Перейти к содержанию
Антифризы Felix!
Моторные масла Kixx!
Задай вопросы специалисту Castrol!

lionhad

Пользователи
  • Публикаций

    301
  • Зарегистрирован

  • Посещение

Репутация

161 Читатель Ойл-клуба

Информация о lionhad

  • Звание
    Начинающий
  • День рождения 14.04.1988

Информация

  • Пол
    Мужчина
  • Город
    Сахалинская обл.
  • Интересы
    Авто масла, Прошивка, Авто спорт.
  • Масло
    Mobil 1 FS 5w30/Mobil 1 FS 0W40

Старые поля

  • Авто
    Subaru WRX STI 2012 GVB 2.0
  • Стаж
    11 лет на Subaru

Посетители профиля

1 032 просмотра профиля
  1. Оффтоп Судя по характеристикам, можно лить смело, по сравнению с Gear 300 по ощущениям "земля и небо"!
  2. Оставлю маленький отзыв: Залил себе в коробку на пробу это масло! До этого был Motul Gear 300, проехал на нем 15000 км. В сравнении: на Gear 300 сразу не понравилось то что вторая туговато втыкалась, особенно на холодную, от -8С и ниже, при прогреве, коробка издавала гул 1-2 минуты... На Idemitsu все замечательно, передачи втыкаются четко и быстро на холодную при -12, гула вообще нет... пробег пока на нем 3000 км.
  3. Можно добавить Mobil 1 FS 0W40 в мисс GTL (все таки в MSDS указано 60-70% GTL), и Mobil 1 FS 5W30 в мисс ПАО и мисс GTL (в MSDS 30-40% GTL)
  4. Давайте я Вам напишу вкратце о чем этот блог, потому-что судя по этим вопросам Вы или не читали полностью или все забыли, что там было написано! Этот инженер в своем блоге хочет донести, что не нужно лить в машину гуталин, на подобие 5W40/50 итд., лучше всего с защитой и охлаждением справляются масла с более низкой вязкостью, так как за единицу времени в узлы поступает масла больше и охлаждает оно лучше, а на гуталине больше шанс получить пограничное трение, чем на жидком, так же он описывает что большое кол-во цинка не защищает от износа, а наоборот делает только хуже! Тесты он свои проводил в гонках на выносливость, типа наскара, где они лили гуталин в движки + с большим количеством цинка, так как считали что такие масла лучше защищают от износа и через пару заездов двигателя выходили из строя! После его рекомендаций по поводу масел все машины прошли весь сезон на одном движке (поломок не было) и пошли с этими же двигателями в следующий... Это ли не доказательства!? Как я понял с его блога, он не особо "верит" в анализы масла, тем более как это делает Блэкстоун и особенно какие она дает рекомендации по пробегу на масле... А ничего что он проверяет масла разогретые до 110С, а не как все на "холодную", просто налив в ванночку. Далее он нагревает постепенно масло до высокой температуры и ищет точку пробоя и при какой температуре она происходит. Это уже как минимум интересно. Ну и мы это устройство в глаза не видели, чтобы судить что оно из себя представляет... это все просто догадки, а вот почему он фото не выкладывает, не понятно. Может банально ни кто не просил, а возможно есть что скрывать! :D Весь его блог на 80% состоит из того, чтобы донести до людей, что высоковязкие масла и с большим кол-вом ZDDP не так хорошо защищают от износа, а делают только хуже, но с одной оговоркой, прежде чем лить низковязкие масла, надо проверить какое давление создает маслонасос и чтобы оно было достаточным. Так же он пишет в блоге, что все масла создают химики (которые не очень шарят в механике и инженерном деле), а должны создавать масла инженеры-химики, которые понимают в обеих областях науки... В раздел "Q and A", в его блоге, он отвечает на вопросы... Там он пишет, как на битоге "эти спецы" бьют себя пяткой в грудь и доказывают, как хорошо лить W40-50 в мотор... и на сколько они не понимают элементарных физических принципов. В общем два лагеря и каждый на себя тянет одеяло! :) Если хотите задайте вопрос в "Q and A" по поводу его "однорукого бандита" и что все его тесты фикция, можно еще фотки попросить... почитаем что он ответит. Вот еще он описывает критику о себе: Оффтоп SOCIAL MEDIA AND BOUNDARY LUBRICATION:. I should probably take a moment here to address an issue that some of you may have come across, and wondered about. A Social Media critic of this Blog, like all critics of this Blog that I’m aware of, is totally unqualified to be commenting about my Blog’s factual Engineering test data, which is determined by the Physics and Chemistry involved in the testing. However, this critic claims that “boundary lubrication” is all that matters, rather than my test data. For those not familiar with that, here is a definition: . “The regime known as “boundary lubrication” occurs when conventional hydrodynamic fluid film formulation due to fluid entrainment is insufficient to fully separate lubricated, rubbing surfaces. In such circumstances it is found that the surfaces often continue to be separated by a very thin protective film produced by adsorption or reaction of components of the lubricant on the solid surfaces. The precise nature and properties of boundary lubricating films have long been a subject of debate and research.” . This is the condition that is in effect just before the parts would seize, if that was not maintained. And this is where zinc or other extreme pressure anti-wear motor oil components would be in play. But, this critic is so laughably unaware, that he doesn’t even understand that my Engineering tests have absolutely, and automatically, always involved every oil’s boundary lubrication capability. Because boundary lubrication “IS” part of the motor oil testing I perform. . My testing determines each oil’s ultimate failure point, also called its maximum “film strength/load carrying capability/shear resistance value”, which takes place at the same time as the boundary lubrication reaches its limit. So, to put all this in simple terms, if you refer to my test results of each oil’s ultimate failure point, as the film strength limit, the load carrying capability limit, the shear resistance limit, or the boundary lubrication limit, they all effectively mean the same thing and represent the same psi value that I post in my Wear Protection Ranking List. And a debate about any practical difference between them, is just unnecessary silly semantics. But, this critic is so clueless, that he completely misses the point, that he is arguing “FOR” what my testing has been doing all along. He completely endorses my testing, while thinking he is arguing against it. . For the reasons just mentioned, I don’t bother talking about boundary lubrication itself, in this Blog. As I said above, this Blog is not intended to be a chapter out of an Engineering textbook. It is meant to provide useful information to the reader. So, what is truly important to us, is finding each oil’s actual ultimate failure point/maximum wear protection capability limit, which is precisely the information that my Engineering test data provides. That way, we know how just how capable each oil is, which is what we compare. With that information, my Blog readers can make an informed buying decision, the next time they buy motor oil for their engine. Ask that critic what specific data he thinks he can provide, for you to take to the Auto Parts Store, and he won’t have an answer for you. . Another example of that critic having no idea what he is talking about, is his bogus claim that my test data could only apply to old school engines, such as traditional flat tappet engines, but not to new modern engines. He does not know that there are brand new, major brand name modern engines coming off the assembly line with double overhead cams, with lobes that push directly down on buckets which compress the valve springs. Not all brand new modern engines are fully roller type engines. So, those brand new engines, and old-school flat tappet engines, have the same exact type of cam lobe friction interface. . On top of that, he does not know that most engine wear takes place during cold startup, no matter if an engine is old-school or modern. And at that time, most of the oil has drained off the internal engine components. This leaves those parts with only an oil film remaining to prevent wear during cold startup, while waiting for oil to start flowing again. And of course having an oil film from a highly ranked, excellent performing oil from my Wear Protection Ranking List, greatly helps to minimize or prevent wear during critical cold startup. . These are just a couple of examples showing that my test data does “in fact”, apply to both old-school and modern engines, no matter what that critic says. I invite you to compare my complete Blog to any nonsense he has spewed on Social Media. And then decide for yourself who is providing FACTUAL information, that you can actually make use of yourself, in any engine from mild to wild. . BOTTOM LINE: My advice is, ignore any critics of my Blog, because they have always been wrong, and cannot be trusted. If you have any questions about anything I do, ask me in the Q&A Section at the top of this Blog. And I’ll answer your questions as soon as possible. . This Blog will provide you with the best, most complete, FACTUAL motor oil test data you will ever find anywhere. I challenge anyone, anywhere, to PROVE that my Engineering test data is wrong. Enough said. Now on with the Tech FACTS you came here for. Я на себе убедился в правильности его выводов, проехав кучу тысяч километров на 5w30... и не на одной машине. Субаристы бы меня не поняли, которые любят заливать W50 в сток и менять мотор раз в 30-50 тысяч и считать что так и должно быть - это же субару! Вон на моей бывшей машине, у друга, пробег уже к 200 тысячам на прошитом турбо легасике(320 л.с.) и все ок до сих пор. Другие бы уже второй двигатель как минимум меняли! Доверять или нет рейтингу, дело каждого. Я тоже не слепо верю всем этим цифрам, но отработки тех масел, которые у него в топе, в принципе основную картину показывают, что он не так и далек от истины!
  5. Судя по Вашему ответу Вы не читали от начала и до конца этот труд, раз считаете что эти тесты бесполезные. Думаю инженер, который все это делает, не совсем дурак, а мы тут все дартаньяны и знаем что близко к реальности измерения, а что нет!? Вот здесь малая часть того, что он описывает по методике тестирования, особенно нужное выделил, где он пишет что эти тесты НЕ подобие "однорукого бандита": Оффтоп The test methodology or test procedure I use at a representative operating oil temperature of 230*F, is a dynamic rubbing friction test under load, which generates a wear scar on a test specimen that is bathed in the oil being tested. This procedure, which is performed exactly the same for every motor oil tested, provides excellent repeatability, which is critical to validate the methodology. And as shown above, my test data EXACTLY matches real world severe over-heating experience, real world race track experience, real world flat tappet break-in experience, and real world High Performance street experience. No matter what any critics may say, with my test data exactly matching real world experience, that absolutely PROVES and VALIDATES that my data is the real deal. You cannot get any better than that, so you will not find better motor oil comparison data anywhere. The test result is “pounds” of force being applied over the wear scar “area”, which is in square inches (the size of that “area” is of course is determined by the oil’s film strength/load carrying capability/shear resistance capability). So, the result is pounds per square inch, which of course is just shortened to “psi”. The better an oil’s wear protection capability, the smaller the wear scar will be on the test specimen, and the higher the resulting psi value will be. Multiple tests are performed on each oil, and the resulting values are averaged to arrive at the most accurate possible value for comparison. And the motor oils are ranked, based on the average psi value they generated. The motor oil “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” I performed to generate my “Wear Protection Ranking List”, is worst case torture testing, using oil testing equipment that is for the record, NOT a “One Armed Bandit” tester and NOT a “4-Ball Wear Tester”. My testing subjects the oil to far more severe loading than even the most wicked flat tappet race engine ever could. So, since my oil testing compares various oils under worst case conditions, absolutely no further testing is required in a running engine. If oils rank higher in my “Wear Protection Ranking List” than the oil you currently use, those higher ranked oils will provide a HIGHER LEVEL OF WEAR PROTECTION than your current oil. It’s really that simple. . My test equipment is NOT intended to duplicate an engine’s internal components. On the contrary, the test equipment is specifically designed to cause an oil to reach its failure point, in order to determine what its capability limit it is. And every oil I test is brought to its failure point, that’s how it works. The difference in the failure points, is what we compare. And in addition to that, my equipment’s calibration is checked and adjusted if required, each time the testing switches to a different oil. That keeps the final results accurate at all times. . You will NOT find this many oils tested on the exact same equipment, using the exact same procedure, using the exact same real world representative operating oil temperature, by the exact same operator, anywhere else. Therefore, this is the best apples to apples motor oil comparison you will ever find. . But, a running engine is designed to last indefinitely, and of course, they do not generally cause an oil to reach its failure point. So, due to the complete difference in design, the pressures in my test are completely different, and cannot be compared directly to an engine’s lobe/lifter interface pressure. That would be comparing apples to oranges, which makes no sense. My testing is so severe, that the oil fails at an earlier point. And that is why my test data psi values may appear lower than you might expect to see in some running engines. Keep in mind, I’m comparing OIL AGAINST OIL, and the procedure used is exactly the same for each oil tested. For better or worse, each oil stands on its own merit. And if oil A produces twice the psi value of oil B in my testing, then oil A will also offer twice the wear protection capability of oil B, in a running engine. . The “dynamic wear testing under load” I use, is intentionally designed to find the SPECIFIC LIMIT of each individual oil’s “Load carrying capability/film strength/shear resistance”, at a representative operational temperature of 230*F. Or in other words, to determine each oil’s “wear protection capability” psi value, which can be compared to any other oil tested on the same equipment. As mentioned above, the results that come out of my testing are NOT my opinion, and they are NOT my theory. They are the FACTS that come out of the Physics and Chemistry involved in the tests. . Performing “dynamic wear testing under load”, is the ONLY TYPE OF TESTING that will provide accurate data regarding an oil’s film strength. Dynamically testing motor oil under load, is the same concept as dynamically testing an engine under load on a dyno. That is the only way to truly find accurate performance data of a motor oil, or of an engine. . And obtaining accurate oil film strength data is ABSOLUTELY THE ONLY WAY to determine an oil’s wear protection capability, because an oil’s film strength is the last line of defense against metal to metal contact. In order to reach metal to metal contact, and subsequent wear or damage, you MUST penetrate the film strength of the oil. And oil thicker than a mere film becomes liquid oil. Of course liquids are NOT compressible, which is how hydraulics work. Since liquids cannot be compressed, ALL oils provide THE SAME wear protection when they are in liquid form, no matter if they cost $3.00 per quart or $30.00 per quart. So, oil film strength testing is the GOLD STANDARD for determining how capable an oil is at preventing wear, and how different oils directly compare to each other. In other words, the ONLY THING that separates one oil’s ability to prevent wear from another oil’s ability to prevent wear, is the difference in their individual film strength capabilities. . But, testing motor oil in a running engine CANNOT determine the EXACT SPECIFIC wear protection LIMIT of an oil, which is necessary, in order to make an accurate comparison between various oils. So, attempting to test various motor oils for comparison in a running engine, provides no meaningful data, other than perhaps that a given oil did not cause a failure in that particular engine combo. If you were to test say a half a dozen different oils in your engine combo, and you had no problems with any of them, how can you tell how they rank against each other? It’s a proven fact that all oils do not provide the same wear protection capability. That means you have no way of knowing which of those 6 oils provides you with the highest level of protection. Therefore, motor oil testing in a running engine, is a waste of time, effort and money, when it comes to gathering accurate data for comparison between various oils. And that is precisely why I perform all my testing with motor oil test equipment, rather than in an engine. . And simply looking at an oil’s zinc level on its Lab Report is of no value at all, because some high zinc oils provide excellent wear protection, while other high zinc oils only provide poor wear protection. And you have no way to tell which is which by looking at the zinc level alone. An oil’s wear protection capability is determined by its base oil and its additive package “as a whole”, and NOT just by how much zinc is present. . The old claim that you must have a high level of zinc for a high level of protection, is only a MYTH that has been BUSTED. And no one anywhere, can provide any real world test data proving that high zinc levels will always protect your engine. Because zinc simply does NOT work that way, no matter what you’ve read and heard a million times. More zinc simply takes longer to be depleted as it is sacrificed and used up while helping protect heavily loaded parts. Therefore, more zinc provides “longer” wear protection, NOT “more” wear protection. So, if someone tells you that you must have a high level of zinc for sufficient wear protection, no matter who they are, or no matter what Company they may represent, DO NOT believe it. Because they are proving that they DO NOT understand how zinc really works, and are only repeating the same old wives’ tale with absolutely NOTHING to back it up. . And ZDDP DOES NOT build up on parts like some sort of plating process. ZDDP simply DOES NOT work that way. ZDDP that is present in the oil, is activated by heat and pressure, which is precisely what the oil is subjected to during my oil testing procedure. My testing DOES NOT discount ZDDP levels either. ZDDP is part of the additive package, and the additive package is what contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components. You cannot test oil film strength without also automatically testing the ZDDP included in that oil at the same time. Since ZDDP is an integral part of an oil’s additive package, and the additive package is primarily what creates an oil’s film strength, the ZDDP that is present, will be working as well as its chemical composition allows, during any film strength testing. . I’ve also “wear tested” a number of oils, both synthetic and conventional, when they were used with 5,000 miles on them. And in every case, even though those oils had been subjected to heat and stress over a significant length of time, there was NO REDUCTION what so ever, in wear protection capability, even though the zinc levels had dropped by around 25% on average. So, this is even further proof that the zinc level is not tied to a motor oil’s wear protection capability, as well as absolute proof and validation that testing new oils is representative of what we can expect from those oils as they accumulate time and miles on them. . Most major oil companies say to NEVER EVER add anything to their oils, because doing so will upset the oil’s carefully balanced additive package that was designed by their Chemical Engineers. I tested doing that very thing in several different oils, and found that adding zinc additives in every case, ruined the oils by SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCING their wear protection capability. That of course, is just the opposite of what people “think” they will be getting. So, those major oil Companies were absolutely correct about not adding anything to their oil. And people who insist on choosing an oil based on zinc level alone, are very likely shooting themselves in the foot, and ending up with far LESS wear protection than they THINK they have. It just depends on which particular oil they select. A number of popular traditional high zinc oils have proven to provide poor wear protection when actually put to the test. . In order for people to choose an oil that truly provides the best possible wear protection for their engine, they need to select an oil based on its “wear protection capability”, NOT its “zinc level”. Modern API certified oils have reduced zinc/phosphorus levels, and that now absent quantity of zinc/phosphorus has been replaced with alternate anti-wear components that are equal to, or better than zinc/phosphorus. In fact, many of the modern low zinc oils provide BETTER WEAR PROTECTION than many of the traditional high zinc oils, which you will see in the ranking list below. . Oil “wear protection” capability that was tested here, and an oil’s “friction reduction” capability, are two entirely different things. While the test data here provides excellent information about an oil’s ability to prevent wear, it says nothing about an oil’s ability to reduce friction. So, the data here will not provide any information regarding potential differences in HP or miles per gallon. . It should also be noted that I do NOT get paid by any Oil Company, nor by any Motor Oil Retailer, nor do I sell anything myself. So, I have no vested interest in what oil people choose to run. Therefore, all the data here is totally independent, unbiased, and is reported exactly how the test results came out. I have no agenda here, other than simply sharing the FACTS with like-minded gear heads. . The ppm (parts per million) quantities of zinc, phosphorus, moly and in some cases titanium, shown in the ranking list below, are taken directly from the Lab Reports that came back from the Professional Lab “ALS Tribology” in Sparks, Nevada. Some oils have MORE ZINC than phosphorus, while other oils have MORE PHOSPHORUS than zinc. It just depends on the particular oil’s formulation. Either way, the numbers below are correct and are NOT typos. . The “Load Carrying Capability/Film Strength/Shear Resistance” ranking list is from all the real world motor oil “Wear Testing” I’ve performed so far on new oils. The list includes modern API certified low zinc oils, traditional high zinc High Performance/Racing oils, Diesel oils, low zinc oils with zinc additives added in, low zinc and high zinc oils with other aftermarket additives added in, and Break-In oils. . All oil bottles involved in the testing were thoroughly shaken before the samples were taken. This ensured that all the additive package components were distributed uniformly throughout all the oil in the bottle, and not settled to the bottom. . Lower ranked oils are not necessarily “bad”, they simply don’t provide as much wear protection capability as higher ranked oils. If you have been running a low ranked oil in your engine without issue, that does not mean you have switch to a different oil, and it also does not mean you were using a great oil. It only means that your engine’s wear protection needs have not exceeded that oil’s capability. And as long as your engine’s needs don’t exceed that oil’s capability, you will never have a problem. But, if unexpected circumstances come up that make your engine’s needs exceed that oil’s capability, such as an overheating condition, an oiling condition, a loading condition, some parts heading south, or whatever, your engine can end up junk. But, if you’d been using an oil with a much higher capability, it could still provide enough extra protection to save your engine. So, each person has to decide for themselves, which motor oil provides the wear protection capability they are comfortable with, for any given engine build. . For the test results in the Wear Protection Ranking List, the HIGHER the psi value, the BETTER the wear protection. And this applies to ALL engines, including ANY High Performance flat tappet engine. An easy way to use this ranking list, is to find an oil you are familiar with, then look at the oils ranked higher, which provide better wear protection, and look at oils ranked lower, which provide less wear protection. . Until I started performing Tribology Research, and setup my motor oil “Wear Protection Capability Ranking List”, there was no good way to know which oils provided good wear protection, and which oils didn’t. Because it’s been proven over and over by a number of sources that zinc levels alone, cannot indicate which oils are good and which oils are not. The whole high zinc mindset is only Folklore that CANNOT BE PROVEN, and it DOES NOT stand up to any form of testing. So previously, all we could do was guess, or use trial and error to determine which oil was good enough, and which oil was not. And even then, we had no way of knowing how various “good enough” oils compared among themselves. . You cannot advance your knowledge into the future by clinging to the incorrect thinking of the past. This is the 21st Century, and we no longer have to guess or use trial and error to decide on which oil to use. Now, we have documented wear test data available. So the future is here, and all we have to do is look at the Ranking List, to choose an oil that provides a wear protection capability level we are comfortable with for any given build. . The “Wear Protection” test data here DIRECTLY APPLIES to flat tappet lobe/lifter interfaces (no matter how wicked the engine), pushrod tip/rocker arm interfaces, non-roller tip rocker arm/valve stem tip interfaces, distributor gear/cam gear interfaces, mechanical fuel pump pushrod tip/cam eccentric interfaces, and all highly loaded engine interfaces.
  6. Ну если считать щелочное число 1.56 и 2.32 не трупом то извините... По износу да норм... Можно вообще с этого масла не слазить, но катать 6000 максимум! ИМХО На Mobil X1 интересно будет посмотреть как по износу покажет!
  7. Можно, Amsoil как крутая присадка будет:) А вообще оригинальное субаровское за 5000 км почти труп(вязкость точно провалилась к двадцатке). Лучше уже на замену ехать, а не доливать...
  8. Поддерживаю! Еще бы CCS этого масла сделать... Вангую в районе 5000 мПас.
  9. Оффтоп Отправил недостающую сумму на FS 5W30 (1650р)
  10. Закинул остаток суммы(1650р) на Mobil 1 FS 5w30.
  11. Это на субаре у Вас лампа загорелась на хх!? Там значит давление 0.3 кг. Если да, то лучше бы потихоньку ехать, создавая давление в системе, чем стоять на холостых. Были прецеденты, что после хороших отжигов и последующем тарахтении на холостых.. сворачивало вкладыши.
  12. Смысла и до 110С нет! Вы не переживайте по поводу температур, 100С это нормальная рабочая температура масла, оно только вышло на искомую вязкость, а Вы уже "панику поднимаете" :) ("дилетанты" напугали субаристов температурами... скоро 85-90С будем бояться) и прогрев ее до 110С криминала не случится! Уж поверьте... Я и до 115С грел тридцатку на обоих субарях, все ок! Катайтесь в свое удовольствие и не грейте голову. После установки датчиков всегда у людей паника начинается по поводу давки и температуры масла :) P.S.Смотрел недавно ролик, как наша команда выступает на кольце... не помню какой класс гонок, но по мотору 350 сил и облегчение по-моему до 1000 кг. Так вот они используют масла 5W30 С3, когда жарко меняют раз в 500км, когда прохладней раз в 1000 км, т.е. хватает на две гонки! Вы представляете какие там температуры!? Там с кульком под 110-120С, на затычных участках... и на сороковки не переходят, типа с гарантии слететь можно(у них еще гарантия на мотор действует ;) , не помню какой марки машины извините)
  13. Больше 100С однозначно! Здесь Павел уже привел пример со стихой, у меня без маслокулька, при 98-100С по воде, масло может и до 115С доходить легко - это если валить! А в спокойном режиме в теплую погоду +20С, при 95С по воде, масло 100-102С, при более нагруженном движении вода 97-98С масло 105-107С.
  14. @lucky devil, Спасибо за картинки, впервые вижу что только A3 рекомендовано! Видимо для РФ перестраховались. :) Зато на сайте у них для 2011 и 2012 года везде стоит ILSAC:
  15. Нет, немного не правильно, эстеры наоборот помогают им разбухнуть, т.е. нивелировать этот недостаток у ПАО, так же как и плохую смазываемость! У эстеров одни плюсы, кроме их гигроскопичности! Ну вот Вам и ответ, сальникам уже "хана" 100%! :)

×