The truth about 90w diff oil
05-07-2004, 03:12 AM
#181
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Athens
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks RR. Yes I am the voice for LE. Please any other "reps" of LEdo not post anything on this site until you pass through me. If you need to reach me you know what to do.
As far as sites for products, Bulletproof offers full product line for LE gear. I believe they give discounts for S2KI members
"I'm happy to oil your rearend and I won't let friction come between us"
As far as sites for products, Bulletproof offers full product line for LE gear. I believe they give discounts for S2KI members
"I'm happy to oil your rearend and I won't let friction come between us"
05-16-2004, 03:20 PM
#183
Thanks for all the research and discussion in this thread, guys. A few of us in New England have just started using LE 607.
If any of us has trouble, you can be sure you (and LE) will hear about it.
BTW, is anyone suggesting any change in replacement interval with the 607? Factory fill is I think anywhere between 15-30K mi., but looking at all the metallic goo on my magnetic drain plug (at 23K) I'd say sooner rather than later.
That "Royal Purple" discussion was pretty funny earlier, RR. Gotta' love Barney!
If any of us has trouble, you can be sure you (and LE) will hear about it.
BTW, is anyone suggesting any change in replacement interval with the 607? Factory fill is I think anywhere between 15-30K mi., but looking at all the metallic goo on my magnetic drain plug (at 23K) I'd say sooner rather than later.
That "Royal Purple" discussion was pretty funny earlier, RR. Gotta' love Barney!
06-08-2004, 06:06 PM
#184
Registered User
I remember reading about the 22 minutes part but I had never actually seen this link:
http://www.technilube.com/sections/comps/S2K_vs_LE.htm
I've read it although I'm quite confused because I'm not seeing where the author even formed a conclusion.
http://www.technilube.com/sections/comps/S2K_vs_LE.htm
I've read it although I'm quite confused because I'm not seeing where the author even formed a conclusion.
06-08-2004, 10:59 PM
#185
Registered User
Originally posted by honda606
I remember reading about the 22 minutes part but I had never actually seen this link:
http://www.technilube.com/sections/comps/S2K_vs_LE.htm
I've read it although I'm quite confused because I'm not seeing where the author even formed a conclusion.
I remember reading about the 22 minutes part but I had never actually seen this link:
http://www.technilube.com/sections/comps/S2K_vs_LE.htm
I've read it although I'm quite confused because I'm not seeing where the author even formed a conclusion.
its got me worried.
06-09-2004, 05:11 PM
#188
Registered User
Thread Starter
I already refuted every point that guy made, and do not care to redo the work I have already done.
I will summarize.
1) He is wrong that LE607 is not a GL-5 oil - it just happens to be an ISO220 oil that also meets industrial needs. Amsoil, by their own admission to me from Tech Services, does not have an ISO220 industrial lube suitable for auto use. The MSDS for LE607 clearly says GL-5, and LE engineers rate it a GL-5. Call them and ask if you think I am making this up. So LE has achieved a product that Amsoil hasn't, whether by choice or inability. Whose issue is that?
2) He is wrong that Amsoil Series 2000 "thickens" to ISO220 90w viscosity at high temp. At 100degC, it is at least 5.5 cSt below LE-607. And LE607 is more consistently viscous across its operating temperature.
3) LE-607 has highly refined mineral base stock, and has a pour point of MINUS 11degF. That can only be achieved by reducing wax crystals through outstanding refining and perhaps some PP depressants. The Amsoil "expert" is right that most 90w's have a pour point of 10-15degF, and will take a while to flow. He is just wrong about this one. It has extraordinary performance which he did not bother to reveal.
4) He makes a big deal out of flash point - he should, it is a good indicator of volatility. By he does not mention that LE's flash point for LE-607 is HIGHER than Amsoil's. He even mistates Amsoil's spec, which si actually higher, and which I CORRECTLY stated. Ooops, the truth hurts, and sets me free every time. LE's flash point is 410degF - his assertations that it will "vaporize" and provide only EP protection are patently absurd.
5) Honda has never recommended a 75w90 for use in the S2000 by any published document I have seen. So it is arguable that it is a moot point to even argue the issue.
6) The "you used the shock loading test" shows a fundamental igonorance of the special conditions of our cars, where ther best performance from a standing start is done by a high-rpm clutch drop; under those conditions, the superior film strength capacity of LE-607 will, IMO, provide superior boundary lubrication, as elsatohydrodynamic is not the operating condition - that would be during cruise conditions.
7) Most of us do not care a rat's azz about low temperature fluidity and gas mileage - we want the protection and the spec Honda specifies, and fills at the factory: 90w GL-5.
If anyone cares to abandon using LE's product based on that analysis and posting, versus what has been provided here, that is their perogrative, and in my opinion, their folly. I, Aragorn, care not. I am very content to know that the little Miata or Kia or whatever gearset in my pumpkin is being well taken care of by the lubricant I chose, and which fully meets the published specification in the Owner's Manual. While I have endorsed Amsoil products based on my own scholarship, here they demonstrate yet again that when someone with a financial interest and just a bit of knowledge (from those talk the talk Amsoil sales brochures) to be dangerous starts to spout off, there can be a large gap between knowledge based on emprirical fact, and incorrect assertations meant to promote someone's financial interests. That is why I no longer sell things - I can stay impartial. As a citizen, I only can hope that that Direct Jobber's Nuclear Engineering credentials and execution were more precise than his tribology.
Do what you please - I care not. I am finished with it, forever.
I will summarize.
1) He is wrong that LE607 is not a GL-5 oil - it just happens to be an ISO220 oil that also meets industrial needs. Amsoil, by their own admission to me from Tech Services, does not have an ISO220 industrial lube suitable for auto use. The MSDS for LE607 clearly says GL-5, and LE engineers rate it a GL-5. Call them and ask if you think I am making this up. So LE has achieved a product that Amsoil hasn't, whether by choice or inability. Whose issue is that?
2) He is wrong that Amsoil Series 2000 "thickens" to ISO220 90w viscosity at high temp. At 100degC, it is at least 5.5 cSt below LE-607. And LE607 is more consistently viscous across its operating temperature.
3) LE-607 has highly refined mineral base stock, and has a pour point of MINUS 11degF. That can only be achieved by reducing wax crystals through outstanding refining and perhaps some PP depressants. The Amsoil "expert" is right that most 90w's have a pour point of 10-15degF, and will take a while to flow. He is just wrong about this one. It has extraordinary performance which he did not bother to reveal.
4) He makes a big deal out of flash point - he should, it is a good indicator of volatility. By he does not mention that LE's flash point for LE-607 is HIGHER than Amsoil's. He even mistates Amsoil's spec, which si actually higher, and which I CORRECTLY stated. Ooops, the truth hurts, and sets me free every time. LE's flash point is 410degF - his assertations that it will "vaporize" and provide only EP protection are patently absurd.
5) Honda has never recommended a 75w90 for use in the S2000 by any published document I have seen. So it is arguable that it is a moot point to even argue the issue.
6) The "you used the shock loading test" shows a fundamental igonorance of the special conditions of our cars, where ther best performance from a standing start is done by a high-rpm clutch drop; under those conditions, the superior film strength capacity of LE-607 will, IMO, provide superior boundary lubrication, as elsatohydrodynamic is not the operating condition - that would be during cruise conditions.
7) Most of us do not care a rat's azz about low temperature fluidity and gas mileage - we want the protection and the spec Honda specifies, and fills at the factory: 90w GL-5.
If anyone cares to abandon using LE's product based on that analysis and posting, versus what has been provided here, that is their perogrative, and in my opinion, their folly. I, Aragorn, care not. I am very content to know that the little Miata or Kia or whatever gearset in my pumpkin is being well taken care of by the lubricant I chose, and which fully meets the published specification in the Owner's Manual. While I have endorsed Amsoil products based on my own scholarship, here they demonstrate yet again that when someone with a financial interest and just a bit of knowledge (from those talk the talk Amsoil sales brochures) to be dangerous starts to spout off, there can be a large gap between knowledge based on emprirical fact, and incorrect assertations meant to promote someone's financial interests. That is why I no longer sell things - I can stay impartial. As a citizen, I only can hope that that Direct Jobber's Nuclear Engineering credentials and execution were more precise than his tribology.
Do what you please - I care not. I am finished with it, forever.
06-09-2004, 05:31 PM
#189
Originally posted by GaLubeDude
"I'm happy to oil your rearend and I won't let friction come between us"
"I'm happy to oil your rearend and I won't let friction come between us"
06-09-2004, 05:36 PM
#190
[.