0W = "TRUE" synthetic

[dlafoy]

I read this quote from Pistonheads website based out of the UK.

"any oil with the 0w rating is going to be a full synthetic, mineral based oils cannot reach this low viscosity.

Hope this helps.

Cheers"

now I always thought this was true and this quote is coming from an employee at OPIEoils.

 

[MGregoir]

Shell Rotella 0w30 achieves that rating as a synthetic blend at least from the materials I have read, but in general it seems like without some synthetic base engine oil can't get to a sufficient cold pumpability at -35 Celsius to hit that rating.

 

[BarkerMan]

This kind of rule is too general. It's possible that it's correct but is not based on any kind of requirements or properties of engine oil.

 

[levi]

Shell Rotella 0w30 achieves that rating...

Is Shell Rotella 0w30 available in the States? Haven't seen this weight of Rotella.

 

[Titan]

Perhaps Pour Point Depressants can get a conventional oil to a 0w?

 

[MGregoir]

Originally Posted By: levi
Shell Rotella 0w30 achieves that rating...

Is Shell Rotella 0w30 available in the States? Haven't seen this weight of Rotella.

http://www.shell.com/static//ca-en/downloads/shell_for_businesses/oils_lubricants/1-15.pdf

It's listed on the US site but the link to the data sheet is broken, that's a link to the Canadian data sheet which should be the same.

 

[Kestas]

There is some misinterpretation by the folk at the Pitonheads web site. It's not that they can't make such an oil. The problem is that there is too much oil loss from vaporization when using regular 0W in an automotive engine. 0W must be synthetic to resist loss from vaporization at the elevated engine temperatures it sees. THAT'S why 0W oil must be synthetic.

 

[mechtech2]

Normally, any 0-X oil is very good,and almost certainly a synthetic.

 

[dlafoy]

so I would assume mobil 1 0w30 and 0w20 are mainly group IV and we already know Castrol (GC)0w30 is group IV.

 

[ConfederateTyrant]

I don't believe the 0w necessarily means that it is that low of a viscosity, it just means that it performed a certain way, under certain conditions of the cold crank simulator test.

It is still a physical 20/30/40/50/etc. weight, it just has a multi-viscosity rating of 0w because of it's rating in the cold crank test.

 

[Titan]

Originally Posted By: ConfederateTyrant
I don't believe the 0w necessarily means that it is that low of a viscosity, it just means that it performed a certain way, under certain conditions of the cold crank simulator test.

It is still a physical 20/30/40/50/etc. weight, it just has a multi-viscosity rating of 0w because of it's rating in the cold crank test.


OR, it is a 10 (or even 5, or perhaps 20) weight with Pour Point Depressants, so that it performs a certain way, under certain conditions in the cold. But at operating temperatures the viscosity index improvers allows it to have the relative viscosity of 20/30/40/50/etc., at that temperature.

 

[Vilan]

Canadian Tire has their house brand Motomaster oil in a 0W30 synthetic blend. No word on how much syn though.

 

[MGregoir]

0W means that it has a cold pumpability at -35 Celsius barely under the standard of 5W at -30 Celsius. It's not a viscosity rating, it's more a cold pumpability thing.

 

[LargeCarManX2]

That's why it's W = Winter or 0zero Weight Winter pump ability. It will be interesting to hear from some of the (no pun intended) heavy weights=professionals in the business types folks

 

[Drivebelt]

Quote:
"any oil with the 0w rating is going to be a full synthetic, mineral based oils cannot reach this low viscosity.


By full synthetic I imagine they're referring to Group IV/V based oils (Group III not being considered "full" synthetic). This is generally a true statement as 0W oils are most likely to be PAO (Group IV) based with some Esters (Group V). This is particularly true for European motor oils that want to meet A3/A5.

While one can blend a 0W with Group III's (or even Group II) one will have trouble meeting the NOACK specifications. One has to use thinner base oils with Group II/III compared to Group IV and NOACK goes up with the thinner base oils to the point where you can't meet the latest NOACK spec's.

It is possible that some 0W oils (in Europe) may contain some Group III blended with the PAO's, but I think it's reasonable to conclude that an A3/A5 rated 0W oil is "full" synthetic. A Group III 0W might just come under the wire for a NOACK of 15% (SM/GF-4) but it won't likely make the NOACK of 13% for A3/A5 without some up-blending of PAO's.

There are actually 0W oils here in North America that are synthetic-blends (Group II/III or II/PAO) and 0W synthetic Group III's. PC (Petro-Canada) has a synthetic-blend 0w30 (Duron XL HDEO) which is likely a Group II/III or II/PAO blend. From the data sheet it is spec'd SL (NOACK 22%) -- as it can't meet the 15% maximum NOACK for SM. Quaker State also has a 0w30 synthetic blend (in Canada) that is SL rated. Both these synthetic blends are probably just under the NOACK of 22%.

PC's 0w30 synthetic PCMO is SM/GF-4 and is most likely all or mostly Group III and they have a 0W-40 synthetic HDEO that is likely all or mostly Group III base oil too. The 0W-40 is advertised as using the… "same CJ-4/SM performance additives, CJ-4 technology" … as their other CJ-4 rated oils. (A bit of play on words here as it likely can't meet the CJ-4 NOACK of 13% so they promote it as similar).

 

[JAG]

Drivebelt gave a lot of good info as usual. What little I'll add is that the MB 229.5 spec has a 10% NOACK limit and making a 0W-40 that meets it is almost guaranteed to use only Group 4 and/or Group 5 base oils. There was a nifty graph by one of the motor oil companies showing this.

I know of one Group 3-based 5w30 meeting MB 229.5. It's a Lubromoly oil. I bet they decided that trying to make it a 0w30 instead of 5w30 was too costly using Group 3 as the core base oil. They do make a 0W-40 oil. It's a "Vollsynthese" oil, meaning full synthetic in the traditional (Groups 4 & 5) sense of the word.