Ain't that the truth?

 

Your logic for doing an oil change at 500 miles based on the silicon content is flawed. The silicon comes from the anti-friction coating on the piston skirt. The engine is assembled with a negative piston to bore clearance which means the piston measurement is larger than the bore. The coating on the piston skirt abrades away in the first several hundred engine revolutions. Making recommendations without having knowledge of where the silicon came from is beyond belief to me...I would be fired for that. GM has done plenty of testing and if they thought for an instant an oil change was critical in the first 500 miles, they would have included it in the owner's manual. If you want to waste $80 on an oil change, it's your money and you can waste it however you want. But to post this and infer "the sky is falling" so other people waste their money is wrong.

To give some more info...when a spectrographic analysis is done it only "sees" elements dissolved into solution or in particulate form up to 12 microns. The elements in the oil revealed by the spectrographic analysis are not the abrasive components, for that you need to look at particulate contamination. For oil that came from the sump (unfiltered), it's obvious you have a very clean engine. The oil after the filter is even cleaner, there is no problem with particulates.

The viscosity test doesn't concern me either. All engine oils have an exponentially decaying viscosity vs temperature curve and to me, the viscosity at 40°C isn't too important...I want to know what it is at 100°C. I see many viscosity tests where the actual measurement was done at a temperature lower than 40°C and then extrapolated to 40°C...the extrapolation can be off by more than 10 cSt, I've seen it many times.

I see you "took your ball and went home" in the other thread once you were proven wrong...this is the tech section so we need to be technically correct, we all correct each other and it shouldn't be a big deal. I've had my turn in the barrel my share of times...I apologize for the mistake and give thanks for the correction then move on. I don't know where you work in the oil industry or what a "level C position" is but it's obvious you have a "position". I've been doing troubleshooting via oil analysis for 32 years now and I know one or two things about interpreting the results. For every part in the system, I know the percent composition of the elements in the alloy...when those elements show up at those percentages, I have my smoking gun.

Frequent oil changes can in fact cause more wear. People would be shocked to know how many particulates are in a new bottle of oil...the used oil in the engine is actually cleaner than the new oil. When we change the oil, there is always a spike in the particulate count until the system filters have had time to "clean" the new oil. Some of the systems I work have 3000 gallons of oil so an oil change is a big deal. Even when we have a catastrophic failure that sends a flood of particulates into the oil, we still don't change it. The oil is put through a 3 micron absolute filter and reused. When the viscosity, TAN, or flash point are out of spec, we change it. Water or particulate contamination gets purified or filtered out and we keep rolling. The important thing to look at for engines is TBN which your report doesn't have...it has TAN. For engines, the acid spec is always given as TBN.

 

OUCH.......no matter how smart you are....there's always someone who knows a bit more.
Thanks.

 

I actually tried to reply to your PM (before reading this), but you're out of space. I'll try again in a few minutes.

I understand what you're saying - it's not being lost on me. What I don't quite comprehend is why there's so much pushback on something so trivial as a good oil and filter change?

A synthetic blend vs. a full synthetic change simply cannot be argued as being non-beneficial.

I don't really have a position on the brand of oil used, as we're an exporter. I just felt it was worthwhile to send this off to the company (and being in this industry, I'm sure you can recognize from the sheet which one it is), and the biggest problem here is the viscosity change.

I'm not going to take a nearly-$70k car and keep a synth-blend in it... I can't imagine how that's seen as lunacy. That being said, I respect your opinions, and I don't think this is something that anyone has to be 'right' in.

As for the other thread, that was getting far off-topic, and I encouraged you to post over here to continue the discussion. I'm just not a huge fan of the recent hostility in this section.

Also, for the record, I agreed with your filter findings - this all started when you asked for the sheet... you kind of sucked me into this without provocation.

...

 

I have to agree in this case, to be honest. His points are better than my reasons presented, but my recommendation can't be taken as anything other than just that - a recommendation.

I just don't agree with some of the points that were raised here.

If it's really a strain on some people to change the synth-blended oil out for that $80... you really have purchased the wrong vehicle.

I'm also not a huge fan of how the argument is presented. You've seen enough threads here (because you've posted in them) that start off as innocent and simply a sharing of information and then devolve into an "I'm right, you're wrong, let's fight" mentality.

 

I'm going to ask the same thing I do in other cases (and get crap for asking it)...

Do you have a C7, or even a C6? If you're wanting to debate about oil, just stay on 'Bobistheoilguy' and go at it to your heart's content.

I'm glad you can be the resident expert, I truly am. However, I'm willing to spend/waste that $80 to protect my C7 that will have over 700hp in a few weeks.

Judging from the quote above, I guess I'm just lucky to not be out job hunting for posting an opinion on a forum, eh? If you'd be fired for that, your job must really be frustrating.

Edit: It may also be funny to know that the only reason I went through all this was to install LT headers (requiring the removal of the dry sump lines). Otherwise, I wouldn't have touched the oil. I kind of find that hilarious that some people are wrapped so tightly.

...

 

Theta, seems like your MO is to post, publicly, your opinions(mostly based on second hand information). Then when someone disagrees, you PM them hoping to not get called out. When that fails, you have the mod close the post, and that's after you edit 2-3 times. Now you are playing the victim card??

 

Sorry, Mr. Barr, this was primary info from the sheet. However, I can admit when somebody is smarter, and in this case he is.

I guess I wasn't trying to get into any sort of argument here.

I am, however, sick and tired of threads de-railing over and over again, and I won't have it in my threads. Hence, the discussion was taken over here.

The PMs were actually quite civil both ways. You, however, never responded to any of mine, which is a shame.

And Mr. Barr, while you're at it, stop sniping my posts. I'm quite sick of it.

 

First, let me say if there was any hostility in my posts, it was not my intention. I'm an engineer and we tend to be very blunt when presenting facts, sorry for any offense taken. Also, I didn't suck you into anything...I know filters pretty well and couldn't imagine what test would show that particular filter passing >50 micron particles and didn't know about your sheet until you linked to it.

Having said that, most people who buy a C7 Corvette will never need the benefits of synthetic oil which is high temperature protection. I'm not a fan of working on a perfectly running piece of equipment until you "fix" it (that means it just broke). I wouldn't call it a push back, just getting the facts out there.

For those who track the car, that's another story...I wholeheartedly agree with changing to synthetic oil in those cases, you are correct in stating no argument can be made against it. For the record, I would absolutely be in this group.

 

We do the same in situations where there is an issue with a machine or pump on a production line (usually in food processing, so H1) - very rarely do we ever suggest a full shutdown except in the case of catastrophic failure.

However, when we're talking 1500-3000 gal units with gear oil, it's a bit outside of the realm of what we're dealing with here. The problem is that we don't truly have a way to put a secondary subfilter in a system this small. The plugs only work on ferrous materials, which really doesn't amount to much of anything on the LT1.

 

I'm just as guilty for the recoil, so I apologize for that. It's obvious that you have more applied experience than I do.

You know how it is - put two engineers in a room and they'll either find a way to build something far more grandiose than required, or you'll find one dead in the corner.

Like I said, though, you're on the money with respect to what you were talking about with filters. I've also read some of your previous posts, and I have a good deal of respect for what you've presented.

Lastly, you hit the nail on the head - I think this is in-line with the Z51 and Z06 vs. base discussions. Do you need it? Probably not. Most likely, less than 1% of buyers will ever truly race these cars. In that scenario, it's inspiring to see that GM actually showed an interest in making people aware of the 15W-50 'upgrade' that is required.

So, I will back off a bit from, or at least clarify, my initial reaction. I, personally, didn't have any issue replacing the oil for two reasons: 1) I had to after the header install, and 2) I was willing to pay to potentially protect the engine components with a full synthetic and a better filter.

Would I still recommend an early change on any car? Yes, because it's just become a force of habit. Tolerances have become tighter over the years, and we don't have to worry about break in particulates nearly as much as we used to. But, now I'm quite a bit more aware as to where that silicon comes from, and for that I thank you (sincerely).

 

My Corvette pedigree is:
1971 Coupe (sold)
1993 ZR-1 Original owner
1999 Coupe (sold)
2011 Grand Sport (sold)

The '99 and '11 was actually for my daughter, I still have and exclusively race (autocross) my '93 ZR-1...the race tires never come off. I'm still very competitive with C6Z06s so I see no reason to trade "sideways".

My daughter raced her '99 and '11 as well as my ZR-1, she presently has an '02 Z06. My older brother had a '77 Coupe, '98 Convertible, '06 Coupe, and presently has a '13 Z06 which both of us race. (On the same track, I would beat my ZR-1 by less than a second...not bad for a 20 year old car.) My younger brother had an '84 and presently has an '09 Z51 Coupe.

No, I don't have a C7 but you can rest assured one day I will. If you don't mind, I will continue to peruse the C7 forums learning as much as I can about my next car.

Perspective is a funny thing...I didn't see why you got wrapped so tightly about your UOA.

PS In box has been cleared...

 

Congratulations Sean! This is a very mature and civilized reply. Seriously, where respect is shown, respect is given.

Im sure you are a very accomplished engineer in your field. But when you stomp you feet and hold your breath the way you do in order to get your point across, it discounts your integrity and knowledge on the subject. That's why you are seeing your posts getting derailed as they do.

Sincerely.

 

My apologies - see post above this one ^^ .

 

I can appreciate that. Sadly, there's so much animosity and alpha-type attitude here that it almost becomes a bad habit. There are times that we all have to admit we're wrong (or we just argued a point badly) - this is one of mine. My personal belief is still strong, but my intention wasn't to misguide in the process.

There are an amazing amount of uninformed people spouting 'facts' left and right and just killing any ability to make a counterpoint, etc. As it turned out, I was reading glass slipper incorrectly, and I learned several things in the process.

I also appreciate your post (I really do) - I seem to put my foot in my mouth much more often unintentionally than on-purpose. With so much 'flame-bait' here, it's hard to keep track of what's what. You are correct in that I edit the misinformation (as with the forging question which I answered far too quickly) - please understand that it's done out of concern for the actual truth, rather than for a saving-of-face.

 

Mobil 1 0w40 Euro Formula is a very good oil. It has a very robust additive package (nice moly content) that is not offered in other weights of Mobil 1.

It has excellent cold temp flow, as well as an extremely high flash point and high boiling point. It warms up quicker than most oils, runs cooler and cools down quicker than most oils. $25/5 qt jug at walmart is a nice bonus! Meets GMs dexos 2/LL requirements.


Viscosity grade SAE J 300 SAE 0W-40
Density at 20°C (68°F) ASTM D1298 0.848
Viscosity at 40°C (104°F) ASTM D445 75.7 mm²/s
Viscosity at 100°C (212°F) ASTM D445 13.6 mm²/s
HTHS viscosity at 150°C (302°F) ASTM D4741 3.9 mPa.s
Viscosity Index ASTM D2270 186
Pour point ASTM D97 -51°C / -59.8°F
Flash point ASTM D92 222°C / 431.6°F
TBN ASTM D2896 8.25 mg KOH/g

 

The Mobil 1 0W40 is indeed a very good oil but I don't think you've given enough credit to their other oils. Mobil 1 0W30 (as well as their other oils) has more moly in the additive package, the 0W40 has more ZDDP therefore doesn't need as much moly. The 0W30 flows just as well at low temperatures, has a 50°F higher flash point, and the boiling point for all of their synthetic oils is around 600°F. You can look them up here:
http://www.msds.exxonmobil.com/IntAp...chResults.aspx

But what really impressed me is how the 0W40 warms up quicker, runs cooler, and cools down quicker...is there some kind of pixie dust in it that magically changes the heat capacity of the 0W40 oil to be something different than all other oils? The claims that get posted on this forum never cease to amaze me...

 

Hmm, my reply from yesterday didn't go through for some weird reason.

I was going to concur with the 0w40 Euro recommendation, but I wanted to throw another contender in the ring - the 0w40 Euro Formula Castrol (previously referred to as German Castrol).

I believe that this oil and package bests even the Euro and 0w30 M1 products.

I had been using that for years in my BMW/MINI engines, and LS1/LS2 guys used to swear by it. It took a beating when they changed their branding, but it's still able to be found here and there.

Thoughts?

 

ya I just changed my oil in my c7 yesterday, went to wallmart and almost bought M1 0 40, that's what my last cat srt8 w the 6.4L recommended, but was not sure if that would be a good idea, I know M1 0 40 is really good stuff, that's there euro stuff. Would the c7 be ok w 0 40?????

 

I may be missing something on the Mobil page but I don't see that 0W-40 is Dexos1 approved while the 5W-30 is clearly Dexos1 approved. My son uses Extended Performance 5W-30. He had the original oil changed early (before 1000 miles) at an independent shop. The dealership told him early oil changes were a waste of money. I suppose that's what you can expect with a dealership that isn't used to servicing super cars!