Accord oil specs,US vs Australia

[aquariuscsm]

This had turned into a very interesting discussion. I'm definitely learning alot of stuff here! Thank you to all who have joined this thread. Here's a question for everyone. Pennzoil Platinum 0W20 vs 5W20. The 0W20 is "slightly" thicker at operating temperature than the 5W20. What would be the reason for this? Does the 0W have a higher quality base oil than the 5W? Would that make the 0W a superior oil vs the 5W? I just asked my brother what they put in their Accords (same generation as mine) and they both have 5W20. One VWB and the other QSGB. I think his goes to Walmart and hers to an indy repair shop. They both work such long hours that neither diy's. Taking my cars to have the oil changed by someone other than me would be traumatizing haha

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Note that NOACK is not really dimensionless but has the units of inverse time, as it represents the evaporation rate (like percent mass loss per unit time). However, when it's expressed, the time period in which it's measured is omitted (or set to "1") for simplicity. So, the BOQI has actually the units of inverse pressure. It's therefore an intrinsic physical property of the base oil.

No, I would suggest that Noack remains dimensionless because the time is held constant in the test. It's not part of the measurement, per se, and it's definitely not part of the calculation. Time is part of the procedure only.

I know the SAE paper and how NOACK is measured.

The folks here asked for a dimensional analysis. NOACK as a physical property is the "fractional evaporation rate," no matter how you look at it. You need to use "% change per hour" or "fractional change per unit time" in the dimensional analysis for it to make any physical sense.

This is no different than expressing the speed, which is the rate of change of the position. You can measure and/or express the speed of a car by how many miles it travels in 1 hr, say 60 miles, instead of saying 60 miles per hour. However, this doesn't mean that the dimension of speed as a physical observable is length; it's still length per unit time.

 

[SR5]

Originally Posted By: ndfergy
For comparison I went on to Shell.au's oil finder for my Yaris with the 1nz-fe engine.

This guy followed his owners manual and ran a 15W40 in his 2006 Yaris. He did just over 7k miles and the UOA returned only a low 5ppm iron wear, it has ample TBN left at 3.24 and the Penrite 15W40 has a nice 1028 ppm zinc.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3317703/

It's a mineral Penrite 15W40 HDEO, just the stuff to feed a 1.5L Toyota Yaris, well at least in Australia it is.

 

[ndfergy]

Originally Posted By: SR5
Originally Posted By: ndfergy
For comparison I went on to Shell.au's oil finder for my Yaris with the 1nz-fe engine.

This guy followed his owners manual and ran a 15W40 in his 2006 Yaris. He did just over 7k miles and the UOA returned only a low 5ppm iron wear, it has ample TBN left at 3.24 and the Penrite 15W40 has a nice 1028 ppm zinc.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3317703/

It's a mineral Penrite 15W40 HDEO, just the stuff to feed a 1.5L Toyota Yaris, well at least in Australia it is.


Thanks, I'll bear that in mind once my warranty is over. However, 15w-40 is unnecessary in my climate. Our summers are hot but more on the humid side; nothing like the sustained heat of your country. A PCMO 10-30/40 with a 3.5 mpas would be more my line of thinking.

 

[SR5]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Here's a question for everyone. Pennzoil Platinum 0W20 vs 5W20. The 0W20 is "slightly" thicker at operating temperature than the 5W20. What would be the reason for this?

Here is my take on this, you need to look at small changes in density or specific gravity.

Look at the Valvoline synthetic link given above:
0W20
KV100 = 8.7 cSt
Density / SG = 0.847
Noack = 11.4 %

5W20
KV100 = 8.6
Density / SG = 0.853
Noack = 9.3

5W30
KV100 = 11.0
Density / SG = 0.853
Noack = 10.2

10W30
KV100 = 10.9
Density / SG = 0.861
Noack = 6.3

So as you go from 0W20 to 5W20, or 5W30 to 10W30, yes the 100C viscosity is going down, but the oil density is going up. To me this means more of the observed viscosity in the 5W20 & 10W30 is due to the base oil and less is due to the polymer VII. This is reflected in the lower Noack volatility of the denser oils, and the common observation that they are more shear stable.

Sure the high VII oil starts thicker, but I bet the higher density oils finish thicker.

 

[SR5]

Originally Posted By: ndfergy

However, 15w-40 is unnecessary in my climate. .... A PCMO 10-30/40 with a 3.5 mpas

Yes I agree.

Even a good full synthetic ILSAC 10W30 would, in my view, be fine too. HTHS around 3.0 to 3.1 cP.

Here a name brand 15W40 mineral is often at a very low price, hence why it's so popular. But definitely not the only choice, especially if you go full synthetic.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
The folks here asked for a dimensional analysis. NOACK as a physical property is the "fractional evaporation rate," no matter how you look at it. You need to use "% change per hour" or "fractional change per unit time" in the dimensional analysis for it to make any physical sense.

This is no different than expressing the speed, which is the rate of change of the position. You can measure and/or express the speed of a car by how many miles it travels in 1 hr, say 60 miles, instead of saying 60 miles per hour. However, this doesn't mean that the dimension of speed as a physical observable is length; it's still length per unit time.

That's not how it's done though. Take a look at the formula for calculating Noack provided in the SAE paper, and you would see the issue. Time is not included in there. It's not the same as speed at all, because speed is defined as displacement per time, and those are actually separate variables.

That's not the case in the Noack test at all. There is no attempt to show a relationship of evaporative loss per unit time, or to average it out per second. You throw units of time into Noack, and you louse the thing up completely. Plenty of laboratory experiments have a certain set run time, but that doesn't mean time is incorporated in the calculation. That's not how dimensional analysis is done.

I know what you're getting at, but you try to incorporate time into this, you'll muck it up more than it already is. Viscosity units incorporate seconds. You can't mix units. Now, if you want to include time in your Noack, then you have to convert the one hour test to 3600 seconds, and that has to be incorporated directly into the Noack calculation. You get a mass loss of say 15%, which is, by your parlance, 0.15/h. No mixing of units, so let's convert that to 0.000041667/s, not to mention requiring an error analysis. Have at it.

I've never seen anyone express Noack in a manner that would reflect seconds, which is required if one is using anything semi-normal when it comes to measuring viscosity or including viscosity in a calculation.

 

[BrocLuno]

OK, has anyone on BITOG looked at the library of UOA's and run a statistical analysis of which oils performed this way or that? I suspect Dave has done something along these lines ...

 

[edhackett]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: SR5
But I still think if you regularly read SonofJoe's posts, he makes a valid point about fuel economy oils contributing, not to worn out engines, but to blocked piston rings due to their light and volatile bottom end.

It's not a valid point at all. Thicker multigrades are usually thick not because they have thicker base oils but because they have more VII. In fact thicker multigrades often start from thinner base oils than thinner multigrades do. In addition, thinner oils tend to use higher-quality base oils.

Example: Shell Rotella T6 5W-40 has 12.8% NOACK while Shell Pennzoil Platinum PurePlus 5W-30 has 9.1% NOACK. In addition the base-oil-quality index for the 5W-40 is 26.0 while for the 5W-30 it's 53.9.


It's a completely valid point as it's not all about NOACK. There's the matter of the TEOST test, which measures piston deposits. The 0W-20 oils are exempt from meeting this requirement because many can't pass it. It makes total sense that an oil that can't meet a piston deposit requirement will result in higher levels of piston deposits.

https://www.astm.org/Standards/D7097.htm

Ed

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: edhackett
It's a completely valid point as it's not all about NOACK. There's the matter of the TEOST test, which measures piston deposits. The 0W-20 oils are exempt from meeting this requirement because many can't pass it. It makes total sense that an oil that can't meet a piston deposit requirement will result in higher levels of piston deposits.

https://www.astm.org/Standards/D7097.htm

Ed

The reason why 0W-20 oils are exempt from TEOST 33C is not because the base oil is too thin. In fact it has nothing to do with the base oil. 0W-20 oils may contain a lot of extra moly because they are meant for fuel efficiency. Some Japanese 0W-20 oils contain hundreds of ppm of moly. Moly acts as a catalyst in the formation of oil deposits. This is the reason why 0W-20 oils are excluded from TEOST 33C, as they don't want to limit the amount of moly in them.

http://papers.sae.org/2008-01-2480/

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted By: SR5
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Here's a question for everyone. Pennzoil Platinum 0W20 vs 5W20. The 0W20 is "slightly" thicker at operating temperature than the 5W20. What would be the reason for this?

Here is my take on this, you need to look at small changes in density or specific gravity.

Look at the Valvoline synthetic link given above:
0W20
KV100 = 8.7 cSt
Density / SG = 0.847
Noack = 11.4 %

5W20
KV100 = 8.6
Density / SG = 0.853
Noack = 9.3

5W30
KV100 = 11.0
Density / SG = 0.853
Noack = 10.2

10W30
KV100 = 10.9
Density / SG = 0.861
Noack = 6.3

So as you go from 0W20 to 5W20, or 5W30 to 10W30, yes the 100C viscosity is going down, but the oil density is going up. To me this means more of the observed viscosity in the 5W20 & 10W30 is due to the base oil and less is due to the polymer VII. This is reflected in the lower Noack volatility of the denser oils, and the common observation that they are more shear stable.

Sure the high VII oil starts thicker, but I bet the higher density oils finish thicker.


This thread is getting more and more interesting,I'm definitely learning alot here! So the 0W20 reaches it's "20wt" viscosity via VII's while the 5W20 reaches it with more base stock or "pure oil" per se?

 

[SR5]

Per Se
Don't Latin me, or I'm outta here.

I probably said it very badly, its more a reflect of a higher component of heavier base oil, rather than more lighter base oil all jacked up on polymer VII.

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe

Now the great bulk of multi grade oils contain at least two base oils; one with low viscosity and more volatile (with low density) and one that is heavier with a lower volatility (with high density). So for a given grouping of oils, generally you want to go for the one with the highest density to minimise the base oil Noack contribution.


Ref:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4380565/

 

[fdcg27]

Dave Newton has run just such an analysis and his data driven conclusion was that oil used didn't matter at all with oils that met that spec or cert the engine maker called for.
He also found that oils could be run for intervals way beyond what was recommended by an OEM with no ill effects.
His response to those doubting the validity of his observations would be along the lines of show me where something bad is happening.
His is a very data-driven approach with the only weakness of relying on UOAs.
I agree with him in his implicit assumption that the particle sizes found in UOAs are a legitimate proxy for engine wear.
To think otherwise is to assume that particle sizes are biased much larger with some oils and this seems absurd to me.

 

[Nissan101]

In my country some new vehicles get spec straight till 20w50

 

[Phishin]

I've always run a 30 weight. Today I did oil changes on my Hondas.

The wife's CR-V got VSP 0W20, my Accord got MaxLife 10w30 and a new Microgreen Filter. I just ran out of PU 5w30....

 

[zeng]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Dave Newton has run just such an analysis and his data driven conclusion was that oil used didn't matter at all with oils that met that spec or cert the engine maker called for.
He also found that oils could be run for intervals way beyond what was recommended by an OEM with no ill effects.
His response to those doubting the validity of his observations would be along the lines of show me where something bad is happening.
His is a very data-driven approach with the only weakness of relying on UOAs.
I agree with him in his implicit assumption that the particle sizes found in UOAs are a legitimate proxy for engine wear.
To think otherwise is to assume that particle sizes are biased much larger with some oils and this seems absurd to me.


Dave's basis of assessment is valid ..... for metal wear reduction is the 'ultimate' of a subject called Lubrication.
But alas in NA ......

 

[SR5]

Originally Posted By: andrewp1998
I use about 1 qrt every 3k or less, give or take some so looking for something to reduce consumption.

_________________________
2001 Honda civic HX vtecE- 5 spd,210k+


Originally Posted By: gambit023
Can you guys recommend me a full synthetic oil for a 2009 Jeep 5.7 Hemi engine? It consumes about a quart every 5k miles.

I've always used Royal Purple 5w20,

 

[zeng]

Originally Posted By: SR5
Originally Posted By: andrewp1998
I use about 1 qrt every 3k or less, give or take some so looking for something to reduce consumption.

_________________________
2001 Honda civic HX vtecE- 5 spd,210k+


Originally Posted By: gambit023
Can you guys recommend me a full synthetic oil for a 2009 Jeep 5.7 Hemi engine? It consumes about a quart every 5k miles.

I've always used Royal Purple 5w20,


... so much for green environment .... and mis-allocation of R&D resources on (automotive) Lubricants !

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: edhackett
It's a completely valid point as it's not all about NOACK. There's the matter of the TEOST test, which measures piston deposits. The 0W-20 oils are exempt from meeting this requirement because many can't pass it. It makes total sense that an oil that can't meet a piston deposit requirement will result in higher levels of piston deposits.

https://www.astm.org/Standards/D7097.htm

Ed

The reason why 0W-20 oils are exempt from TEOST 33C is not because the base oil is too thin. In fact it has nothing to do with the base oil. 0W-20 oils may contain a lot of extra moly because they are meant for fuel efficiency. Some Japanese 0W-20 oils contain hundreds of ppm of moly. Moly acts as a catalyst in the formation of oil deposits. This is the reason why 0W-20 oils are excluded from TEOST 33C, as they don't want to limit the amount of moly in them.

http://papers.sae.org/2008-01-2480/


The Moly in M1 oils is pretty much the same, from 0-20 to 15-50.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: edhackett
It's a completely valid point as it's not all about NOACK. There's the matter of the TEOST test, which measures piston deposits. The 0W-20 oils are exempt from meeting this requirement because many can't pass it. It makes total sense that an oil that can't meet a piston deposit requirement will result in higher levels of piston deposits.

https://www.astm.org/Standards/D7097.htm

Ed

The reason why 0W-20 oils are exempt from TEOST 33C is not because the base oil is too thin. In fact it has nothing to do with the base oil. 0W-20 oils may contain a lot of extra moly because they are meant for fuel efficiency. Some Japanese 0W-20 oils contain hundreds of ppm of moly. Moly acts as a catalyst in the formation of oil deposits. This is the reason why 0W-20 oils are excluded from TEOST 33C, as they don't want to limit the amount of moly in them.

http://papers.sae.org/2008-01-2480/


The Moly in M1 oils is pretty much the same, from 0-20 to 15-50.



I'll type a little slower than normal, try to keep up

The Japanese OEMS requested that the TEOST test that was applicable to EVERY OTHER GRADE not be appicable to 0W20, as they (the Japanese OEMS in particular) were using mixed and boundary additives to replace hydrodynamics (you can find Honda papers to that effect)...the additives that they chose increased deposits...leading to them requesting that the TEOST be waived for THEIR 0W20s.

Your point about M1 (which you have used since Moses played for Bethlehem) 0W20 having the same Moly in 0W20 as 5W50 is irrelevant to the ILSAC/API allowance which was referred to ... Mobil aren't the Japanese OEMs referred to...and aas Gokhan has stated, the Mobil supplied TGMO is chock full of that special moly.