wifin

Rotella 10w-30 and Purolator Gold and a little seafoam each time

All this scientific stuff and tests and whatnot aren't for me...I just use what I see works best, and what makes my Jeep run best.

Don't fall for the Royal Purple crap, tried it, Jeep ran like crap. Rotella is also a good price.

Easiest place to find...Advanced Auto Parts or Walmart. Happy hunting

Firestorm500

You don't need the Seafoam.

cruiser54

Placebo effect.

Firestorm500

Wallet-draining effect.

Black89

I like 5 five quarts of 10W 30, a quart of Restore for 6 bangers, and a wix filter. My old 89' runs good doesn't burn any oil and no more engine knocks like it had when I bought it almost a year ago. 235K and still going strong.

salad

Yup I've read that GM bulletin before. The Sequence IIIG test is performed on a 1996-designed GM 3800 Series II V6. I did make an error in assuming that it used a roller cam, however it still stands that our engines aren't brand-new from 1996. That engine oil has a limit on how far back they're compatible still stands as a reasonable conclusion.

No problem. This:

Yes I had assumed this was case - it's very reasonable to do so. If you take a look at the actual data on the subject - this is not my opinion - you will notice this is not occurring. Here is a side-by-side of 5w30 synthetic oils: http://www.pqiamerica.com/March2013P...sallfinal.html and a side-by-side of some 5w20s: http://www.pqiamerica.com/Nov2013/5W...ateddec30.html

Pennzoil Yellow Bottle is what we assume SHOULD be the formulation. In my opinion it's a darn nice oil. Castrol GTX, however, does not. It is not alone in this.

More importantly, all of these oils meet the wear testing requirement for API SN. How well they actually behave is unclear as the numbers for tests like Sequence IIIG aren't reported publicly. My perspective is basically "where there's smoke there must be fire": Random API SN oils have half of the anti-wear additives that our engines were designed for, our engines have seen accelerated wear in the last few years. The conclusion I've come to is that API SN is not enough.

If there's something I'm missing I'd love to know about it. All of this I've already explored and put in my writeup (though I will correct the roller cam bit).

Firestorm500

I never have been a fan of Castrol oils. My daughter had my '87 Pioneer 4.0 as a daily driver, 259 miles away from me. It became time to change the oil. I always had done that before, myself, when she came home.

I used Mobil 1 10W-30 and a Wix filter in that Jeep.

It was going to be awhile before she could come home. I had her go by Walmart (yeah, I know) in the town she lived in and had her have them change the oil. They put in Castrol 10W-30 and a Fram filter (yeah, I know) which is what they were using at the time for a standard oil change.

When she came home 6 weeks later, I started the Jeep to move it. It rattled like a son-of-a-gun.

I took the Jeep to my work and dropped the Castrol/Fram filter out of it and replaced with Mobil 1 and Wix. The rattling stopped.

That oil only had 1,100 miles on it. And I don't think the Fram filter caused the rattle. I had used Fram before, years back before I learned how marginal they were for our Jeeps. It didn't rattle then.

CrawdadSlim

How many miles were on the motor before you started pumping it full of mobil 1? Were there any prior leaks? How did the mobil1 affect that? I'm curious because I like their gear oil and am thinking of running their oil In my crank. I'm weary of the full syn magnifying the very minor leak I'm experiencing.

salad

Most synthetics have better seal conditioners than plain dino juice. Synthetics causing leaks is, for the most part, an old myth.

cruiser54

Funny how these myths live on.

belvedere

Even the updated Seq. IVA test does not use a roller cam. Overhead, yes, but with slider-type followers.




Here's my belief (yes, just an opinion, though it was reached through reading a lot of UOAs): current add packs contain (most likely) organic adds which do not show up on UOAs. Some oils show a weak (on paper) add pack, yet turn in excellent wear-control numbers on UOAs. To me, the only reasonable explanation is adds not showing up on a run-of-the-mill $20 UOA.


Bottom line: any SL/SM/SN oil provides good protection for our engines. The only time I'd be concerned is if a higher-lift cam and higher valve-spring pressures were used. Then, a ZDDP-rich oil or additive would be prudent.


I'm sure not putting down Rotella; it's a fine oil. You can't go wrong with it. I'm just saying it's far from the only good choice.


In the end, it's a Coke vs Pepsi, Jack vs Jim, etc, type of thing.

Firestorm500

Bought the Jeep with 152,000 on it 7 years ago. After determining that it didn't burn oil between changes, I started using Mobil 1 at about 162,000 miles.
It now has about 237,000 miles.

On the original non-rebuilt engine. Lifters were replaced at 182,000 miles. Very little ring groove in cylinders, head was straight and true. Everything looked good, so it was buttoned back up. Valvetrain has that dry-start type rattle upon startup, but its been doing that for the last 40,000 miles or so. It has actually gotten better in the last year and a half or so.

No additional seal leaks. The engine is starting to get a little worn, as it does use about 1 quart every 4,000 miles or so now. Using 6,500 to 8,000 mile oil change intervals.

Tony_SS

...

PocketsEmpty

I haven't seen a drop fall from my XJ since I put the T6 5w40 in. So if anything, it helped me leak less! lol

salad

I sort of agree with you on that. Indeed there are plenty of additives that don't show up with these methods. As oil tech progresses (so-called Group II+, better Group IIIs, Group IVs, middle grounds like Shell's base stock that they make Rotella T6 with, and more Group V oils) it certainly is becoming harder to tell with a cheap elemental spectral analysis. However these are more like detergents, TBN boosters, VIIs, and seal conditioners. Everything I've seen thus far has been that all anti-wear additives are still visible via a spectral exam, with molybdenum- and boron-based compounds being at the head of the pack. Better base stocks yield higher film strength of course which pretty much rule out cheap conventional oils that test poorly in a VOA/UOA.

To say "if I can't see it it's not there" would be asinine, however considering the circumstances I'm not going to blindly put faith in something which is difficult to test and measure. Yes it sounds a little conspiratorial but the wear tests are for "acceptable levels" on older cars in tests designed by companies whose sole interests are to sell you new cars. The bottom line is that I want my ancient junk to last forever, a goal that is inherently in disagreement with the organizations who develop these standards in the first place. I'm not at all saying that I know better - I barely know anything at all - just that they don't care.

I really do encourage checking out http://pqiamerica.com/. Not all oils are the same - regardless of what standard they're being sold under or whether the standard is "good" or not. Plenty of SM/SN oils out there on the shelves violate the mark's requirements.