL our motor oils use only poly-ol ester basestocks which do not require the use of VI Improvers to change their viscosity profiles. Our 10w40 motor oil for instance is a 'straight' 40 weight oil, therefore having the advantage of being thin for start up and giving the correct protection at 100 deg C. The equivalent straight weight mineral oil would be a 20w40 or even 25w40.
I have enormous respect for John Rowland, (Indeed I use a number of his excellent articles as sales aids for ourselves!) He will confirm the wonderful advantages of building oils out of straight esters - but alas not when the accountants are looking over your shoulder!
In conclusion - yes, the majority of US oils are rubbish - but please don't lump Red Line, a small privately owned speciality competition lubricant producer with them.
Thanks for your informative post, I'm grateful for you clearing this one up and pleased that Redline is a quality oil. John has very strong opinions, which I suppose he's entitled to with his time served and experience, I for one have always found his writings both informative, factual and frank and I guess you have too.
With regards to oils general (not just US), good ones are hard to find and unfortunately most buyers only get to read the marketing hype that surrounds some very popular oils.
I have a lot of respect for Silkolene's Oils based on my experience of selling them for the last 10 years and the times spend at their facility learning what goes into them and why.
Thanks again for the information.
Cheers
Simon
23 July 2004 | 03:42 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Oilman, it's widely believed on here that, amongst others, Castrol RS10/60 is more than suitable for the Impreza engine. I noticed in one of your previous posts that you felt you could not condone the use of an oil of this rating and wondered if you'd had any experiences of problems caused by it?