10W30 Synthetic Quality vs. 5W30 ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
3,587
Location
GA.
Although synthetic 10W30 oils are not submitted for as many of the certifications as the more popular 5W30 synthetic oils - how close are the base oils and additives of the modern synthetic 10W30 oils (M1 , PPPP , QSFS , Valvoline Advanced , etc. ) versus the 5W30 synthetic sibling oils ? ... It would seem to me in order to save money many 10W30 synthetic formulations should have similar base oil and add packs as the 5W30 synthetic versions ?
 
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
2,811
Location
Seattle-ish, WA
...It would seem to me in order to save money many 10W30 synthetic formulations should have similar base oil and add packs as the 5W30 synthetic versions ?

That to me sounds very counter-intuitive. Stop and think a minute about what "5w" and "10w" actually mean.
 

SR5

Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
6,618
Location
Down Under
I certainly agree that the add pack could be similar, if not the exactly same. From comments previously made by oil formulators on the site, something like 0W20, 5W20, 5W30, 10W30, may be developed as a matrix solution, where one add pack is developed to work on all viscosity grades, so as to save on development costs.

Usually the most difficult viscosity grade is tested to pass, and once this grade passes, the read across rules allow the easier viscosity grades to pass without retesting. So saving on development costs. Also saving on supply chain costs, as only one add pack is need for all viscosity grades.

I'm no expert on read across rules, but if a particular add pack at a certain dose rate, allows a thin oil of a certain base type to pass a wear test (real lab test). Then the same add pack, at the same dose rate, in a thicker version of the same base oil type, has also passed the wear test (without the formal lab test). A read across pass for the wear test.

Obviously there are rules, of when this can and can't be done. With a wear test going thicker will always offer more protection, and so there is no risk in giving an untested pass, if everything else is kept the same. However with winter (W) cold cranking tests, going thicker will reduce CC, and so every grade will need to be individually tested.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 18, 2018
Messages
2,556
Location
south dakota
I would go with the 10W30. I do not know why there would be much of a price difference though. 10W30 will protect the top end better if the vehicle sits for a few days. It's just my opinion buy my Corvette likes 10W30 much better than 0W30 in the Mobil 1 package. No real proof other than my own experiences with this car. Try them both and see which one you feel works the best since all engines are different.
 

SR5

Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
6,618
Location
Down Under
Yep, I live in a warm climate, so a name brand synthetic like M1, Castrol Edge, Pennzoil Platinum, etc in 10W30 and with the most recent API SP and ILSAC GF-6A specs, will do me fine.

As a 10W30 grade you will have good shear stability and low Noack volatility. Win, win.
 

SR5

Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
6,618
Location
Down Under
This is for Mag-1 High Mileage semi-synthetic API SP oils, notice how for all viscosity grades, the add pack level for Boron, Moly, Zinc, Ash, TBN, etc are exactly the same values. Looks like it's matrix formulated to me.

But you don't always see this (their full synthetic isn't like this) and mostly you don't really know, as you rarely get such good published data from the manufacturer.

TYPICAL PROPERTIES​

Viscosity GradeSyn Blend HM 5W-20Syn Blend HM 5W-30Syn Blend HM 10W-30Syn Blend HM 10W-40
Boron, wt. %ASTM D51850.0070.0070.0070.007
Calcium, wt. %ASTM D51850.1190.1190.1190.119
Cold Cranking Simulator at (°C), cPASTM D52934825 (-30)5325 (-25)6200 (-25)6716 (-25)
ColorASTM D15002.52.52.53
Flash Point °CASTM D92220220220237
Flash Point °FASTM D92428428428459
Foam Seq. III (Tendency/Stability), mLASTM D892 (Opt. A)0/00/00/00/0
Foam Seq. II (Tendency/Stability), mLASTM D892 (Opt. A)0/00/00/00/0
Foam Seq. I (Tendency/Stability), mLASTM D892 (Opt. A)0/00/00/00/0
Gravity, °APIASTM D28733.9633.9831.3731.57
High Temperature Foaming, static foamASTM D6082 (Opt A)30/010/030/020/0
High Temperature / High Shear Vis at 150°C, cPASTM D54812.62.963.083.79
Magnesium, wt. %ASTM D51850.0380.0380.0380.038
Molybdenum, wt. %ASTM D51850.0040.0040.0040.004
Nitrogen, wt. %ASTM D46290.0810.0810.0810.081
Noack Volatility, % lossASTM D637510.310.99.59.5
Phosphorus, wt. %ASTM D51850.0640.0640.0640.064
Pour Point °C (°F)ASTM D5950-45°C (-49°F)-45°C (-49°F)-42°C (-44°F)-39°C (-38°F)
Pumping Viscosity at (°C), cPASTM D468414,000 (-35)17,300 (-30)18,200 (-30)23,500 (-30)
Shear Stability, Final Viscosity in cStASTM D62787.838.648.6411.73
Specific Gravity @ 60°F (15.6°C)ASTM D40520.85520.85510.86680.8670
Sulfated Ash, wt. %ASTM D8740.7120.7120.7120.712
Sulfur, wt. %ASTM D49510.2350.2350.2350.235
TBN, mgKOH/gASTM D28967.07.07.07.0
Viscosity @ 100°C cStASTM D4458.39510.2610.415.06
Viscosity @ 40°C cStASTM D44548.1361.2170.2102.7
Viscosity IndexASTM D2270151167134154
Zinc, wt. %ASTM D51850.070.070.070.07
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
3,364
Location
South Carolina
Although synthetic 10W30 oils are not submitted for as many of the certifications as the more popular 5W30 synthetic oils...

It would seem to me in order to save money many 10W30 synthetic formulations should have similar base oil and add packs as the 5W30 synthetic versions ?
Say what?

5w and 10w are the same price where I shop (WM)
 

SR5

Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
6,618
Location
Down Under
BTW you will never get a Dexos approved 10W30, as it's not an allowed viscosity grades under the rules. Which is a shame, but I'm sure it's so someone in Alaska doesn't grab the wrong grade in winter. I'm pretty sure GM wants people to see Dexos1 and just know it will work anywhere anytime and not have to think further. It's to help the average customer.
 
Joined
May 15, 2012
Messages
5,683
Location
The land of USA-made Subies!
In the summer I’d run 10w30 anywhere, in the winter I’d run it anywhere it stays above 0*F, especially if garaged. Very generally speaking, the 10w30 will have at least a 40% lower Noack, sometimes it’s even like half (IIRC PP 5w30 is nearly 10%, PP 10w30 is around 5%) and at operating temps the oils are identical viscosity (same product line).
 

ChrisD46

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
3,587
Location
GA.
I certainly agree that the add pack could be similar, if not the exactly same. From comments previously made by oil formulators on the site, something like 0W20, 5W20, 5W30, 10W30, may be developed as a matrix solution, where one add pack is developed to work on all viscosity grades, so as to save on development costs.

Usually the most difficult viscosity grade is tested to pass, and once this grade passes, the read across rules allow the easier viscosity grades to pass without retesting. So saving on development costs. Also saving on supply chain costs, as only one add pack is need for all viscosity grades.

I'm no expert on read across rules, but if a particular add pack at a certain dose rate, allows a thin oil of a certain base type to pass a wear test (real lab test). Then the same add pack, at the same dose rate, in a thicker version of the same base oil type, has also passed the wear test (without the formal lab test). A read across pass for the wear test.

Obviously there are rules, of when this can and can't be done. With a wear test going thicker will always offer more protection, and so there is no risk in giving an untested pass, if everything else is kept the same. However with winter (W) cold cranking tests, going thicker will reduce CC, and so every grade will need to be individually tested.
*I agree with your train of thought - this is the sort of hypothesis that would seem to make sense for 10W30 synthetic oils as well as how oil companies may choose to develop and handle their supply chain logistics for 10W30 oils.
 

ChrisD46

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
3,587
Location
GA.
This is for Mag-1 High Mileage semi-synthetic API SP oils, notice how for all viscosity grades, the add pack level for Boron, Moly, Zinc, Ash, TBN, etc are exactly the same values. Looks like it's matrix formulated to me.

But you don't always see this (their full synthetic isn't like this) and mostly you don't really know, as you rarely get such good published data from the manufacturer.

TYPICAL PROPERTIES​

Viscosity GradeSyn Blend HM 5W-20Syn Blend HM 5W-30Syn Blend HM 10W-30Syn Blend HM 10W-40
Boron, wt. %ASTM D51850.0070.0070.0070.007
Calcium, wt. %ASTM D51850.1190.1190.1190.119
Cold Cranking Simulator at (°C), cPASTM D52934825 (-30)5325 (-25)6200 (-25)6716 (-25)
ColorASTM D15002.52.52.53
Flash Point °CASTM D92220220220237
Flash Point °FASTM D92428428428459
Foam Seq. III (Tendency/Stability), mLASTM D892 (Opt. A)0/00/00/00/0
Foam Seq. II (Tendency/Stability), mLASTM D892 (Opt. A)0/00/00/00/0
Foam Seq. I (Tendency/Stability), mLASTM D892 (Opt. A)0/00/00/00/0
Gravity, °APIASTM D28733.9633.9831.3731.57
High Temperature Foaming, static foamASTM D6082 (Opt A)30/010/030/020/0
High Temperature / High Shear Vis at 150°C, cPASTM D54812.62.963.083.79
Magnesium, wt. %ASTM D51850.0380.0380.0380.038
Molybdenum, wt. %ASTM D51850.0040.0040.0040.004
Nitrogen, wt. %ASTM D46290.0810.0810.0810.081
Noack Volatility, % lossASTM D637510.310.99.59.5
Phosphorus, wt. %ASTM D51850.0640.0640.0640.064
Pour Point °C (°F)ASTM D5950-45°C (-49°F)-45°C (-49°F)-42°C (-44°F)-39°C (-38°F)
Pumping Viscosity at (°C), cPASTM D468414,000 (-35)17,300 (-30)18,200 (-30)23,500 (-30)
Shear Stability, Final Viscosity in cStASTM D62787.838.648.6411.73
Specific Gravity @ 60°F (15.6°C)ASTM D40520.85520.85510.86680.8670
Sulfated Ash, wt. %ASTM D8740.7120.7120.7120.712
Sulfur, wt. %ASTM D49510.2350.2350.2350.235
TBN, mgKOH/gASTM D28967.07.07.07.0
Viscosity @ 100°C cStASTM D4458.39510.2610.415.06
Viscosity @ 40°C cStASTM D44548.1361.2170.2102.7
Viscosity IndexASTM D2270151167134154
Zinc, wt. %ASTM D51850.070.070.070.07
*Matrix formulations would make sense on a few different levels : ROI , logistics , development costs , etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SR5
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
4,818
Location
Nashville, TN via Memphis
10W-30 has been my choice for the last few years because I like the lower VM/VII content, thicker base oil, and lower Noack. And I’m in Tennessee, so it very rarely gets cold enough to stretch the cold pumping ability of a 10W.

But lately I’ve seen a lot of posts about 0W-30 oils being formutated with better quality base oils.

I’m just wondering which will have the best ultimate performance under demanding applications such as heavy use in TGDI engines.

Currently I don’t own any such engines. Just 2 Toyota 4.0’s that couldn’t care less what I pour into the crankcases. But it’s still interesting to think about.

My personal preference in an oil is for one that has low VM/VII, a heavy base oil, and low volatility.
 
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
7,302
Location
Caldwell Idaho
All things equal a straight viscosity oil would be better than a multi visc oil but then there is winter and would it matter because statistically most vehicles engines outlast everything else on the vehicle?
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2015
Messages
23,074
Location
In the shop
All things equal a straight viscosity oil would be better than a multi visc oil but then there is winter and would it matter because statistically most vehicles engines outlast everything else on the vehicle?


A 10w30 would be fine. I ran QSGB 10w30 in a 97’ Bonneville for years without issues. I’m in PA also
 
  • Like
Reactions: wlk
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
1,404
10W-30 has been my choice for the last few years because I like the lower VM/VII content, thicker base oil, and lower Noack. And I’m in Tennessee, so it very rarely gets cold enough to stretch the cold pumping ability of a 10W.

But lately I’ve seen a lot of posts about 0W-30 oils being formutated with better quality base oils.

I’m just wondering which will have the best ultimate performance under demanding applications such as heavy use in TGDI engines.

Currently I don’t own any such engines. Just 2 Toyota 4.0’s that couldn’t care less what I pour into the crankcases. But it’s still interesting to think about.

My personal preference in an oil is for one that has low VM/VII, a heavy base oil, and low volatility.
Hey John -- you've stated a great case for 10W-30 usage in your engines. This has been a great thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top