Random Interesting Thread

Gah, that spreadsheet is so massive it's a PITA to manipulate!


If you remove the title rows and the blank rows, freeze the header/title rows, then sort by value, you can play around a bit.

If you do a three-level sort, you can:

- sort by the 'wear at 100degrees' column as the first sort, then 'wear at normal temperature' column, then 'wear at 200degrees', which I think is probably the correct sequence for someone that does 'normal' driving across the year in a range of temperatures, with minimal track use?

...or...

- sort by the 'wear at 100degrees' column as the first sort, then 'wear at 200degrees', then 'wear at normal temperature' column, which I think is probably the correct sequence for someone that does 'normal' driving across the year + some 'fast road driving' + a few track days?


That first sort gives the "Tailgate McNoIndicate TwinPower Turbo LongLife-04 5W30" as the top result (0.01 @ normal, 0.01 @ 100degrees, 0.06 @ 200degrees), which is interesting. I dread to think how much it costs if it's a Tailgate McNoIndicate oil! lol (But 5w30 might be a bit thin at hot/running temperature for NA/NB engines?)


Some others that seem balanced across the range of temperatures seem to be:

- "Mobil 1 New Life 0W40" - 0.02, 0.02, 0.03 - but is likely too thin at cold start-up on NA/NB?

- "Total Quartz 7000 10W40" - 0.03, 0.02, 0.05 - looks suitable for 5s?

- "Liqui Moly Synthoil Energy 0W40" - 0.04, 0.02, 0.04 - but again might be too thin at cold start-up.

- "Red Line 5W50" - 0.03, 0.01, 0.02 - looks like it might be a good one for turbo engines, which IIRC often have thicker hot ratings recommended?


I guess all of the oils must be pretty reasonable or they wouldn't be sold, lol, and I imagine the tests undertaken are harsher (in terms of perpendicular mass/weight load onto a piece of metal being tested) than you might get in an engine, in order to demonstrate wear rates within a short timeframe...