If, according to SAE, an oil advertised as mono grade is not allowed to have any viscosity index improvers, and if you find an oil advertised as a conventional/not synthetic, and if it has a VI of 126, and a GP II+ has a max VI of 120, does that likely mean it is a GP II/GP III blend?
Another Mono Grade Oil Question!
- Thread starter FrankN4
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
I have also been curious about mono grade synthetics. I wondered how a mono grade synthetic SAE50 would compare to a synthetic 20W50? I want an oil that can take as much abuse as it can handle.
I would have to guess that a syn 15w40 with out viscosity improvers would be pretty tough. Amsoil diesel marine is a tough oil.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: Steve S
I would have to guess that a syn 15w40 with out viscosity improvers would be pretty tough. Amsoil diesel marine is a tough oil.
That`s actually the grade RP recommended for my car when i emailed them a couple of weeks ago asking about their oils. They said to go with either 10W40,15W40,or 20W50. I`ve used their 15W40 and it`s probably one of the,if not best oil I`ve ever used. I`ll probably end up buying a case of it eventually (I can get it at dealer cost) and use it as my winter oil.
I would have to guess that a syn 15w40 with out viscosity improvers would be pretty tough. Amsoil diesel marine is a tough oil.
That`s actually the grade RP recommended for my car when i emailed them a couple of weeks ago asking about their oils. They said to go with either 10W40,15W40,or 20W50. I`ve used their 15W40 and it`s probably one of the,if not best oil I`ve ever used. I`ll probably end up buying a case of it eventually (I can get it at dealer cost) and use it as my winter oil.
AFAIK -- there is no requirement that single (mono) grade oils don't contain VII's. Whether or not a particular brand of single grade oil uses some VII's is a different matter, some do, some don't.
Petro-canada Duron single grade HDEO … 30 wt has a VI of 123. This oil pretty well for sure is using some VII's.
The heaviest viscosity Group II oils are in the 11.0 - 12.0 cSt range, with a VI ~ 100. So one could blend a 30 mono with straight GII and no VII's, but it will have a VI of around 100. One of the problems of these heavier GII's (over 10.0 cSt), is that they are more expensive than the lower viscosity GII -- almost as expensive as GIII. It's likely less expensive to use a lower viscosity GII (8.0 cSt) and blend a little VII's or heavier GI's in to get to the required 30 wt viscosity. That would explain the high 123 VI of the Duron oil
There are some GII+ with a VI ~ 115, but GII+ are only on the range of 4.0 - 8.0 cSt -- not heavy enough for even a 30 wt. The heaviest Group III's also top out around 8.0 cSt, so they aren’t heavy enough for a 30 wt either.
With 30 wt single grades, you either use the expensive heavier GII''s, use a little lighter less expensive GII with VII's, or blend a heavier GI + GII.
One of the problems with 40 wt single grades, is that there are no GII's base oils heavy enough to blend them (without VII's) so heavier GI base oils have to be used. Or again, some combo of GI/II and maybe a little VII's.
One could possibly mix an 8.0 cSt GIII with some heavy GI to get a 30 or 40 wt single grade, but with the higher cost of using GIII, I don't think it is likely that this is being done, an 8.0 cSt GII would be cheaper.
I "think" any mono grade oil (not synthetic) that has a VI of over 105 is using at least some VII's.
Petro-canada Duron single grade HDEO … 30 wt has a VI of 123. This oil pretty well for sure is using some VII's.
The heaviest viscosity Group II oils are in the 11.0 - 12.0 cSt range, with a VI ~ 100. So one could blend a 30 mono with straight GII and no VII's, but it will have a VI of around 100. One of the problems of these heavier GII's (over 10.0 cSt), is that they are more expensive than the lower viscosity GII -- almost as expensive as GIII. It's likely less expensive to use a lower viscosity GII (8.0 cSt) and blend a little VII's or heavier GI's in to get to the required 30 wt viscosity. That would explain the high 123 VI of the Duron oil
There are some GII+ with a VI ~ 115, but GII+ are only on the range of 4.0 - 8.0 cSt -- not heavy enough for even a 30 wt. The heaviest Group III's also top out around 8.0 cSt, so they aren’t heavy enough for a 30 wt either.
With 30 wt single grades, you either use the expensive heavier GII''s, use a little lighter less expensive GII with VII's, or blend a heavier GI + GII.
One of the problems with 40 wt single grades, is that there are no GII's base oils heavy enough to blend them (without VII's) so heavier GI base oils have to be used. Or again, some combo of GI/II and maybe a little VII's.
One could possibly mix an 8.0 cSt GIII with some heavy GI to get a 30 or 40 wt single grade, but with the higher cost of using GIII, I don't think it is likely that this is being done, an 8.0 cSt GII would be cheaper.
I "think" any mono grade oil (not synthetic) that has a VI of over 105 is using at least some VII's.
Thanks Drivebelt. I must have read the J300 incorrectly. There was a discussion on another thread that said if any amount of VII was added to an oil, it could not be called a mono grade oil. I went to the site and read the J300 and I was curious as to how a monograde oil could have a VI over 120 unless it was a heavy base or a blend. I ASSUMED the blend would be upward, that is GP III or GP IV. I never considered the possibility of it being a downward bend to GP I.
I will go back and read the J300 again.
I will go back and read the J300 again.
Last edited:
There is GI 150 bright stock -- 28.0 - 35.0 cSt. This is what is probably commonly used to blend most of the 30 wt and heavier mono grades. If one starts with a 7.0 cSt GII, it wouldn't take a lot of GI bright stock to get up around 11.0 cSt (for a 30 weight).
I think most of the 30 wt mono grades are probably GII or mostly GII + some GI. But the heavier 40/50 wt mono grades will have to use more GI bright stock to get to the proper viscosity range.
I think most of the 30 wt mono grades are probably GII or mostly GII + some GI. But the heavier 40/50 wt mono grades will have to use more GI bright stock to get to the proper viscosity range.
Originally Posted By: Drivebelt
The heaviest viscosity Group II oils are in the 11.0 - 12.0 cSt range, with a VI ~ 100. So one could blend a 30 mono with straight GII and no VII's, but it will have a VI of around 100. One of the problems of these heavier GII's (over 10.0 cSt), is that they are more expensive than the lower viscosity GII -- almost as expensive as GIII. It's likely less expensive to use a lower viscosity GII (8.0 cSt) and blend a little VII's or heavier GI's in to get to the required 30 wt viscosity. That would explain the high 123 VI of the Duron oil
So, my Delo SAE30 with a VI of 104 and 12.1cSt is "more expensive" to produce (and better quality)? Wow, not bad for $.99/gallon!
The heaviest viscosity Group II oils are in the 11.0 - 12.0 cSt range, with a VI ~ 100. So one could blend a 30 mono with straight GII and no VII's, but it will have a VI of around 100. One of the problems of these heavier GII's (over 10.0 cSt), is that they are more expensive than the lower viscosity GII -- almost as expensive as GIII. It's likely less expensive to use a lower viscosity GII (8.0 cSt) and blend a little VII's or heavier GI's in to get to the required 30 wt viscosity. That would explain the high 123 VI of the Duron oil
So, my Delo SAE30 with a VI of 104 and 12.1cSt is "more expensive" to produce (and better quality)? Wow, not bad for $.99/gallon!
Originally Posted By: FrankN4
If, according to SAE, an oil advertised as mono grade is not allowed to have any viscosity index improvers, and if you find an oil advertised as a conventional/not synthetic, and if it has a VI of 126, and a GP II+ has a max VI of 120, does that likely mean it is a GP II/GP III blend?
It could mean that, or it could have some Group V esters which are VERY high VI. PPDs and other additives will always affect the VI of the finished product.
If, according to SAE, an oil advertised as mono grade is not allowed to have any viscosity index improvers, and if you find an oil advertised as a conventional/not synthetic, and if it has a VI of 126, and a GP II+ has a max VI of 120, does that likely mean it is a GP II/GP III blend?
It could mean that, or it could have some Group V esters which are VERY high VI. PPDs and other additives will always affect the VI of the finished product.
Originally Posted By: Drivebelt
AFAIK -- there is no requirement that single (mono) grade oils don't contain VII's. Whether or not a particular brand of single grade oil uses some VII's is a different matter, some do, some don't.
Petro-canada Duron single grade HDEO … 30 wt has a VI of 123. This oil pretty well for sure is using some VII's.
It it does, it can't be labeled as a straight SAE 30 per J300. It's non-Newtonian and has to be labled as a multi-grade if it has VI improvers in it.
AFAIK -- there is no requirement that single (mono) grade oils don't contain VII's. Whether or not a particular brand of single grade oil uses some VII's is a different matter, some do, some don't.
Petro-canada Duron single grade HDEO … 30 wt has a VI of 123. This oil pretty well for sure is using some VII's.
It it does, it can't be labeled as a straight SAE 30 per J300. It's non-Newtonian and has to be labled as a multi-grade if it has VI improvers in it.
+1
Thanks for the info Drive belt!
After reading your post, I went and read several of your other recent posts - they also contain great detailed info.
I am guessing that you blend motor oil or have done so in the past. In any case, you are sharing detailed knowledge of base oils and designing a motor oil. You are certainly one the people that add value to this site.
Thanks again.
Thanks for the info Drive belt!
After reading your post, I went and read several of your other recent posts - they also contain great detailed info.
I am guessing that you blend motor oil or have done so in the past. In any case, you are sharing detailed knowledge of base oils and designing a motor oil. You are certainly one the people that add value to this site.
Thanks again.
Quote:
It it does, it can't be labeled as a straight SAE 30 per J300. It's non-Newtonian and has to be labled as a multi-grade if it has VI improvers in it.
We had this discussion a while back.
It was never resolved to my satisfaction. As far as I can tell, the only requirement for a mono grade oil is that it only meets a single grade classification on the SAE J300 chart.
It may be typically that mono grade oils don't use VII's, but I don't see that as an absolute requirement. Do you have any relevant references you could post?
The best I could google is this …
Quote:
Railroad Engine Oil is Changing.pdf
to develop what is now known as Functionalized Monograde Functionalized Monograde (FM) is a finished oil formulation that provides excellent wear control, shear character-istics and viscosity retention that con-tributes to longer oil life and reduced maintenance costs. The attributes of the FM — oil consumption savings achieved via the introduction of multi-grade railroad engine oils are main-tained; an optimized viscosity index improver dosage; low SAPS (sulfated ash, phosphorus & sulfur); and a fresh kinematic viscosity of 14.6 cSt at 100 C, — results in cost-effective finished oil formulations.
My take here is that they want a low SAPS oil for railway use (emission requirements), which means using GII base oils. One could take a 12.0 cSt GII and add a little VII's to get a 14.6 cSt oil.
Quote:
I am guessing that you blend motor oil or have done so in the past.
No actual blending experience. But I sometimes think I spend too much time reading about oils.
It it does, it can't be labeled as a straight SAE 30 per J300. It's non-Newtonian and has to be labled as a multi-grade if it has VI improvers in it.
We had this discussion a while back.
It may be typically that mono grade oils don't use VII's, but I don't see that as an absolute requirement. Do you have any relevant references you could post?
The best I could google is this …
Quote:
Railroad Engine Oil is Changing.pdf
to develop what is now known as Functionalized Monograde Functionalized Monograde (FM) is a finished oil formulation that provides excellent wear control, shear character-istics and viscosity retention that con-tributes to longer oil life and reduced maintenance costs. The attributes of the FM — oil consumption savings achieved via the introduction of multi-grade railroad engine oils are main-tained; an optimized viscosity index improver dosage; low SAPS (sulfated ash, phosphorus & sulfur); and a fresh kinematic viscosity of 14.6 cSt at 100 C, — results in cost-effective finished oil formulations.
My take here is that they want a low SAPS oil for railway use (emission requirements), which means using GII base oils. One could take a 12.0 cSt GII and add a little VII's to get a 14.6 cSt oil.
Quote:
I am guessing that you blend motor oil or have done so in the past.
No actual blending experience. But I sometimes think I spend too much time reading about oils.
""Petro-canada Duron single grade HDEO … 30 wt has a VI of 123. This oil pretty well for sure is using some VII's.""
Not necessarily base oil with a 100 VI can get a bump of 10-15 points due to dispersant DI additives.
And as far as I know a multi grade can be listed a mono assuming vis properties are in range
bruce
Not necessarily base oil with a 100 VI can get a bump of 10-15 points due to dispersant DI additives.
And as far as I know a multi grade can be listed a mono assuming vis properties are in range
bruce
Last edited:
From J300 Revised NOV2007 Para 6. (page 5):
Most oils will meet the viscosity requirements of at least one of the W grades. Nevertheless, consistent with historic
practice, any Newtonian oil may be labeled as a single-grade oil (either with or without a W). Oils which are formulated
with polymeric viscosity index improvers for the purpose of making them multiviscosity-grade products are non-Newtonian
and must be labeled with the appropriate multiviscosity grade (both W and high-temperature grade). Since each W grade
is defined on the basis of maximum cranking and pumping viscosities as well as minimum kinematic viscosities at 100 °C,
it is possible for an oil to satisfy the requirements of more than one W grade. In labeling either a W grade or a
multiviscosity grade oil, only the lowest W grade satisfied may be referred to on the label. Thus, an oil meeting the
requirements for SAE grades 10W, 15W, 20W, 25W, and 30 must be referred to as an SAE 10w30 grade only.
Most oils will meet the viscosity requirements of at least one of the W grades. Nevertheless, consistent with historic
practice, any Newtonian oil may be labeled as a single-grade oil (either with or without a W). Oils which are formulated
with polymeric viscosity index improvers for the purpose of making them multiviscosity-grade products are non-Newtonian
and must be labeled with the appropriate multiviscosity grade (both W and high-temperature grade). Since each W grade
is defined on the basis of maximum cranking and pumping viscosities as well as minimum kinematic viscosities at 100 °C,
it is possible for an oil to satisfy the requirements of more than one W grade. In labeling either a W grade or a
multiviscosity grade oil, only the lowest W grade satisfied may be referred to on the label. Thus, an oil meeting the
requirements for SAE grades 10W, 15W, 20W, 25W, and 30 must be referred to as an SAE 10w30 grade only.
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
From J300 Revised NOV2007 Para 6. (page 5):
Most oils will meet the viscosity requirements of at least one of the W grades. Nevertheless, consistent with historic practice, any Newtonian oil may be labeled as a single-grade oil (either with or without a W). Oils which are formulated with polymeric viscosity index improvers for the purpose of making them multiviscosity-grade products are non-Newtonian and must be labeled with the appropriate multiviscosity grade (both W and high-temperature grade).
That statement can only be a general guideline on how things are labeled. Here's the problem: What's a Newtonian oil? It's a matter of degree, or even semantics. Even a single grade oil isn't perfectly Newtonian (it exhibits near Newtonian behavior). So just how Newtonian does an oil have to be before it’s classified as a "Newtonian" oil? There is no precise specification for this spelled out as far as I can see. A multigrade oil with very high quality VII's might exhibit near Newtonian behavior too (depending on the test parameters).
On the flip side, it's fine to say a multigrade with VII's is non-Newtonian, but just how non-Newtonian does it have to be before it must be classified as a multigrade? Again, no specification is spelled out.
As indicated, it's a historical practice that oils without VII's exhibit Newtonian behavior, and they are frequently labeled as a single grade oils (mono-grade). Although we do fine some synthetics without VII's that have multigrade classifications. And I agree, that's how mono-grade oils have typically been labeled. But a historical practice, combined with no precise specification for Newtonian, leaves the door open so-to-speak, for classifying an oil with a some amount of VII's as a mono-grade.
" …….Oils which are formulated with polymeric viscosity index improvers for the purpose of making them multiviscosity-grade products ….."
The rub: Perhaps Petro-canada didn't add VII's to their HD 30 for the purpose of making it a multiviscosity grade product (assuming they are using VII's). They used VII's to get their 8.0 cSt oil up to 11.0 cSt (30 wt range).
By adding VII's, the side effect would be to increase the "multiviscosity" properties of the HD 30 somewhat, and increase the non-Newtonian behavior a little. But since there is no precise specification on how non-Newtonian a multiviscosity must be, they can still label the oil as a mono-grade.
I not saying you're wrong here on this issue. But I'm still not convinced that a mono-graded oil cannot use VII's. The existence of the P-C HD 30 and the Railway FM oil I referenced just don't jive with that.
From J300 Revised NOV2007 Para 6. (page 5):
Most oils will meet the viscosity requirements of at least one of the W grades. Nevertheless, consistent with historic practice, any Newtonian oil may be labeled as a single-grade oil (either with or without a W). Oils which are formulated with polymeric viscosity index improvers for the purpose of making them multiviscosity-grade products are non-Newtonian and must be labeled with the appropriate multiviscosity grade (both W and high-temperature grade).
That statement can only be a general guideline on how things are labeled. Here's the problem: What's a Newtonian oil? It's a matter of degree, or even semantics. Even a single grade oil isn't perfectly Newtonian (it exhibits near Newtonian behavior). So just how Newtonian does an oil have to be before it’s classified as a "Newtonian" oil? There is no precise specification for this spelled out as far as I can see. A multigrade oil with very high quality VII's might exhibit near Newtonian behavior too (depending on the test parameters).
On the flip side, it's fine to say a multigrade with VII's is non-Newtonian, but just how non-Newtonian does it have to be before it must be classified as a multigrade? Again, no specification is spelled out.
As indicated, it's a historical practice that oils without VII's exhibit Newtonian behavior, and they are frequently labeled as a single grade oils (mono-grade). Although we do fine some synthetics without VII's that have multigrade classifications. And I agree, that's how mono-grade oils have typically been labeled. But a historical practice, combined with no precise specification for Newtonian, leaves the door open so-to-speak, for classifying an oil with a some amount of VII's as a mono-grade.
" …….Oils which are formulated with polymeric viscosity index improvers for the purpose of making them multiviscosity-grade products ….."
The rub: Perhaps Petro-canada didn't add VII's to their HD 30 for the purpose of making it a multiviscosity grade product (assuming they are using VII's). They used VII's to get their 8.0 cSt oil up to 11.0 cSt (30 wt range).
By adding VII's, the side effect would be to increase the "multiviscosity" properties of the HD 30 somewhat, and increase the non-Newtonian behavior a little. But since there is no precise specification on how non-Newtonian a multiviscosity must be, they can still label the oil as a mono-grade.
I not saying you're wrong here on this issue. But I'm still not convinced that a mono-graded oil cannot use VII's. The existence of the P-C HD 30 and the Railway FM oil I referenced just don't jive with that.
Originally Posted By: Drivebelt
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
From J300 Revised NOV2007 Para 6. (page 5):
Most oils will meet the viscosity requirements of at least one of the W grades. Nevertheless, consistent with historic practice, any Newtonian oil may be labeled as a single-grade oil (either with or without a W). Oils which are formulated with polymeric viscosity index improvers for the purpose of making them multiviscosity-grade products are non-Newtonian and must be labeled with the appropriate multiviscosity grade (both W and high-temperature grade).
That statement can only be a general guideline on how things are labeled.
No it isn't. It's a specific requirement. If the oil uses VI improvers it can't be labeled an SAE single grade.
The issue isn't whether or not an oil without VI improvers exhibits some non-Newtonian characteristics (which I'm not sure is true), the issue is that an oil with VI improvers is without question non-Newtonian. Therefore, according to J300, it can't be labeled as a single grade oil.
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
From J300 Revised NOV2007 Para 6. (page 5):
Most oils will meet the viscosity requirements of at least one of the W grades. Nevertheless, consistent with historic practice, any Newtonian oil may be labeled as a single-grade oil (either with or without a W). Oils which are formulated with polymeric viscosity index improvers for the purpose of making them multiviscosity-grade products are non-Newtonian and must be labeled with the appropriate multiviscosity grade (both W and high-temperature grade).
That statement can only be a general guideline on how things are labeled.
No it isn't. It's a specific requirement. If the oil uses VI improvers it can't be labeled an SAE single grade.
The issue isn't whether or not an oil without VI improvers exhibits some non-Newtonian characteristics (which I'm not sure is true), the issue is that an oil with VI improvers is without question non-Newtonian. Therefore, according to J300, it can't be labeled as a single grade oil.
Update for G-MAN.
Emailed Petro-Canada lubricants and asked about the HD 30 with a VI = 123. Received a response from the Senior Technical Advisor of Lubricants. Basically it said:
- HD 30 uses a large portion of Group II+.
- contains no Polymer VII's, which classifies it as a Single Grade oil.
Turns out Petro-Canada has a 9.3 cSt GII+ with VI = 115. Somewhat unusual for a GII+ base oil as they are generally in the 4.0-6.0 cSt range and used for SM/GF-4 oils.
That solves the mystery of the high viscosity index HD 30. So, I'd say I'm now pretty well convinced that your position about single grades not using VII's is correct.
Emailed Petro-Canada lubricants and asked about the HD 30 with a VI = 123. Received a response from the Senior Technical Advisor of Lubricants. Basically it said:
- HD 30 uses a large portion of Group II+.
- contains no Polymer VII's, which classifies it as a Single Grade oil.
Turns out Petro-Canada has a 9.3 cSt GII+ with VI = 115. Somewhat unusual for a GII+ base oil as they are generally in the 4.0-6.0 cSt range and used for SM/GF-4 oils.
That solves the mystery of the high viscosity index HD 30. So, I'd say I'm now pretty well convinced that your position about single grades not using VII's is correct.
For what it's worth, Amsoil's ACD has a VI of 141 with no VIIs.
I've always understood that an oil with VIIs could not be labeled a straight weight but an oil with no VIIs that met the requirements could be labeled as a multi-grade. I figured this was the reason for the ACD's 30/10-30 label.
I've always understood that an oil with VIIs could not be labeled a straight weight but an oil with no VIIs that met the requirements could be labeled as a multi-grade. I figured this was the reason for the ACD's 30/10-30 label.
- Status
Similar threads
