Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
Doesn't meet it yet. Keep in-mind that the changes of formulations are still in process. Not all are complete yet and bottling label changes will keep coming this summer.
2007 Chrysler 4.0L SOHC engine - why 10w-30 req'd?
- Thread starter 92saturnsl2
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
Doesn't meet it yet. Keep in-mind that the changes of formulations are still in process. Not all are complete yet and bottling label changes will keep coming this summer.
The Dexos1 Gen2 specifications were released in 2015 and Pennzoil has had plenty of time to reformulate Ultra Platinum. The fact that they haven't suggests that Ultra Platinum may well disappear from the product lineup after existing supplies are used up.
Doesn't meet it yet. Keep in-mind that the changes of formulations are still in process. Not all are complete yet and bottling label changes will keep coming this summer.
The Dexos1 Gen2 specifications were released in 2015 and Pennzoil has had plenty of time to reformulate Ultra Platinum. The fact that they haven't suggests that Ultra Platinum may well disappear from the product lineup after existing supplies are used up.
Ive used 10w30 pretty much exclusively for my life (36year old). Back in my teens and twenties (pre BITOG) I would see the 5w30 oil cap and laugh. I thought it was like what some folks these days think of Cal's prop 65 warnings.
Many of my vehicles have been 10w30 if 5w30 is not available. And since we never get close to zero, 10w30 is fine per the OM. Ive kind of always felt 10w was just stronger than 5w and it came to be I was correct. But now with synthetics changing the game and higher quality oil (and knowledge from here) I have began to try a 5w30 Full Synthetic for my next OC. Normally my dino chart goes like this.
5w-20
10w-30
15w-40
20w-50
These grades just make sense.
0w-20
5w30
10w-40
15w-50
These should all have good synthetic to help cover the spread.
I care not for those weird oils like 0w-40 or 5w-50. I think you lose alot when going with those.
Also, I would probably run SAE 30 if the manual allowed them. Of course you northerners couldnt, but I feel there is more OIL in these oils that can do a better job. The more change in the two numbers I equate with using new fangled doo dads to be on the cutting edge of technology.
Be careful discounting old timer's tried and true tested ways of generations versus the latest and greatest that works like a fly by night operation.
Many of my vehicles have been 10w30 if 5w30 is not available. And since we never get close to zero, 10w30 is fine per the OM. Ive kind of always felt 10w was just stronger than 5w and it came to be I was correct. But now with synthetics changing the game and higher quality oil (and knowledge from here) I have began to try a 5w30 Full Synthetic for my next OC. Normally my dino chart goes like this.
5w-20
10w-30
15w-40
20w-50
These grades just make sense.
0w-20
5w30
10w-40
15w-50
These should all have good synthetic to help cover the spread.
I care not for those weird oils like 0w-40 or 5w-50. I think you lose alot when going with those.
Also, I would probably run SAE 30 if the manual allowed them. Of course you northerners couldnt, but I feel there is more OIL in these oils that can do a better job. The more change in the two numbers I equate with using new fangled doo dads to be on the cutting edge of technology.
Be careful discounting old timer's tried and true tested ways of generations versus the latest and greatest that works like a fly by night operation.
4wd
$50 site donor 2026
Originally Posted By: 92saturnsl2
I was perusing the owners manual for our new-to-us 2007 Chrysler Pacifica w/ 4.0L engine and came across the oil section. Strangely, the recommended viscosity is 10w30, and they suggest using 5w30 ONLY in cold weather. The manual covers two different engine models, and its suggested viscosity for the old pushrod 3.8L for that year is 5w-20 in all conditions. I thought the 5w-20 was required for all late-model Chrysler vehicles. What gives?
I know the 4.0L SOHC is a descendant of the Chrysler 3.5L. Does anyone recall if the 3.5L had a 10w30 requirement?
FWIW, I plan on using Pennzoil Ultra Platinum 0w-40 (a light 40 weight, branded for Chrysler SRT vehicles) that I got on clearance a year or two ago. It should be appropriate for this application. Any suggestions on O/C interval?
My son has a 2007 300 with a Pentastar … we passed it on after the 100k services and it’s got double that in miles now.
Nothing has been in it but 10w30 ... mostly M1 … a couple runs of Quaker State Ultimate Durability … now has some Delo 10w30 … runs good.
I was perusing the owners manual for our new-to-us 2007 Chrysler Pacifica w/ 4.0L engine and came across the oil section. Strangely, the recommended viscosity is 10w30, and they suggest using 5w30 ONLY in cold weather. The manual covers two different engine models, and its suggested viscosity for the old pushrod 3.8L for that year is 5w-20 in all conditions. I thought the 5w-20 was required for all late-model Chrysler vehicles. What gives?
I know the 4.0L SOHC is a descendant of the Chrysler 3.5L. Does anyone recall if the 3.5L had a 10w30 requirement?
FWIW, I plan on using Pennzoil Ultra Platinum 0w-40 (a light 40 weight, branded for Chrysler SRT vehicles) that I got on clearance a year or two ago. It should be appropriate for this application. Any suggestions on O/C interval?
My son has a 2007 300 with a Pentastar … we passed it on after the 100k services and it’s got double that in miles now.
Nothing has been in it but 10w30 ... mostly M1 … a couple runs of Quaker State Ultimate Durability … now has some Delo 10w30 … runs good.
Originally Posted By: turnbowm
Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
Doesn't meet it yet. Keep in-mind that the changes of formulations are still in process. Not all are complete yet and bottling label changes will keep coming this summer.
The Dexos1 Gen2 specifications were released in 2015 and Pennzoil has had plenty of time to reformulate Ultra Platinum. The fact that they haven't suggests that Ultra Platinum may well disappear from the product lineup after existing supplies are used up.
My understanding is that PPPP and Pennzoil Ultra Platinum PurePlus have the same base stocks (Shell Qatar Pearl GTL), the only difference being the relative fractions of the two different viscosities mixed, with the Ultra having a thinner base-oil mix and therefore requiring more VII and having an inferior NOACK volatility. Also, Pennzoil Ultra Platinum PurePlus had some boron additive for extra cleaning -- its main strength over PPPP.
With the dexos1 Gen 2, PPPP has boron now as well. They may just get rid of Pennzoil Ultra Platinum PurePlus now or perhaps reintroduce it with a different formulation when GF-6 becomes available. It's unusual to claim an oil is superior if it's made from the same base stocks. For example we know Mobil 1's base stocks improve when you move from Mobil 1 (mostly Group III with some PAO) to Mobil 1 Extended Performance (mostly Group III with more PAO) to Mobil 1 Annual Protection (mostly GTL with some PAO and little Group III if any). You get what you pay for. This is not the case with PPPP vs. Pennzoil Ultra Platinum PurePlus.
Back to 10w30 now.
Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
Doesn't meet it yet. Keep in-mind that the changes of formulations are still in process. Not all are complete yet and bottling label changes will keep coming this summer.
The Dexos1 Gen2 specifications were released in 2015 and Pennzoil has had plenty of time to reformulate Ultra Platinum. The fact that they haven't suggests that Ultra Platinum may well disappear from the product lineup after existing supplies are used up.
My understanding is that PPPP and Pennzoil Ultra Platinum PurePlus have the same base stocks (Shell Qatar Pearl GTL), the only difference being the relative fractions of the two different viscosities mixed, with the Ultra having a thinner base-oil mix and therefore requiring more VII and having an inferior NOACK volatility. Also, Pennzoil Ultra Platinum PurePlus had some boron additive for extra cleaning -- its main strength over PPPP.
With the dexos1 Gen 2, PPPP has boron now as well. They may just get rid of Pennzoil Ultra Platinum PurePlus now or perhaps reintroduce it with a different formulation when GF-6 becomes available. It's unusual to claim an oil is superior if it's made from the same base stocks. For example we know Mobil 1's base stocks improve when you move from Mobil 1 (mostly Group III with some PAO) to Mobil 1 Extended Performance (mostly Group III with more PAO) to Mobil 1 Annual Protection (mostly GTL with some PAO and little Group III if any). You get what you pay for. This is not the case with PPPP vs. Pennzoil Ultra Platinum PurePlus.
Back to 10w30 now.
NEVER use thinner oil than recommended.
10w-30 is by far the BEST multi viscosity
oil to use if you can.
It has excellent low temp flow yet excellent protection
at high temps.
And it uses less viscosity improvers (ground up rubber)
so it is in fact a better lubricant.
10w-30 is by far the BEST multi viscosity
oil to use if you can.
It has excellent low temp flow yet excellent protection
at high temps.
And it uses less viscosity improvers (ground up rubber)
so it is in fact a better lubricant.
Originally Posted By: ENGINEER60
NEVER use thinner oil than recommended.
10w-30 is by far the BEST multi viscosity
oil to use if you can.
It has excellent low temp flow yet excellent protection
at high temps.
And it uses less viscosity improvers (ground up rubber)
so it is in fact a better lubricant.
Fly swatter time. This is all bull hockey.
NEVER use thinner oil than recommended.
10w-30 is by far the BEST multi viscosity
oil to use if you can.
It has excellent low temp flow yet excellent protection
at high temps.
And it uses less viscosity improvers (ground up rubber)
so it is in fact a better lubricant.
Fly swatter time. This is all bull hockey.
Quote:
If you want the highest wear protection, consider the thickest base oil you can afford in your climate. Base-oil thickness is given by the x in xW-y. a 15w40 has a thicker base oil than a 10W-40; a 10W-40 has a thicker base oil than a 5W-40, and a 5W-40 has a thicker base oil than a 0W-40. Therefore, you would experience the lowest operational viscosity in the valvetrain and timing chain with a 0W-40.
Quote:
Regarding conventional vs. synthetic, the same rules still apply. Don't count on replacing a conventional 10w30 recommendation with a synthetic 5w30. Even a synthetic 5w30 is made of a substantially thinner base oil and a lot of VII; so, it still runs thinner than a conventional 10w30 in the high-shear parts of the engine. Besides these days the line between conventional and synthetic is highly blurred.
While I too prefer a "thicker base oil" as you say, given suitable cold starting properties. I am not convinced it is as simple as you say once you start comparing different oil groups. As you go up in oil group, you can expect a better natural viscosity index so less VII is required, and they have better cold flow properties so less PPD are required.
A good example is Castrol Edge 5W40 Vs Castrol Edge 0W40. Both are SN, A3/B4, BMW LL-01 and Porsche A40. But only the Edge 0W40 carries MB 229.5, because the 0W40 is Group IV PAO based and has a Noack volatility below 10% (as required by MB 229.5) while the Edge 5W40 is Group III based and has a higher Noack that is above 10%. In this case I believe the 0W40 is the superior product.
In general, comparing like with like then I agree with you, but once you are comparing products formulated on different bases, then I don't believe it's so simple.
If you want the highest wear protection, consider the thickest base oil you can afford in your climate. Base-oil thickness is given by the x in xW-y. a 15w40 has a thicker base oil than a 10W-40; a 10W-40 has a thicker base oil than a 5W-40, and a 5W-40 has a thicker base oil than a 0W-40. Therefore, you would experience the lowest operational viscosity in the valvetrain and timing chain with a 0W-40.
Quote:
Regarding conventional vs. synthetic, the same rules still apply. Don't count on replacing a conventional 10w30 recommendation with a synthetic 5w30. Even a synthetic 5w30 is made of a substantially thinner base oil and a lot of VII; so, it still runs thinner than a conventional 10w30 in the high-shear parts of the engine. Besides these days the line between conventional and synthetic is highly blurred.
While I too prefer a "thicker base oil" as you say, given suitable cold starting properties. I am not convinced it is as simple as you say once you start comparing different oil groups. As you go up in oil group, you can expect a better natural viscosity index so less VII is required, and they have better cold flow properties so less PPD are required.
A good example is Castrol Edge 5W40 Vs Castrol Edge 0W40. Both are SN, A3/B4, BMW LL-01 and Porsche A40. But only the Edge 0W40 carries MB 229.5, because the 0W40 is Group IV PAO based and has a Noack volatility below 10% (as required by MB 229.5) while the Edge 5W40 is Group III based and has a higher Noack that is above 10%. In this case I believe the 0W40 is the superior product.
In general, comparing like with like then I agree with you, but once you are comparing products formulated on different bases, then I don't believe it's so simple.
Originally Posted By: SR5
While I too prefer a "thicker base oil" as you say, given suitable cold starting properties. I am not convinced it is as simple as you say once you start comparing different oil groups. As you go up in oil group, you can expect a better natural viscosity index so less VII is required, and they have better cold flow properties so less PPD are required.
A good example is Castrol Edge 5W40 Vs Castrol Edge 0W40. Both are SN, A3/B4, BMW LL-01 and Porsche A40. But only the Edge 0W40 carries MB 229.5, because the 0W40 is Group IV PAO based and has a Noack volatility below 10% (as required by MB 229.5) while the Edge 5W40 is Group III based and has a higher Noack that is above 10%. In this case I believe the 0W40 is the superior product.
In general, comparing like with like then I agree with you, but once you are comparing products formulated on different bases, then I don't believe it's so simple.
I agree that synthetic will probably have a thicker base oil than a conventional for a given SAE viscosity at the normal operating temperature. NOACK alone doesn't tell you much about viscosity though. Nevertheless, since most of us use synthetic to begin with, it's a moot discussion and you would still be better off with a 10w30 synthetic instead of a 5w30 synthetic in terms of the protection provided by the base-oil viscosity in the high-shear parts of the engine.
While I too prefer a "thicker base oil" as you say, given suitable cold starting properties. I am not convinced it is as simple as you say once you start comparing different oil groups. As you go up in oil group, you can expect a better natural viscosity index so less VII is required, and they have better cold flow properties so less PPD are required.
A good example is Castrol Edge 5W40 Vs Castrol Edge 0W40. Both are SN, A3/B4, BMW LL-01 and Porsche A40. But only the Edge 0W40 carries MB 229.5, because the 0W40 is Group IV PAO based and has a Noack volatility below 10% (as required by MB 229.5) while the Edge 5W40 is Group III based and has a higher Noack that is above 10%. In this case I believe the 0W40 is the superior product.
In general, comparing like with like then I agree with you, but once you are comparing products formulated on different bases, then I don't believe it's so simple.
I agree that synthetic will probably have a thicker base oil than a conventional for a given SAE viscosity at the normal operating temperature. NOACK alone doesn't tell you much about viscosity though. Nevertheless, since most of us use synthetic to begin with, it's a moot discussion and you would still be better off with a 10w30 synthetic instead of a 5w30 synthetic in terms of the protection provided by the base-oil viscosity in the high-shear parts of the engine.
Originally Posted By: ENGINEER60
And it uses less viscosity improvers (ground up rubber)
so it is in fact a better lubricant.
This is actually right on. Most viscosity-index improvers (VII's) are in fact ground rubber, such as ground EPDM rubber, ground butyl rubber, etc.
https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/epdm-viscosity-index-improver.html
"• Must grind, chop, or cut rubber into blocks for addition to hot oil"
http://utsrus.com/documents/news/dsm_customer_presentation_sept_09.pdf
And it uses less viscosity improvers (ground up rubber)
so it is in fact a better lubricant.
This is actually right on. Most viscosity-index improvers (VII's) are in fact ground rubber, such as ground EPDM rubber, ground butyl rubber, etc.
https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/epdm-viscosity-index-improver.html
"• Must grind, chop, or cut rubber into blocks for addition to hot oil"
http://utsrus.com/documents/news/dsm_customer_presentation_sept_09.pdf
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
I agree that synthetic will probably have a thicker base oil than a conventional for a given SAE viscosity at the normal operating temperature. NOACK alone doesn't tell you much about viscosity though. Nevertheless, since most of us use synthetic to begin with, it's a moot discussion and you would still be better off with a 10w30 synthetic instead of a 5w30 synthetic in terms of the protection provided by the base-oil viscosity in the high-shear parts of the engine.
Sorry but I don't think it's a "moot discussion", rather I think it is exactly the point.
Remember the OP asked:
Quote:
I was perusing the owners manual for our new-to-us 2007 Chrysler Pacifica w/ 4.0L engine and came across the oil section. Strangely, the recommended viscosity is 10w30, and they suggest using 5w30 ONLY in cold weather.
My view is the owners manual was written on the assumption that some (maybe many) owners would not use synthetic oil, but rather they would use a conventional oil. In which case, as per your argument above, then 10W30 holds many advantages over a 5W30 mineral. However I still stand by my statement that a 5W30 synthetic will be fine in the OP's application as it contains less VII and less PPD than a 5W30 mineral.
I'm not worried about you or me, I'm more concerned for the general reader for which the statement "since most of us use synthetic to begin with" may not be true.
I should also point out that I can get two synthetic oils in Australia from the same manufacturer. One is a 10W30 ILSAC GF-5 oil, and the other is a 5W30 Euro A3/B4 oil. Not only is the 5W30 thicker at 100C it is also thicker at 40C. The 5W30 passes BMW LL-01 and MB 229.5, while the 10W30 does not. I know which one I would be using for heavy duty or performance applications.
As you know, but maybe not every reader, the 5W or 10W etc is not a viscosity or weight but rather a Winter rating and it reflects it's ability to pass a cold cranking test and a cold pumping test. Sure one way to pass is to have a thin base oil thickened with VII, but another way is to use a better quality base oil (higher group) with a better natural VI which requires less VII.
I agree that synthetic will probably have a thicker base oil than a conventional for a given SAE viscosity at the normal operating temperature. NOACK alone doesn't tell you much about viscosity though. Nevertheless, since most of us use synthetic to begin with, it's a moot discussion and you would still be better off with a 10w30 synthetic instead of a 5w30 synthetic in terms of the protection provided by the base-oil viscosity in the high-shear parts of the engine.
Sorry but I don't think it's a "moot discussion", rather I think it is exactly the point.
Remember the OP asked:
Quote:
I was perusing the owners manual for our new-to-us 2007 Chrysler Pacifica w/ 4.0L engine and came across the oil section. Strangely, the recommended viscosity is 10w30, and they suggest using 5w30 ONLY in cold weather.
My view is the owners manual was written on the assumption that some (maybe many) owners would not use synthetic oil, but rather they would use a conventional oil. In which case, as per your argument above, then 10W30 holds many advantages over a 5W30 mineral. However I still stand by my statement that a 5W30 synthetic will be fine in the OP's application as it contains less VII and less PPD than a 5W30 mineral.
I'm not worried about you or me, I'm more concerned for the general reader for which the statement "since most of us use synthetic to begin with" may not be true.
I should also point out that I can get two synthetic oils in Australia from the same manufacturer. One is a 10W30 ILSAC GF-5 oil, and the other is a 5W30 Euro A3/B4 oil. Not only is the 5W30 thicker at 100C it is also thicker at 40C. The 5W30 passes BMW LL-01 and MB 229.5, while the 10W30 does not. I know which one I would be using for heavy duty or performance applications.
As you know, but maybe not every reader, the 5W or 10W etc is not a viscosity or weight but rather a Winter rating and it reflects it's ability to pass a cold cranking test and a cold pumping test. Sure one way to pass is to have a thin base oil thickened with VII, but another way is to use a better quality base oil (higher group) with a better natural VI which requires less VII.
"Synthetic" is not a specification or certification. SAE 5W or 10W is. Remember that API clearly states that synthetic is a marketing term, not a technical term. Your mileage will greatly vary according to the brand and product line.
As I said before, I wouldn't count on a 5w30 to act like a 10w30 when hot just because it's synthetic. Why assume things without real data? You can go to the Mobil 1 recommendation site and they never recommend 5w30 or 0w30 if the manual says 10w30.
Here is an interesting 5w30 and 10w30 used oil analysis comparison using the same Pennzoil conventional oil with identical add pack. Look at the iron numbers (valvetrain wear). I've seen people comparing Pennzoil Conventional to Pennzoil Platinum 5w30 and the improvement in iron with synthetic is very small.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/u...6885/Jeep_4.0_Pennzoil conventional_10w30_UOA
As I said before, I wouldn't count on a 5w30 to act like a 10w30 when hot just because it's synthetic. Why assume things without real data? You can go to the Mobil 1 recommendation site and they never recommend 5w30 or 0w30 if the manual says 10w30.
Here is an interesting 5w30 and 10w30 used oil analysis comparison using the same Pennzoil conventional oil with identical add pack. Look at the iron numbers (valvetrain wear). I've seen people comparing Pennzoil Conventional to Pennzoil Platinum 5w30 and the improvement in iron with synthetic is very small.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/u...6885/Jeep_4.0_Pennzoil conventional_10w30_UOA
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Nevertheless, since most of us use synthetic to begin with, it's a moot discussion and you would still be better off with a 10w30 synthetic instead of a 5w30 synthetic in terms of the protection provided by the base-oil viscosity in the high-shear parts of the engine.
HTHS == High Temperature, High Shear viscosity
That tells the story of how the oil will perform in HTHS environments inside the engine.
Your claims that 5w30 will not perform as well as 10w30 in HTHS lubrication regimes is a nice theoretical argument, yet any oil maker solves this problem by making sure the HTHS is at the right value:
Mobil1 10w30: HTHS viscosity, mPa•s @ 150ºC (ASTM D4683) 3.0
Mobil1 5w30: HTHS Viscosity, mPa•s @ 150ºC (ASTM D4683) 3.1
Mobil1 0w30: HTHS Viscosity, mPa•s @ 150ºC (ASTM D4683) 3.0
So don't fear 5w30, or 0w30 for that matter. Just the truth here.
A potential problem is the permanent HTHS loss over time, a real concern. Not the temporary shear in newer oil. That is one area where the oil meets dexos1 or whatever spec its qualified for, including permanent HTHS loss over time, and overall wear control, so even its not the practical problem some fear mongers would say it is.
As I said before, Chrysler was concerned years ago that someone might use non-synthetic oil with poor HTHS, so that's why they recommended 10w30. If using a dexos1 full-syn ZEROw30 or 5w30, don't be concerned about using a 10w30, as it only applies to poorer, older, conventional oils.
Nevertheless, since most of us use synthetic to begin with, it's a moot discussion and you would still be better off with a 10w30 synthetic instead of a 5w30 synthetic in terms of the protection provided by the base-oil viscosity in the high-shear parts of the engine.
HTHS == High Temperature, High Shear viscosity
That tells the story of how the oil will perform in HTHS environments inside the engine.
Your claims that 5w30 will not perform as well as 10w30 in HTHS lubrication regimes is a nice theoretical argument, yet any oil maker solves this problem by making sure the HTHS is at the right value:
Mobil1 10w30: HTHS viscosity, mPa•s @ 150ºC (ASTM D4683) 3.0
Mobil1 5w30: HTHS Viscosity, mPa•s @ 150ºC (ASTM D4683) 3.1
Mobil1 0w30: HTHS Viscosity, mPa•s @ 150ºC (ASTM D4683) 3.0
So don't fear 5w30, or 0w30 for that matter. Just the truth here.
A potential problem is the permanent HTHS loss over time, a real concern. Not the temporary shear in newer oil. That is one area where the oil meets dexos1 or whatever spec its qualified for, including permanent HTHS loss over time, and overall wear control, so even its not the practical problem some fear mongers would say it is.
As I said before, Chrysler was concerned years ago that someone might use non-synthetic oil with poor HTHS, so that's why they recommended 10w30. If using a dexos1 full-syn ZEROw30 or 5w30, don't be concerned about using a 10w30, as it only applies to poorer, older, conventional oils.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Your claims that 5w30 will not perform as well as 10w30 in HTHS lubrication regimes is a nice theoretical argument, yet any oil maker solves this problem by making sure the HTHS is at the right value:
No, you missed the whole point. They measure and report the HTHSV only at the shear rate of 1,000,000 1/second. Especially in the valvetrain and timing chain, the shear rate can be as high as 1,000,000,000 1/second. This can further temporarily shear the VII and reduce the HTHSV dramatically.
See my post.
Your claims that 5w30 will not perform as well as 10w30 in HTHS lubrication regimes is a nice theoretical argument, yet any oil maker solves this problem by making sure the HTHS is at the right value:
No, you missed the whole point. They measure and report the HTHSV only at the shear rate of 1,000,000 1/second. Especially in the valvetrain and timing chain, the shear rate can be as high as 1,000,000,000 1/second. This can further temporarily shear the VII and reduce the HTHSV dramatically.
See my post.
Originally Posted By: SR5
I should also point out that I can get two synthetic oils in Australia from the same manufacturer. One is a 10W30 ILSAC GF-5 oil, and the other is a 5W30 Euro A3/B4 oil. Not only is the 5W30 thicker at 100C it is also thicker at 40C. The 5W30 passes BMW LL-01 and MB 229.5, while the 10W30 does not. I know which one I would be using for heavy duty or performance applications.
I agree that a very high-quality synthetic 5w30 with strict OEM certifications and a very low NOACK will probably have a thicker base oil than a so - so conventional 10w30.
Nevertheless, even in that case, if the 10w30 version of the same synthetic is available, you will have even a thicker base oil with it. So, if your owner's manual says 10w30 and your climate permits, there is still no need to downgrade the viscosity and fall back to 5w30.
All this said I've been running 0W-20 synthetic with more or less satisfactory used oil analysis despite my owner's manual recommending conventional 10w30. I'll try synthetic 10w30 or thicker in the next OCI to see if it improves the UOA.
I should also point out that I can get two synthetic oils in Australia from the same manufacturer. One is a 10W30 ILSAC GF-5 oil, and the other is a 5W30 Euro A3/B4 oil. Not only is the 5W30 thicker at 100C it is also thicker at 40C. The 5W30 passes BMW LL-01 and MB 229.5, while the 10W30 does not. I know which one I would be using for heavy duty or performance applications.
I agree that a very high-quality synthetic 5w30 with strict OEM certifications and a very low NOACK will probably have a thicker base oil than a so - so conventional 10w30.
Nevertheless, even in that case, if the 10w30 version of the same synthetic is available, you will have even a thicker base oil with it. So, if your owner's manual says 10w30 and your climate permits, there is still no need to downgrade the viscosity and fall back to 5w30.
All this said I've been running 0W-20 synthetic with more or less satisfactory used oil analysis despite my owner's manual recommending conventional 10w30. I'll try synthetic 10w30 or thicker in the next OCI to see if it improves the UOA.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Your claims that 5w30 will not perform as well as 10w30 in HTHS lubrication regimes is a nice theoretical argument, yet any oil maker solves this problem by making sure the HTHS is at the right value:
No, you missed the whole point. They measure and report the HTHSV only at the shear rate of 1,000,000 1/second. Especially in the valvetrain and timing chain, the shear rate can be as high as 1,000,000,000 1/second. This can further temporarily shear the VII and reduce the HTHSV dramatically.See my post.
No, your chart on your own post showed a basically flat curve from shear rates 10^6 to 10^9.
Your statement "further temporarily shear the VII" is then false, using your own graph.
Therefore, the conclusion is the standard HTHS @ 150C works fine to show what the oil will do. Oil formulators already account for polymeric shearing at the HTHS design point; its all in a day's work for them; That Oronite paper just explains what they worry about.
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Your claims that 5w30 will not perform as well as 10w30 in HTHS lubrication regimes is a nice theoretical argument, yet any oil maker solves this problem by making sure the HTHS is at the right value:
No, you missed the whole point. They measure and report the HTHSV only at the shear rate of 1,000,000 1/second. Especially in the valvetrain and timing chain, the shear rate can be as high as 1,000,000,000 1/second. This can further temporarily shear the VII and reduce the HTHSV dramatically.See my post.
No, your chart on your own post showed a basically flat curve from shear rates 10^6 to 10^9.
Your statement "further temporarily shear the VII" is then false, using your own graph.
Therefore, the conclusion is the standard HTHS @ 150C works fine to show what the oil will do. Oil formulators already account for polymeric shearing at the HTHS design point; its all in a day's work for them; That Oronite paper just explains what they worry about.
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
No, your chart on your own post showed a basically flat curve from shear rates 10^6 to 10^9.
Your statement "further temporarily shear the VII" is then false, using your own graph.
Therefore, the conclusion is the standard HTHS @ 150C works fine to show what the oil will do. Oil formulators already account for polymeric shearing at the HTHS design point; its all in a day's work for them; That Oronite paper just explains what they worry about.
First of all the chart is not flat. Secondly, it's obviously not a quantitative chart -- it's meant as an informational sketch. The main reason why HTHSV is measured and reported is because of hydrodynamic lubrication in the bearings, not the higher-shear regions such as the valvetrain.
Thirdly, I also cited the Nissan paper where they emphasized that the timing-chain wear is related to the base-oil viscosity, not the viscosity-index-improver-enhanced viscosity.
"It was found that the base oil viscosity and molybdenum dithiocarbamate (MoDTC) had a significant effect on chain wear in rig testing that simulated silent chain wear. For the same base oil viscosity, the new oil maintains the same oil film thickness under high surface pressure. The same base oil as that of the current GF-5 0W-20 oil was selected to obtain that oil film thickness. Viscosity was adjusted by reducing the viscosity modifier content."
https://saemobilus.sae.org/content/2017-01-0881
You can't oversimplify things to a single quantity measured at a single condition such as HTHSV at 150 C and 1,000,000 1/s. Tribology is a lot more complicated.
No, your chart on your own post showed a basically flat curve from shear rates 10^6 to 10^9.
Your statement "further temporarily shear the VII" is then false, using your own graph.
Therefore, the conclusion is the standard HTHS @ 150C works fine to show what the oil will do. Oil formulators already account for polymeric shearing at the HTHS design point; its all in a day's work for them; That Oronite paper just explains what they worry about.
First of all the chart is not flat. Secondly, it's obviously not a quantitative chart -- it's meant as an informational sketch. The main reason why HTHSV is measured and reported is because of hydrodynamic lubrication in the bearings, not the higher-shear regions such as the valvetrain.
Thirdly, I also cited the Nissan paper where they emphasized that the timing-chain wear is related to the base-oil viscosity, not the viscosity-index-improver-enhanced viscosity.
"It was found that the base oil viscosity and molybdenum dithiocarbamate (MoDTC) had a significant effect on chain wear in rig testing that simulated silent chain wear. For the same base oil viscosity, the new oil maintains the same oil film thickness under high surface pressure. The same base oil as that of the current GF-5 0W-20 oil was selected to obtain that oil film thickness. Viscosity was adjusted by reducing the viscosity modifier content."
https://saemobilus.sae.org/content/2017-01-0881
You can't oversimplify things to a single quantity measured at a single condition such as HTHSV at 150 C and 1,000,000 1/s. Tribology is a lot more complicated.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
No, your chart on your own post showed a basically flat curve from shear rates 10^6 to 10^9.
First of all the chart is not flat.
It's flat enough from 10^6 to 10^9, as I already said.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Secondly, it's obviously not a quantitative chart -- it's meant as an informational sketch. The main reason why HTHSV is reported is because of hydrodynamic lubrication in the bearings, not the higher-shear regions such as the valvetrain.
They specifically put the flat portion where they did. Period. If they would have wanted it somewhere else, they could have put it somewhere else.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Thirdly, I also cited the Nissan paper where they emphasized that the timing-chain wear is related to the base-oil viscosity, not the viscosity-index-improver-enhanced viscosity.
The Nissan paper is interesting. My point is that these experimental and theoretical issues you cite are only important to oil formulators, not consumers who use the stuff. The main point is: Oil formulators pass all wear tests, indeed very well, like timing chain wear tests, valvetrain wear tests, and you can bet, for example, Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy 0w30, Mobil 1 5w30, and Mobil 1 10w30 have all had their moly & ZDDP levels, and maybe the additon of polymer esters, optimized to make sure that any VII HTHS effects are mitigated.
Conclusion: We can use synthetic 0w30, 5w30, and 10w30 anywhere a 10w30 is recommended. .... The only caveat is in extreme cases where long-term permanent VII shear could happen, and even that is handled adequately by oil test specs and formulators compensate very well.
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
No, your chart on your own post showed a basically flat curve from shear rates 10^6 to 10^9.
First of all the chart is not flat.
It's flat enough from 10^6 to 10^9, as I already said.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Secondly, it's obviously not a quantitative chart -- it's meant as an informational sketch. The main reason why HTHSV is reported is because of hydrodynamic lubrication in the bearings, not the higher-shear regions such as the valvetrain.
They specifically put the flat portion where they did. Period. If they would have wanted it somewhere else, they could have put it somewhere else.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Thirdly, I also cited the Nissan paper where they emphasized that the timing-chain wear is related to the base-oil viscosity, not the viscosity-index-improver-enhanced viscosity.
The Nissan paper is interesting. My point is that these experimental and theoretical issues you cite are only important to oil formulators, not consumers who use the stuff. The main point is: Oil formulators pass all wear tests, indeed very well, like timing chain wear tests, valvetrain wear tests, and you can bet, for example, Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy 0w30, Mobil 1 5w30, and Mobil 1 10w30 have all had their moly & ZDDP levels, and maybe the additon of polymer esters, optimized to make sure that any VII HTHS effects are mitigated.
Conclusion: We can use synthetic 0w30, 5w30, and 10w30 anywhere a 10w30 is recommended. .... The only caveat is in extreme cases where long-term permanent VII shear could happen, and even that is handled adequately by oil test specs and formulators compensate very well.
- Status
