Home > Maintenance & Mods (L405) > Low SAPS 5W40 synth engine oil |
|
|
toby1 Member Since: 24 Mar 2024 Location: West Berkshire Posts: 148 |
Yes, I agree. I have been searching this afternoon but went down a rabbit hole of C2/3/4 specifications and lost interest, temporarily. |
||
28th Mar 2024 3:47pm |
|
Gremlin500 Member Since: 11 Mar 2022 Location: Newcastle, UK Posts: 1475 |
Watch this space. They are sending a quotation, so I can check the price is OK.
|
||
28th Mar 2024 4:38pm |
|
fisha Member Since: 25 Sep 2009 Location: Scotland Posts: 1368 |
/Devils Advocate
|
||
28th Mar 2024 5:23pm |
|
Gremlin500 Member Since: 11 Mar 2022 Location: Newcastle, UK Posts: 1475 |
(Double-post deleted) “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” -where’s the fun in that? |
||
28th Mar 2024 7:05pm |
|
Gremlin500 Member Since: 11 Mar 2022 Location: Newcastle, UK Posts: 1475 |
@Fisha:
|
||
28th Mar 2024 7:07pm |
|
Kot Member Since: 10 Mar 2021 Location: broadland Posts: 1216 |
Of course its not JLR approved though, so those with a warranty would loose it overnight if you used the wrong spec oil.
|
||
28th Mar 2024 9:09pm |
|
Gremlin500 Member Since: 11 Mar 2022 Location: Newcastle, UK Posts: 1475 |
🥱
|
||
28th Mar 2024 9:27pm |
|
toby1 Member Since: 24 Mar 2024 Location: West Berkshire Posts: 148 |
I am waiting for Sam's Motor and Machine report on his L322, although he has had his DPF and EGR effectively deleted. |
||
28th Mar 2024 9:48pm |
|
fisha Member Since: 25 Sep 2009 Location: Scotland Posts: 1368 |
It becomes one of those rabbit hole things once you start reading !
|
||
28th Mar 2024 10:07pm |
|
Mikey Member Since: 10 Jan 2008 Location: Dundee Posts: 1764 |
I'd like to see their technical analysis of 5w30 v 5w40, other than HTHS values, which is all they seem to go on about |
||
28th Mar 2024 10:22pm |
|
Kot Member Since: 10 Mar 2021 Location: broadland Posts: 1216 |
Sometimes you need to explain the obvious, many of us still have extended warranty beyond the 36 months and you cant ignore the "elephant in the room" As we are told Sulphated ash is what blocks the DPF and C4 equals C1 here, so would tick the box. @fisha good points regarding HTHS being better C1 >2.9 and C4 3.5 so a higher oil film strength as well. But Ford and JLR have set the standard after years of testing etc, and we are often reminded by the guys selling us the oil to Always use the right SAE viscosity grade, ACEA specification and most importantly the correct manufacturer specification – and choose a high-quality oil with a balanced additive pack. If JLR changed the spec tomorrow we would all change in a heart beat, until then we all have a choice of which rabbit hole or to follow 2018 SE SDV8 4.4 Byron Blue |
||
28th Mar 2024 10:46pm |
|
Gremlin500 Member Since: 11 Mar 2022 Location: Newcastle, UK Posts: 1475 |
Ah, that’s better! Some nice healthy debate going on!
|
||
28th Mar 2024 11:59pm |
|
Gremlin500 Member Since: 11 Mar 2022 Location: Newcastle, UK Posts: 1475 |
@Fisha:
|
||
29th Mar 2024 12:25am |
|
fisha Member Since: 25 Sep 2009 Location: Scotland Posts: 1368 |
Emissions ( or the falsity of emission improvement* ) and efficiency more than anything else. Although, I don't think that the halcyon days of 20W50 were the necessarily a golden era either. I think back to how sludged up the rover V8 got even with servicing ... the introduction of cleaner thinner oils I think has made a positive difference in that respect. It was also commented on an oil forum that bearing shells, and rotational load surfaces are less dependant on HTHS than the likes of cylinder walls, cams and rockers. The argument being that a single movement direction / rotation builds up a leading edge of oil on it that it rides on ( Think like a tyre aqua planing I suppose where build up lifts the surfaces (tyre/road) away from each other ) compared to a cylinder / piston which slides back and forth such at any leading edge built up in one direction of travel is lost on the return stroke. So that is where HTHS matters more as its thinner film. To me, there is no doubt that engines now have higher tolerances to their moving surfaces, and this necessitates thinner oils to work properly. * Its an old article, but it suggests that diesel cars make up 0.03% of particulates in the air ... with the suggestion being that chasing ever more difficult to attain emission standards will realistically make negligible difference to the big picture of particulate emissions. Co2 a different story though. https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-...c703893eda Lastly ( for this post ) ... I wish I could find the article again, but it was discussion around Volvo diesels from around the time when I felt Audi seemed to come to the fore with high efficiency diesel engines ( early mid 2000's ??? ). The jist being that as we increase the efficiency of diesels through through higher pressure injection methods etc, we reduce the size of the emissions particles. The size has no got to a point where the human body process cannot filter them out, hence why diesel emissions were viewed as more harmful. The topic discussed that Volvo engines being less efficient meant that the particles were large enough for the body to be able to filter out ... and so in effect, less harmful ... and that Volvo knew this and considered it the loss of efficiency an acceptable trade off. My general point is though around whether the chase of more efficiency including oils is actually worth it overall ? Going back to ACEA C1 ... whilst there appears to be lots of comments around 'it's going', one of the few reason given was 'because we want to add new numbers, but dont want to confuse, so we'll remove some when we add the new ones' .... so no more C1, but now there is C5, 6, 7 ... eh? Who in their right mind thinks that to remove numbers and not specify direct replacements would be less confusing than just leaving them where they were. Honest to goodness, I really wonder what goes through peoples minds. V8 or else ... |
||
29th Mar 2024 10:53am |
|
|
All times are GMT |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis