It si false advertising. Or let's call it what they are: snake oil salesmen.
0W-20 A3/B4 Availability
- Thread starter Shel_B
- Start date
we know the maximum it can be... and that's around 2.9cP
Don't think they'll answer my question but their main site for the oil doesn't make it an A3/B4: https://www.millersoils.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/CFS-0w20-NT.pdf
So, apart from the price and the mistake in the other PDS a serious looking offer. Probably often better than a canned approval >3.5 – even though it's just PAO-ester.
So, apart from the price and the mistake in the other PDS a serious looking offer. Probably often better than a canned approval >3.5 – even though it's just PAO-ester.
Last edited:
No, the viscosity keeprs dropping due to temperature, HTHS is measured at 150C. You have to multiply the kinematic viscosity with the density to get dynamic viscosity. That would give you the maximum (no shear) viscosity at 150C. Density also drops with temperature. The maximum viscosity possible is around 2.9 cP with the vioscosity numbers declared by Millers
That's another PDS, A1/B1 is definitely more likely...
Yes of course. Thank you for taking the time to contact them and clarifying/correcting the obvious mistake.
Yes, that's been my concession: With mostly PAO and that low VI and density it should remain below three.
It's just that technically without HTHS there'd be no data excluding advanced VI strategies. In addition a 0W-20 of just it's KV100 would go up >3.5 if needed. Density and else looking different then of course.
Either way, all good now. No more snakes needed.
It's just that technically without HTHS there'd be no data excluding advanced VI strategies. In addition a 0W-20 of just it's KV100 would go up >3.5 if needed. Density and else looking different then of course.
Either way, all good now. No more snakes needed.
So how's that working out for you?
it's feasible with incredibly high viscosity indexes only.
I'll see what the minimum viscosity index needs to be, and the oil would have to be 100% shear stable, no temporary viscosity loss.
If we assume a 100C viscosity of 9.2 cSt and a density of 0.85 kg/dm2 at 150C, the viscosity at 40C would need to be no higher than 47cSt. That's a modest viscosity index of only 182.
BUT you can't use viscosity index improvers in this example, and that means the viscosity index is incredibly high.
I'll see what the minimum viscosity index needs to be, and the oil would have to be 100% shear stable, no temporary viscosity loss.
If we assume a 100C viscosity of 9.2 cSt and a density of 0.85 kg/dm2 at 150C, the viscosity at 40C would need to be no higher than 47cSt. That's a modest viscosity index of only 182.
BUT you can't use viscosity index improvers in this example, and that means the viscosity index is incredibly high.
And ACEA Sequence A3/B4 is more than just a viscosity index requirement, no way the other criteria will be met including shear stability and evaporative loss.
What? Before he came up with this oil that isn't ACEA A3/B4 you mean?
Exactly, your position of "not possible" didn't see his MillersOil yet. So you were fundamentally wrong, weren't you? Shear stability in a rather Newtonian 0W-20/20 happens to be zero issue. A density limitation might be...
Feasible in general, just a 0W-20 of elevated HTHS. I was adressing the beginning of the thread here. With pursuing the low density it would become unnecessarily hard, as we made clear already.
But there's at least two problems I actually pointed to: Not only will a higher density 0W-20/20 walk towards maybe HTHS 4, there's also the problem of simply no data to be had from just VI regarding a temp of 150°C as soon as we can allow advanced VII strategies. Think of the rubber balls etc. to intrude if you will: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/steven-armes-rubber-balls.328048/
HTHS eats like half of the boosting, but not all.
Feasible in general, just a 0W-20 of elevated HTHS. I was adressing the beginning of the thread here. With pursuing the low density it would become unnecessarily hard, as we made clear already.
But there's at least two problems I actually pointed to: Not only will a higher density 0W-20/20 walk towards maybe HTHS 4, there's also the problem of simply no data to be had from just VI regarding a temp of 150°C as soon as we can allow advanced VII strategies. Think of the rubber balls etc. to intrude if you will: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/steven-armes-rubber-balls.328048/
HTHS eats like half of the boosting, but not all.
Last edited:
The Millers Oil is not ACEA A3/B4 as they themselves stated. Bottom line there is no 0W-20 grade oil that is ACEA A3/B4. It is not possible despite your imagination.
I have no idea what on earth you're going on about. HT/HS is one thing but that isn't the only thing in the ACEA sequence requirement.
I have no idea what on earth you're going on about. HT/HS is one thing but that isn't the only thing in the ACEA sequence requirement.
There's not much need in such off the shelf, that's all. But it's feasible. Might use esters – I'm no ester type, I don't know, maybe ask around. Certainly the PAG have the density and lend themselves for HTHS >3.5 from KV100 4 from KV100
To call it impossible with some stance you'd show me something beyond shear stability issues of basically monogrades doing that easily ;-)
To call it impossible with some stance you'd show me something beyond shear stability issues of basically monogrades doing that easily ;-)
Except we are not talking about monogrades here.
Throw in a rubber ball or a mocule or two of VM and your emergency exit is jammed. Or read "base oil" instead of monograde – it's even there...
What a poor thread.
Not you, Jetronic. An estimation over a PDS of an oil is fine. But so much of the rest!
What a poor thread.
Not you, Jetronic. An estimation over a PDS of an oil is fine. But so much of the rest!
Last edited:
