miniac007

Last UOA, same Oil

VOA of a basic GL-5 from Pennasol http://www.pennasol.com/a1v2/wp-content/downloads/Getriebeoele/150143_PEN_PI_Multigrade_Hypoid_Geartec_GL_5_SAE_75W-90_SAE_75W-90_EN_V1.pdf

Both are VOA, I changed all oil in the second hand Santa Fé I bought and sent samples of new oils for analysis. No old oil analysis as I have no historic of the car, so useless... - New Castrol Transaxle in Gearbox - New Ravenol LS in Transfer case and rear axle I wanted a low pourpoint and good low temp viscosity for the gearbox in winter, and on the paper, it was ok... I thought that the Transaxle would be as rich as the Syntrans V FE analysed on this forum, but it is very poor... The Castrol has a lower pourpoint than the Ravenol VSG, so I went for the Castrol... Next time, I

Sorry, google translate is not clear for that... If it means Castrol is expensive, I got it on eBay.de at a good price (12,20 €/L), not more than other Ravenol or else, and it was the only 75w-90 with a very low pourpoint and good low temperature viscosity needed for Sweden. Castrol seems to be expensive for engine oil (I never use it), but not to much for synthetic transmission oil... For the low 100°C viscosity, I am not afraid by that. The big question on a gearbox oil is how long the viscosity will remain high... I prefer a synthetic oil with 13 at 0km and 12 at 50 000km to a m

Hello ! Here is a VOA of the MTF CASTROL SYNTRANS TRANSAXLE 75W-90 used in my Santa Fé I PDS: http://msdspds.castrol.com/bpglis/FusionPDS.nsf/Files/25B6B37FACE3ADD280257D9600301434/$File/BPXE-8CNEHV_0.pdf

I change the oil one week ago with Castol Transaxle. The shifting a 0°C is very good, better than with the old 75W inside. To late to see at -30°C A sample in on the lab way, and i will post the VOA here.

Which 75w90 ? @ Low temperature The problem with the SAE grades, is that there are too large to describe the real viscosity of the oil. For example, lets graph 4 oils, same manufacturer: - CASTROL SYNTRAX UNIVERSAL PLUS 75W-90: http://msdspds.castrol.com/bpglis/FusionPDS.nsf/Files/1A3697364D166E73802578330059B9B3/$File/BPXE-8E2UVT_0.pdf - Castrol Syntrans Transaxle 75W-90: http://msdspds.castrol.com/bpglis/FusionPDS.nsf/Files/EC84FE6106F9401C8025790A0066B142/$File/BPXE-8LRA39_0.pdf - Castrol Syntrans 75W-85: http://msdspds.castrol.com/bpglis/FusionPDS.nsf/Files

The SF 1 russian manual from 2001 to 2006 give 75w90: http://hyundai.com1.ru:8041/WWW/Santafe/SFManualrus.zip The SF 2 russian manual give 75w85: http://hyundairu.com/assets/santafe%202010.pdf But those Hyundai oils are not synthetic and I have no informations about them, so I prefer switch to synthetic oils. So I compared the 2 synthetic Castrol 75w85 and 75w90 Transaxle: The cold temperature viscosity is quite the same, only the hot viscosity is different. My problem with the Castrol 75w85 is that it seems available only in Russia... Not listed in Germany or

Thank you. I have planned to use Castrol Syntrans Transaxle 75W-90 if it works, easier to find here http://www.frontier.ro/files/pdf/syntr%20axle.pdf

Hi all, доброе утро ! I am sorry, I live in Sweden so I don't speak russian ... I hope some people speak english here I've just bought a 2003 Hyundai Santa Fe with a manual gearbox, and I want to change its fluid. The Hyundai recomandation is 75w90 GL4 but I live in Sweden and the swedish manual gives 75w. I am very disappointed with those 75W... The lowest temperature here is -30°C (-22°F). I have also check the russian recomandation: it is also 75w90 with the same (or worse) lowest temperature. I understand the 75W will have a lower viscosity at lower temperatures,

1. Partly it's higher because of the 1 qt added (the main reason) 1/4 x TBN 11.5 + 3/4 x TBN 4.5 = 6,25 2. Partly it's higher because the engine is relatively clean after shorter OCI Well, quite the same OCI than the other 4,5 3. Partly it's higher because of the new method of measuring (I'm not sure about it). 6,25 + 25% = 7,8 Even with an optimistic computation, it is quite hard to reach 8,1 I have no VOA of the q8, but TBN should be arround 11 Maybe the cleaner oil has also some effect... We will see with next UOA...

Thats the new answer: > Hi Alex, > > Thank you for your answer, but I still don't understand something ... > > I read on BITOG ( http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3407761/TBN_methodology_changing_at_Bl ) : "We have always run a modified version of ASTM D-4739, but our machine was calibrated using standards that more closely matched to ASTM D-2896. We are now moving to standards that are more closely aligned with D-4739" > > So, as I understand, the new true D-4739 should be less than the old D-2896 clone ? So for an older 4, I should hav

What I can read is: "We have always run a modified version of ASTM D-4739, but our machine was calibrated using standards that more closely matched to ASTM D-2896. We are now moving to standards that are more closely aligned with D-4739" so now it should be "true" ASTM D-4739

Yes, it seems, I have just received an answer from BS about it: PM, Thanks for the email. You asked about a different methodology for TBN's and you're correct. Like any industry, oil analysis is always updating and this past summer we modified the TBN process. Since then, the TBN's have been coming back higher than before. The previous system was bad by any means, but what we have now is a more accurate assessment of the oil's acid neutralizing ability. Like you saw last time, the TBN should stabilize from here, just at a higher level. Let me know if you have any other questions and have

Btw, what I have read that the most damaging particle size by volume is 5-10 microns. Comparing the 2 isocodes, <= 10µ particles drop from 18521 to 4351, so a 77% decrease. So thats why I think it should perform better.

Yes, to many So we cannot solve all the problems with a limited numbers of experiments, but we try to do the best

For me, wear caused by particles in suspension in the oil doesn't rely on how long is your OCI, it just depends on the number and sizes of particles at every moment, so depend only on the filtration ability of the filter. What rely on the OCI is the ability of the filter to store a certain amount of wear material. Mann and Purolator are both able to store enough material for a normal OCI. For the next OCI, I have Super Pace 5w40 + Mann W917. I will see the results, and next, I will go with Super Pace + PureOne. If I see again an increase in Fe+Cu+Sn, I will considere it is not coin

Thats the question In my opinion, this better should give a better long term wear because studies have proved that by-pass filtering improve long term wear. I think it but I cannot prove it... Anyway, the prices of a purolator and a Mann are not far different (9€/11€ with shipment), so personnaly, I will finish my stock of w917 and switch to Pureone. If there was a big price difference, I will keep the Mann

You point a good point ! Blackstone TBN methodologie has changed between the two UOA: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3407761/TBN_methodology_changing_at_Bl But they say that the new TBN should be 25% lower, so the 8,1 question remains ...

Yes but you cannot conclude on one sample, furthermore with the head just changed. As I said, you need a long term experiment with lot of sample to have statistical series long enough to conclude something which have some chance to be true... The only sure thing is it filters better...

Well, oil was the same, driver and drinving also. The first UOA include April to December period, and the second Janury to October, so there are winter and summer periods in both sample. It is not perfect, but it is the best I can do The purpose of the experiment was to confirm that the purolator filters better. This purpose was achevied. But as you notice, it is impossible to have an idea of the CONSEQUENCES of this better filtration in only 8000km. The wear metals are the same. This need a long term experiment for that, and I cannot do it because I don't drive enough km by year...

Thank you for yours comments ! A particule count was done for the 2 filters, you can see the iso code on the bottom of the page: 20/19/16 with the MANN filter (dirty) and 18/17/14 for the Pure One (clean). That's why I say the Pureone filters better, which is confirmed here: http://filtrationcomparisons.weebly.com/conclusions.html For the high Fe,Cu,Sn, (relative to previous UOA, not in the absolute), the head was changed, some valve setting pads changed, valves lapped, so maybe it has to break in a little. We will see how it goes on the next UOA... I just kept 10w30 f

Hi all, this is my new report for my old Volvo. This Volvo 940 only run cold for 5 to 10 km trip. The biggest trip is 60 km twice a month... Red block B200F engine. The oil is a tractor oil, Q8 T1000D, base group I (http://www.oils.am/home/242.html) Filter is a PureOne PL14670 The head was replaced during oil change by a second hand one. Previous UOA is here: http://www.oil-club.ru/forum/topic/9774-1994-volvo-945-q8-t1000d-dino-10w30-8000-km/page__p__245084__hl__volvo+945__fromsearch__1#entry245084 1. Fist the good news: the Pureone give a better filtration than t

Here you can read page 11: As shown in Table 3, the TAN of the used engine oil is measured to be 4.5 mg (KOH)/g (sample) which is much higher than the TAN of the base oils [0.02 mg (KOH)/g (sample)]. This is due to the presence of organic, inorganic, heavy metal salts, ammonia slots, resin, water and corrosive materials which result from the oxidation process that occurred at elevated temperatures in the engine www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/6/2/1023/pdf

There are some on BITOG but no TAN... This UOA with low TAN: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3002339 Better thing to be sure, ask directly Pennasol