Do you have a demonstrated problem with mechanical shearing in your engine(s)?
There is no way with a conventional base oil, as SAE 30 has KV100 ~ 10 cSt. However, it is possible with a PAO/ester base oil. Amsoil used to have a PAO/ester-based SAE 30/SAE 10W-30 oil without VII, which has been discontinued.I've noticed that most tractor supply stores sell 15W30 at a good price around here. I am curious what kind of base is used in this type of oil. Is it possible to make such an oil without using any VII using a group II base? Is it a "modern SAE30"? Here's some date about the most common one, Elf Agritec FE 15W30:
Supposed to provide the best shear resistance according to them.
International standards ACEA E7 API CI-4/SL Manufacturer approvals ✓ Cummins CES 20078
✓ Deutz DQC III-10
✓ MB-Approval 228.3Meets ✓ Caterpillar ECF-2/ECF-1-a
✓ Case MS 1121
✓ CNH MAT 3507
✓ Cummins CES 20077/20076
✓ New Holland NH 324H
ELF AGRITEC FE 15W-30 Unit Test method Result Density at 15°C kg/m3 ASTM D1298 883 Viscosity at 40°C mm2/s ASTM D445 91 Viscosity at 100°C mm2/s ASTM D445 12.5 Viscosity index - ASTM D2270 133 Pour point °C ASTM D97 -30 T.B.N mgKOH/g ASTM D2896 10 Sulphated ash % m/m ASTM D874 1.5
If you go by this info alone Valvoline has got the most well rounded product vs mobil & ShellI put it in my calculator. If I assume HTHS = 3.7 cP, I get base-oil VI = 113, which is a cheap Group II or perhaps Group I. This gives a VII content of 3.6%.
If I assume a lower HTHS (minimum is 3.5 cP), VII content increases and the base-oil VI decreases.
Estimated base-oil viscosity (HTFS) and VII content of selected oils
Their SN formulations were very robust, but the formulations changed with SP, prioritizing fuel economy over robustness or perhaps employing new oil blenders.If you go by this info alone Valvoline has got the most well rounded product vs mobil & Shell
I'm taking a look at a few SAE30, a Fuchs with a VI of 129 and a Motul with a VI of 112 however the ratings scare me a bit, API SF, SG and SJ... Looks like we're far from a modern add pack. Some of them have a TBN over 7 however.
There is no phosphorus limits on monogrades, 15W30, Xw40, Xw50, and Xw60.Could be the target market doesn't use emissions aftertreatment and desires high ZDDP so phosphorus is to high for anything post SJ.
There is no phosphorus limits on monogrades, 15W30, Xw40, Xw50, and Xw60.
That's only if they are dual rated, if an oil claims both a C rating and a S rating it must conform the the resource conserving S-rating limits, however mono grades, Xw40, Xw50, and Xw60, if they only claim an S rating don't have any limit.They don't alllow the high phosphorus on dual rated 15W-40 anymore. I may be mistaken on the other grades.
That's only if they are dual rated, if an oil claims both a C rating and a S rating it must conform the the resource conserving S-rating limits, however mono grades, Xw40, Xw50, and Xw60, if they only claim an S rating don't have any limit.
Go to page 121 in the 1509 doccument and look down the columns, Xw40 would be in the "all other grades" column which has no limit on max phosphorus while any oil claiming API SP Resource Conserving or are non resource conserving but of the viscosity grades "SAE 0W-16, SAE 5W-16, SAE 0W-20, SAE 5W-20, SAE 0W-30, SAE 5W-30, SAE 10W-30" have a 0.8% limit by weight of phosphorous. I guess techincally a dual rated oil could continue to exceed the S rating limit upto the C rating limit if it only claims CJ-4 or older, but if CK-4 or FA-4 is claimed then the API SP Resource conserving limit applies, although I'm not sure why they bothered specifying FA-4 in the sub note, as FA-4 automatically would have to meet the limit since all FA-4 oils are 0W-30, 5W-30, or 10W-30.An xW-40 has to conform to the same S limits as the ILSAC Grades. It doesn't matter if it has a C rating. Again I may have misunderstood on the other grades as I was researching xW-40 specifically.
Go to page 121 in the 1509 doccument and look down the columns, Xw40 would be in the "all other grades" column which has no limit on max phosphorus while any oil claiming API SP Resource Conserving or are non resource conserving but of the viscosity grades "SAE 0W-16, SAE 5W-16, SAE 0W-20, SAE 5W-20, SAE 0W-30, SAE 5W-30, SAE 10W-30" have a 0.8% limit by weight of phosphorous. I guess techincally a dual rated oil could continue to exceed the S rating limit upto the C rating limit if it only claims CJ-4 or older, but if CK-4 or FA-4 is claimed then the API SP Resource conserving limit applies, although I'm not sure why they bothered specifying FA-4 in the sub note, as FA-4 automatically would have to meet the limit since all FA-4 oils are 0W-30, 5W-30, or 10W-30.
According to 115 of that document the "S" phosphorus limit doesn't apply to any grade if it doesn't contain the "API Certification Mark" (Startburst) and the C rating precedes the S Rating on the label.
All of this is in direct contradiction to the information I had received previously that as of May 1, 2020 all S rated oils would have to meet the lower phosphorus limit whether an ILSAC grade or not.
An xW-40 has to conform to the same S limits as the ILSAC Grades. It doesn't matter if it has a C rating. Again I may have misunderstood on the other grades as I was researching xW-40 specifically.