M1 5-40 ?
06-04-2007, 06:33 PM
#21
LS1Tech Administrator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Schiller Park, IL Member: #317
Posts: 32,252
Likes: 0
Received 1,685 Likes
on
1,207 Posts
I see no issue with 30psi at idle (and the occasional dip to 25ish when sitting in traffic with HOT outside temps), for an A4 car with a 550rpm idle speed in gear. 40-45psi is not necessary. Just as 60psi is not necessary at 2000-2500rpm cruise speeds.
I'm more concerned with pressures as the rpm rises than at idle. I don't really care if I make 30 psi at idle or 45psi at idle, what would concern me more would be something like only 50psi at 6000rpm.
I'm more concerned with pressures as the rpm rises than at idle. I don't really care if I make 30 psi at idle or 45psi at idle, what would concern me more would be something like only 50psi at 6000rpm.
06-05-2007, 06:03 AM
#24
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (23)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Watertown, NY
Posts: 8,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RPM WS6
I'm more concerned with pressures as the rpm rises than at idle. I don't really care if I make 30 psi at idle or 45psi at idle, what would concern me more would be something like only 50psi at 6000rpm.
And i dont think Ive ever seen an LS1 make that low of oil PSI at 6K due to the type of oil used.
06-05-2007, 08:12 AM
#25
Tech Resident
Originally Posted by RPM WS6
I see no issue with 30psi at idle (and the occasional dip to 25ish when sitting in traffic with HOT outside temps), for an A4 car with a 550rpm idle speed in gear. 40-45psi is not necessary. Just as 60psi is not necessary at 2000-2500rpm cruise speeds.
I'm more concerned with pressures as the rpm rises than at idle. I don't really care if I make 30 psi at idle or 45psi at idle, what would concern me more would be something like only 50psi at 6000rpm.
I'm more concerned with pressures as the rpm rises than at idle. I don't really care if I make 30 psi at idle or 45psi at idle, what would concern me more would be something like only 50psi at 6000rpm.
Originally Posted by Dan
So your saying M1 5w40 is good for the LS1?
06-05-2007, 08:42 AM
#26
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Just This Side of Damnation
Posts: 1,231
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Dan, I got a really good UOA with M1 5w-40 TrSuv. The new version is the same weight but is called something like Turbo Diesel. The numbers were squarely within GC quality range. I would have no trouble using it simply for that reason. My consumption of it in my LS1 was < .5qt per 4-5k miles. I don't consider that bad, and it doesn't even move the needle on my Concern-O-Meter.
Choco, at any given time 6 qts or 5 qts is sufficient to oil your motor. As long as the galleries are filled and there's enough in the pan to prevent cavitation at all rpms and movements, there's enough. It takes more than bare minimum, however, to last through the entire oil change interval and still have a quality oil coursing through the motor's galleries. Oil changes composition and accumulates nasty bits over time, and a larger sump means less total change over that time. Five qts is .5 qts down from factory recommendation and doesn't appear to have caused any undesireable changes to a degree that causes concern in any of the UOAs I've seen and remember.
At the bearing wear surface, parts are separated by a wedge of oil that builds up with movement. It develops as long as there is sufficient oil to maintain it and the oil is within a range of viscosity that neither allows it to be wiped off or simply not develop by too thick of oil nor to be squeezed out by too thin of oil. Either condition allows metal to metal contact.
Pressure is not the only consideration. I think we all agree that pressure for pressure's sake is a fool's errand. Pressure is not what keeps the parts from making contact. As long as there is sufficient pressure to deliver oil it should be able to allow the bearings to present the proper oil wedge at the (non-)contact surfaces. As long as the motor does not have excessive clearances it should be able to maintain a sufficient oil pressure. The big and important consideration is oil flow.
Oil flow, I think, is more important than oil pressure. Higher oil pressures does not mean more flow, it means resistance to flow. Think of a kink in a garden hose...higher pressure but not higher flow. Alternately, consider how much water would be delivered through that garden hose versus how much honey at any given pressure. An extreme and crude example, I know, but illustrative.
Flow of oil, though at a lesser pressure, bathes the bearings and wear surfaces in more total oil per unit of time than does pressure. The wedge of oil will still develop, and there will always be a more than sufficient amount of oil bathing the surfaces to keep it going. More oil flow means more dirt is taken away to the filter. More oil flow on hot parts means more heat is removed and taken to the oil cooler. As long as the oil is of sufficient viscosity to maintain the oil wedges at the wear surfaces, I don't see how more flow over more pressure is a bad thing.
I think it would be a good thing, also, to not get caught up in 0w vs 5w numbers. Again, as the oil viscosity chart shows, there is a huge range of 40*c viscosities within the 30w and 40w ranges. M1 0w-40 40*c viscosity is 80.0. GC (0w-30) viscosity is 66.8. Alternately, 5w & 10w-30's range from 58.8 to 79.1. It is simply not accurate to generalize that 0w is "too thin," when they can easily be of thicker viscosity than other 5w's.
But most importantly, I must counter your declaration that thin at startup is a bad thing, and that it isn't important since it spends so little time there. Oil flow at startup is very important, as that is where most of the wear occurs. Between the time of dead stop to when the oil wedge develops you are dependent upon whatever oil remains at rest and the beginning of the flow of oil. Thinner oils flow to moving parts faster than thicker oils. It's as simple as that.
And, again, I think GC produces its outstanding wear numbers not because of its inherent viscosities, but because of its composition. There are any number of oils that produce the same pressures but none work as well in our engines.
Choco, at any given time 6 qts or 5 qts is sufficient to oil your motor. As long as the galleries are filled and there's enough in the pan to prevent cavitation at all rpms and movements, there's enough. It takes more than bare minimum, however, to last through the entire oil change interval and still have a quality oil coursing through the motor's galleries. Oil changes composition and accumulates nasty bits over time, and a larger sump means less total change over that time. Five qts is .5 qts down from factory recommendation and doesn't appear to have caused any undesireable changes to a degree that causes concern in any of the UOAs I've seen and remember.
At the bearing wear surface, parts are separated by a wedge of oil that builds up with movement. It develops as long as there is sufficient oil to maintain it and the oil is within a range of viscosity that neither allows it to be wiped off or simply not develop by too thick of oil nor to be squeezed out by too thin of oil. Either condition allows metal to metal contact.
Pressure is not the only consideration. I think we all agree that pressure for pressure's sake is a fool's errand. Pressure is not what keeps the parts from making contact. As long as there is sufficient pressure to deliver oil it should be able to allow the bearings to present the proper oil wedge at the (non-)contact surfaces. As long as the motor does not have excessive clearances it should be able to maintain a sufficient oil pressure. The big and important consideration is oil flow.
Oil flow, I think, is more important than oil pressure. Higher oil pressures does not mean more flow, it means resistance to flow. Think of a kink in a garden hose...higher pressure but not higher flow. Alternately, consider how much water would be delivered through that garden hose versus how much honey at any given pressure. An extreme and crude example, I know, but illustrative.
Flow of oil, though at a lesser pressure, bathes the bearings and wear surfaces in more total oil per unit of time than does pressure. The wedge of oil will still develop, and there will always be a more than sufficient amount of oil bathing the surfaces to keep it going. More oil flow means more dirt is taken away to the filter. More oil flow on hot parts means more heat is removed and taken to the oil cooler. As long as the oil is of sufficient viscosity to maintain the oil wedges at the wear surfaces, I don't see how more flow over more pressure is a bad thing.
I think it would be a good thing, also, to not get caught up in 0w vs 5w numbers. Again, as the oil viscosity chart shows, there is a huge range of 40*c viscosities within the 30w and 40w ranges. M1 0w-40 40*c viscosity is 80.0. GC (0w-30) viscosity is 66.8. Alternately, 5w & 10w-30's range from 58.8 to 79.1. It is simply not accurate to generalize that 0w is "too thin," when they can easily be of thicker viscosity than other 5w's.
But most importantly, I must counter your declaration that thin at startup is a bad thing, and that it isn't important since it spends so little time there. Oil flow at startup is very important, as that is where most of the wear occurs. Between the time of dead stop to when the oil wedge develops you are dependent upon whatever oil remains at rest and the beginning of the flow of oil. Thinner oils flow to moving parts faster than thicker oils. It's as simple as that.
And, again, I think GC produces its outstanding wear numbers not because of its inherent viscosities, but because of its composition. There are any number of oils that produce the same pressures but none work as well in our engines.
06-05-2007, 09:58 AM
#27
LS1Tech Administrator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Schiller Park, IL Member: #317
Posts: 32,252
Likes: 0
Received 1,685 Likes
on
1,207 Posts
Originally Posted by Mr Incredible
Dan, I got a really good UOA with M1 5w-40 TrSuv. The new version is the same weight but is called something like Turbo Diesel. The numbers were squarely within GC quality range. I would have no trouble using it simply for that reason. My consumption of it in my LS1 was < .5qt per 4-5k miles. I don't consider that bad, and it doesn't even move the needle on my Concern-O-Meter.
Choco, at any given time 6 qts or 5 qts is sufficient to oil your motor. As long as the galleries are filled and there's enough in the pan to prevent cavitation at all rpms and movements, there's enough. It takes more than bare minimum, however, to last through the entire oil change interval and still have a quality oil coursing through the motor's galleries. Oil changes composition and accumulates nasty bits over time, and a larger sump means less total change over that time. Five qts is .5 qts down from factory recommendation and doesn't appear to have caused any undesireable changes to a degree that causes concern in any of the UOAs I've seen and remember.
At the bearing wear surface, parts are separated by a wedge of oil that builds up with movement. It develops as long as there is sufficient oil to maintain it and the oil is within a range of viscosity that neither allows it to be wiped off or simply not develop by too thick of oil nor to be squeezed out by too thin of oil. Either condition allows metal to metal contact.
Pressure is not the only consideration. I think we all agree that pressure for pressure's sake is a fool's errand. Pressure is not what keeps the parts from making contact. As long as there is sufficient pressure to deliver oil it should be able to allow the bearings to present the proper oil wedge at the (non-)contact surfaces. As long as the motor does not have excessive clearances it should be able to maintain a sufficient oil pressure. The big and important consideration is oil flow.
Oil flow, I think, is more important than oil pressure. Higher oil pressures does not mean more flow, it means resistance to flow. Think of a kink in a garden hose...higher pressure but not higher flow. Alternately, consider how much water would be delivered through that garden hose versus how much honey at any given pressure. An extreme and crude example, I know, but illustrative.
Flow of oil, though at a lesser pressure, bathes the bearings and wear surfaces in more total oil per unit of time than does pressure. The wedge of oil will still develop, and there will always be a more than sufficient amount of oil bathing the surfaces to keep it going. More oil flow means more dirt is taken away to the filter. More oil flow on hot parts means more heat is removed and taken to the oil cooler. As long as the oil is of sufficient viscosity to maintain the oil wedges at the wear surfaces, I don't see how more flow over more pressure is a bad thing.
I think it would be a good thing, also, to not get caught up in 0w vs 5w numbers. Again, as the oil viscosity chart shows, there is a huge range of 40*c viscosities within the 30w and 40w ranges. M1 0w-40 40*c viscosity is 80.0. GC (0w-30) viscosity is 66.8. Alternately, 5w & 10w-30's range from 58.8 to 79.1. It is simply not accurate to generalize that 0w is "too thin," when they can easily be of thicker viscosity than other 5w's.
But most importantly, I must counter your declaration that thin at startup is a bad thing, and that it isn't important since it spends so little time there. Oil flow at startup is very important, as that is where most of the wear occurs. Between the time of dead stop to when the oil wedge develops you are dependent upon whatever oil remains at rest and the beginning of the flow of oil. Thinner oils flow to moving parts faster than thicker oils. It's as simple as that.
And, again, I think GC produces its outstanding wear numbers not because of its inherent viscosities, but because of its composition. There are any number of oils that produce the same pressures but none work as well in our engines.
Choco, at any given time 6 qts or 5 qts is sufficient to oil your motor. As long as the galleries are filled and there's enough in the pan to prevent cavitation at all rpms and movements, there's enough. It takes more than bare minimum, however, to last through the entire oil change interval and still have a quality oil coursing through the motor's galleries. Oil changes composition and accumulates nasty bits over time, and a larger sump means less total change over that time. Five qts is .5 qts down from factory recommendation and doesn't appear to have caused any undesireable changes to a degree that causes concern in any of the UOAs I've seen and remember.
At the bearing wear surface, parts are separated by a wedge of oil that builds up with movement. It develops as long as there is sufficient oil to maintain it and the oil is within a range of viscosity that neither allows it to be wiped off or simply not develop by too thick of oil nor to be squeezed out by too thin of oil. Either condition allows metal to metal contact.
Pressure is not the only consideration. I think we all agree that pressure for pressure's sake is a fool's errand. Pressure is not what keeps the parts from making contact. As long as there is sufficient pressure to deliver oil it should be able to allow the bearings to present the proper oil wedge at the (non-)contact surfaces. As long as the motor does not have excessive clearances it should be able to maintain a sufficient oil pressure. The big and important consideration is oil flow.
Oil flow, I think, is more important than oil pressure. Higher oil pressures does not mean more flow, it means resistance to flow. Think of a kink in a garden hose...higher pressure but not higher flow. Alternately, consider how much water would be delivered through that garden hose versus how much honey at any given pressure. An extreme and crude example, I know, but illustrative.
Flow of oil, though at a lesser pressure, bathes the bearings and wear surfaces in more total oil per unit of time than does pressure. The wedge of oil will still develop, and there will always be a more than sufficient amount of oil bathing the surfaces to keep it going. More oil flow means more dirt is taken away to the filter. More oil flow on hot parts means more heat is removed and taken to the oil cooler. As long as the oil is of sufficient viscosity to maintain the oil wedges at the wear surfaces, I don't see how more flow over more pressure is a bad thing.
I think it would be a good thing, also, to not get caught up in 0w vs 5w numbers. Again, as the oil viscosity chart shows, there is a huge range of 40*c viscosities within the 30w and 40w ranges. M1 0w-40 40*c viscosity is 80.0. GC (0w-30) viscosity is 66.8. Alternately, 5w & 10w-30's range from 58.8 to 79.1. It is simply not accurate to generalize that 0w is "too thin," when they can easily be of thicker viscosity than other 5w's.
But most importantly, I must counter your declaration that thin at startup is a bad thing, and that it isn't important since it spends so little time there. Oil flow at startup is very important, as that is where most of the wear occurs. Between the time of dead stop to when the oil wedge develops you are dependent upon whatever oil remains at rest and the beginning of the flow of oil. Thinner oils flow to moving parts faster than thicker oils. It's as simple as that.
And, again, I think GC produces its outstanding wear numbers not because of its inherent viscosities, but because of its composition. There are any number of oils that produce the same pressures but none work as well in our engines.
An excellent post on oil and the nature of oiling, as usual.
06-05-2007, 12:49 PM
#28
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Just This Side of Damnation
Posts: 1,231
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Thanks, Rpm. It's a satisfying feeling when it starts to come together. Each old wives tale and oil myth I shed makes me feel like there may yet be hope. The search for knowledge never ends, though.
06-07-2007, 07:08 AM
#29
Tech Resident
Originally Posted by Mr Incredible
Thanks, Rpm. It's a satisfying feeling when it starts to come together. Each old wives tale and oil myth I shed makes me feel like there may yet be hope. The search for knowledge never ends, though.
06-07-2007, 08:40 AM
#30
Launching!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Saginaw, MI
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
most of their oil is a group III and it's so thin, it's much easier to burn off. mobil 1 is the most overrated oil out there. good thing their 5W-40 is a group IV.
06-07-2007, 08:40 AM
#31
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Just This Side of Damnation
Posts: 1,231
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Choco, the idea that 5w is always greater viscosity than 0w is a myth. The idea that M1 is thin is CLEARLY hammered by the viscosity chart showing that there are much thinner oils of any given weight. And, though M1 does seem to have a propensity for slightly higher iron numbers and usage, it does still produce good wear numbers overall, keeps engines clean, and has a good formulation.
We can all diss ExxonMobil for being such a bunch of buttheads about not fessing up to not using the same amounts of real synthetics as they used to and still charging more for their oil, but it does work well in IC engines. I think the biggest modifier to the oil equation is simply that all the other oils have gotten better and M1 doesn't stand out as much as it used to.
But your generalizations are not as correct as you suspect.
We can all diss ExxonMobil for being such a bunch of buttheads about not fessing up to not using the same amounts of real synthetics as they used to and still charging more for their oil, but it does work well in IC engines. I think the biggest modifier to the oil equation is simply that all the other oils have gotten better and M1 doesn't stand out as much as it used to.
But your generalizations are not as correct as you suspect.
06-07-2007, 12:03 PM
#32
Tech Resident
Originally Posted by Mr Incredible
Choco, the idea that 5w is always greater viscosity than 0w is a myth. The idea that M1 is thin is CLEARLY hammered by the viscosity chart showing that there are much thinner oils of any given weight. And, though M1 does seem to have a propensity for slightly higher iron numbers and usage, it does still produce good wear numbers overall, keeps engines clean, and has a good formulation.
mobil 1 is still thin. compare mobil 1 to conventional oils. it's on the thin side.
Originally Posted by Mr Incredible
We can all diss ExxonMobil for being such a bunch of buttheads about not fessing up to not using the same amounts of real synthetics as they used to and still charging more for their oil, but it does work well in IC engines. I think the biggest modifier to the oil equation is simply that all the other oils have gotten better and M1 doesn't stand out as much as it used to.
But your generalizations are not as correct as you suspect.
But your generalizations are not as correct as you suspect.
06-07-2007, 03:00 PM
#33
Ive been thinking of switching for a bit because my motor makes so much noise, but I think I might have a freak after reading all the comments about the M1 getting consumed so quick. I use the M1 5-30 synthetic and the same amount come out after 3500mi as I put in. I wont say it burns 0, but little enough that I could never tell. It is also barely even darkened up at that point, looks almost new when it comes out of the pan. Is this wierd?
06-07-2007, 03:35 PM
#34
Originally Posted by Arc00TA
Ive been thinking of switching for a bit because my motor makes so much noise, but I think I might have a freak after reading all the comments about the M1 getting consumed so quick. I use the M1 5-30 synthetic and the same amount come out after 3500mi as I put in. I wont say it burns 0, but little enough that I could never tell. It is also barely even darkened up at that point, looks almost new when it comes out of the pan. Is this wierd?
I am going to switch that to the 5w40 diesel stuff that was talked about in here. I will seafoam the car 1st..My 98 just runs really dirty, oil is black after 1500 miles
06-07-2007, 03:36 PM
#35
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Just This Side of Damnation
Posts: 1,231
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369
yes, there are thinner oils than mobil 1 out there. there is always a car out there faster than yours, too. there is always someone better looking. always someone smarter. etc...
Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369
mobil 1 is still thin. compare mobil 1 to conventional oils. it's on the thin side.
Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369
i'm not saying mobil 1 is a bad oil. i'm saying GC is better. it's been proven time and time again.
Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369
my "generalizations" are pretty darn accurate.
06-07-2007, 05:15 PM
#36
TECH Resident
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: EL Monte Ca
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369
i'm aware that GC is sold on WS6store (i got PM'd right when they started offering it 
). i see no reason to pay $40 for a case plus shipping when you can get it at autozone for $38 after tax...
the people that swear by mobil 1 are old timers from when mobil 1 used to be a really good oil - before exxon bought it and changed it (for the worse). my car has proven that even though the 5W-40 is thicker, it'll make the same or more engine noise while consuming more oil and losing oil pressure...and that's the best mobil 1 out there.
). i see no reason to pay $40 for a case plus shipping when you can get it at autozone for $38 after tax...the people that swear by mobil 1 are old timers from when mobil 1 used to be a really good oil - before exxon bought it and changed it (for the worse). my car has proven that even though the 5W-40 is thicker, it'll make the same or more engine noise while consuming more oil and losing oil pressure...and that's the best mobil 1 out there.
06-07-2007, 06:31 PM
#37
LS1Tech Administrator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Schiller Park, IL Member: #317
Posts: 32,252
Likes: 0
Received 1,685 Likes
on
1,207 Posts
Originally Posted by LS1MONSTER
I can understand not wanting to pay WS6 store for the oil...but if you think how much time and gas people waste driving around looking for GC...its not all that bad. Just click order and be done with the hassle.
For people that keep up with a good maintenance schedule and change the oil regularly, they will truthfully see little to no difference in the performance of their engine over the years they own it using something like GC vs a M1 product.
Hell, I've seen GM V8 motors with nearly 300k on them with nothing but conventional Valvoline oil used since new.
It's great to try and use the oils that show the best results in a given engine, but really it's not worth going that far out of your way to do it, IMO. Unless you have that sort of time to kill.
06-07-2007, 09:07 PM
#38
TECH Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: NC
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369
this freaking oil. don't even get me started.
okay, so i'm a big fan of GC. yes, my engine ticked with it. LS1's just plain tick. let's just GET OVER THAT. LS1's run to 150,000 miles ticking the whole way. it's the design. want to get rid of ticking? put some gear oil in there. the ticking will be gone and the engine will blow up. the ticking isn't a big issue. it's just a noise.
anyways, a few months ago, i decided to not by GC and try mobil 1 5W-40. well, i put that in. first thing i noticed: slightly higher oil psi at start-up. obviously, the 5W will have higher pressure initially than a 0W. however, once the car heated up, i lost about 2-5 psi of pressure - and i went UP in weight.
as for the ticking, my tick is either exactly the same or slightly louder than with GC. it definitely didn't go down at all. fuel economy is relatively unchanged.
now, this is what pisses me off. i've had this oil in for about 4,100 miles. my LOW OIL light came on yesterday when i was casually idling. apparently, i'm burning this quite a bit faster than my GC. i ran my GC for over 4,500 and i NEVER got a low oil light. that GC surely could have gone longer, too. so i had to top off with my remaining half a quart today. i figure i'll run it for 900 more miles to hit the 5k mark and get it out of my engine.
now, here's what pisses me off:
i had 1 quart of GC left. i drove to autozone today - a 25 mile hike - to get some more GC. they had FOUR QUARTS LEFT and none in the back
i have no idea if they're going to get more in...so i was forced to buy MORE MOBIL 1 5W-40 all i needed was ONE MORE QUART OF GC. ugh...i'm so frustrated.
so i guess i'll be running this stuff for another 5k miles...
so why did i buy more mobil 1 5W-40? because it's the best crap mobil 1 makes. every other oil is a significant step down, so if i can't get GC, i'm stuck with this.
and GC is up to $6.19 a quart! i was paying $5.49/quart last summer
no one sells motor oil online, either. you'd think you'd be able to find it discounted for $5 bucks a quart somewhere, but no...
this post was not written in anger. it was written in frustration
okay, so i'm a big fan of GC. yes, my engine ticked with it. LS1's just plain tick. let's just GET OVER THAT. LS1's run to 150,000 miles ticking the whole way. it's the design. want to get rid of ticking? put some gear oil in there. the ticking will be gone and the engine will blow up. the ticking isn't a big issue. it's just a noise.
anyways, a few months ago, i decided to not by GC and try mobil 1 5W-40. well, i put that in. first thing i noticed: slightly higher oil psi at start-up. obviously, the 5W will have higher pressure initially than a 0W. however, once the car heated up, i lost about 2-5 psi of pressure - and i went UP in weight.
as for the ticking, my tick is either exactly the same or slightly louder than with GC. it definitely didn't go down at all. fuel economy is relatively unchanged.
now, this is what pisses me off. i've had this oil in for about 4,100 miles. my LOW OIL light came on yesterday when i was casually idling. apparently, i'm burning this quite a bit faster than my GC. i ran my GC for over 4,500 and i NEVER got a low oil light. that GC surely could have gone longer, too. so i had to top off with my remaining half a quart today. i figure i'll run it for 900 more miles to hit the 5k mark and get it out of my engine.
now, here's what pisses me off:
i had 1 quart of GC left. i drove to autozone today - a 25 mile hike - to get some more GC. they had FOUR QUARTS LEFT and none in the back
i have no idea if they're going to get more in...so i was forced to buy MORE MOBIL 1 5W-40 all i needed was ONE MORE QUART OF GC. ugh...i'm so frustrated.so i guess i'll be running this stuff for another 5k miles...
so why did i buy more mobil 1 5W-40? because it's the best crap mobil 1 makes. every other oil is a significant step down, so if i can't get GC, i'm stuck with this.
and GC is up to $6.19 a quart! i was paying $5.49/quart last summer
no one sells motor oil online, either. you'd think you'd be able to find it discounted for $5 bucks a quart somewhere, but no...this post was not written in anger. it was written in frustration
Last edited by Travis99LS1; 06-07-2007 at 09:12 PM.
06-07-2007, 09:12 PM
#39
Doesn't that light come on when you are about 2 quarts low? I have never seen a light..Out of curiosity I watched my oil pressure today on my 98..At idle it was at 42, driving, it was about 58..Not bad for that thin M1 5w30
Last edited by Dan; 06-07-2007 at 09:21 PM.
06-09-2007, 09:32 PM
#40
Tech Resident
Originally Posted by Mr Incredible
Then why keep repeating such an inaccurate generalization?
look at it like this: say you're 300 lbs. say one of your buddy's is 400 lbs. well, you're obviously a lot smaller than your buddy, but you're still a big fat guy. just because there's people out there fatter than you doesn't mean you're not fat yourself.
mobil 1 IS thin oil. it doesn't matter that other oils are thinner. it's thin and that's why LS1's tend to gobble it up.
Originally Posted by Mr Incredible
M1 5w-30 is 64.8/11.3. Mobil Clean 7500 5w-30 is 62.5/10.6. Which of those looks thicker to you?
Originally Posted by Mr Incredible
I took a quick search through the UOAs at BITOG yesterday and took a look at the GC results. I'll have to look some more and crunch some numbers, but The LSx results I saw were nothing like magic. Patman's results are abby-normal, and should only be used as a target, not guaranteed.
1.) they are better with GC
2.) the LS1 consumes less GC on average
3.) the GC lessens engine tick a little better
4.) the GC gives better oil pressure
Originally Posted by Mr Incredible
Looks a little like "I reject your reality and substitute my own..."