Castrol Magnatec (US) - updated PDS out this week
- Thread starter Crashpuppy
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
I am not going to argue the semantics of the definition, I have other intrest tonight.I will argue that a Higher viscosity index does not make an oil superior.
Don't know if a high VI is better or not, but based on the definition I'd think less viscosity change (a higher VI number) between say 40C and 100C would be more ideal.
I am not going to argue the semantics of the definition, I have other intrest tonight.I will argue that a Higher viscosity index does not make an oil superior.
Don't know if a high VI is better or not, but based on the definition I'd think less viscosity change (a higher VI number) between say 40C and 100C would be more ideal.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
Was also thinking about trying Magnatec 5W30, but it's not carried at the Walmarts near me anymore.
Ended up going with good ol M1 5W30 for the rebate.
Not in the league of Edge IMO … 2013 Pentastar … roughest looking oil (thick goo, and coal black 5w20 with just 3k) I have seen in decades of at work or DIY OCI … nothing like that for the first 45k on either M1 or PP … have another Magnatec fill in it now, (already purchased) and looks normal at 2k … have 2 jugs 5w20 QSUD on deck …
No more MT …two OCI runs of that should help clean it out …
Then M1, PP, QSUD, PG etc …
Was also thinking about trying Magnatec 5W30, but it's not carried at the Walmarts near me anymore.
Ended up going with good ol M1 5W30 for the rebate.
Not in the league of Edge IMO … 2013 Pentastar … roughest looking oil (thick goo, and coal black 5w20 with just 3k) I have seen in decades of at work or DIY OCI … nothing like that for the first 45k on either M1 or PP … have another Magnatec fill in it now, (already purchased) and looks normal at 2k … have 2 jugs 5w20 QSUD on deck …
No more MT …two OCI runs of that should help clean it out …
Then M1, PP, QSUD, PG etc …
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
I am not going to argue the semantics of the definition, I have other intrest tonight.I will argue that a Higher viscosity index does not make an oil superior.
Don't know if a high VI is better or not, but based on the definition I'd think less viscosity change (a higher VI number) between say 40C and 100C would be more ideal.
zeeOsix - I do agree with you, seems lately we have people spouting off information and insulting others on this forum as if THEY are *THE PROFESSOR OF OIL*. Typical internet. Where "everybody is an expert". Funny that when challenged they dismissed your questions. No need to even acknowledge that type of behavior!
Fact is.. the VI or Viscosity Index began in 1929 to study the stability of the oil. Highly refined oils and even synthetics receive a higher score on the index. It is usually an indication of the quality of the base stock.
In my own UOA's I've seen lower VI numbers result in shearing that happened quicker than an oil with a higher VI. Yes there are other factors at play but I can make a blanket conclusion that you'd want something with a higher VI than 134.
When I saw that the 5w20 version of magnatec had that I laughed and said "no thank you". Mobil had been pulling this same cheap approach no matter who defends it as normal, it's cheap and its the bean counters at work. You sure don't see full synthetic makers trying to lower the bar like this.
So yes you are correct in believing a lower VI is not something you'd want to have. I usually draw the line around 150 for a VI.
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
Was also thinking about trying Magnatec 5W30, but it's not carried at the Walmarts near me anymore.
Ended up going with good ol M1 5W30 for the rebate.
Not in the league of Edge IMO … 2013 Pentastar … roughest looking oil (thick goo, and coal black 5w20 with just 3k) I have seen in decades of at work or DIY OCI … nothing like that for the first 45k on either M1 or PP … have another Magnatec fill in it now, (already purchased) and looks normal at 2k … have 2 jugs 5w20 QSUD on deck …
No more MT …two OCI runs of that should help clean it out …
Then M1, PP, QSUD, PG etc …
So this was the older version of magnatec not this new recipe/formula it sounds like. Interesting you had goo when all of the people I know in person have never had that issue, ever. Do you have a UOA to accompany this story of goo?
Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
I am not going to argue the semantics of the definition, I have other intrest tonight.I will argue that a Higher viscosity index does not make an oil superior.
Don't know if a high VI is better or not, but based on the definition I'd think less viscosity change (a higher VI number) between say 40C and 100C would be more ideal.
zeeOsix - I do agree with you, seems lately we have people spouting off information and insulting others on this forum as if THEY are *THE PROFESSOR OF OIL*. Typical internet. Where "everybody is an expert". Funny that when challenged they dismissed your questions. No need to even acknowledge that type of behavior!
Fact is.. the VI or Viscosity Index began in 1929 to study the stability of the oil. Highly refined oils and even synthetics receive a higher score on the index. It is usually an indication of the quality of the base stock.
In my own UOA's I've seen lower VI numbers result in shearing that happened quicker than an oil with a higher VI. Yes there are other factors at play but I can make a blanket conclusion that you'd want something with a higher VI than 134.
When I saw that the 5w20 version of magnatec had that I laughed and said "no thank you". Mobil had been pulling this same cheap approach no matter who defends it as normal, it's cheap and its the bean counters at work. You sure don't see full synthetic makers trying to lower the bar like this.
So yes you are correct in believing a lower VI is not something you'd want to have. I usually draw the line around 150 for a VI.
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
Was also thinking about trying Magnatec 5W30, but it's not carried at the Walmarts near me anymore.
Ended up going with good ol M1 5W30 for the rebate.
Not in the league of Edge IMO … 2013 Pentastar … roughest looking oil (thick goo, and coal black 5w20 with just 3k) I have seen in decades of at work or DIY OCI … nothing like that for the first 45k on either M1 or PP … have another Magnatec fill in it now, (already purchased) and looks normal at 2k … have 2 jugs 5w20 QSUD on deck …
No more MT …two OCI runs of that should help clean it out …
Then M1, PP, QSUD, PG etc …
So this was the older version of magnatec not this new recipe/formula it sounds like. Interesting you had goo when all of the people I know in person have never had that issue, ever. Do you have a UOA to accompany this story of goo?
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Originally Posted By: researcher
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
I am not going to argue the semantics of the definition, I have other intrest tonight.I will argue that a Higher viscosity index does not make an oil superior.
Don't know if a high VI is better or not, but based on the definition I'd think less viscosity change (a higher VI number) between say 40C and 100C would be more ideal.
zeeOsix - I do agree with you, seems lately we have people spouting off information and insulting others on this forum as if THEY are *THE PROFESSOR OF OIL*. Typical internet. Where "everybody is an expert". Funny that when challenged they dismissed your questions. No need to even acknowledge that type of behavior!
Fact is.. the VI or Viscosity Index began in 1929 to study the stability of the oil. Highly refined oils and even synthetics receive a higher score on the index. It is usually an indication of the quality of the base stock.
In my own UOA's I've seen lower VI numbers result in shearing that happened quicker than an oil with a higher VI. Yes there are other factors at play but I can make a blanket conclusion that you'd want something with a higher VI than 134.
When I saw that the 5w20 version of magnatec had that I laughed and said "no thank you". Mobil had been pulling this same cheap approach no matter who defends it as normal, it's cheap and its the bean counters at work. You sure don't see full synthetic makers trying to lower the bar like this.
So yes you are correct in believing a lower VI is not something you'd want to have. I usually draw the line around 150 for a VI.
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
Was also thinking about trying Magnatec 5W30, but it's not carried at the Walmarts near me anymore.
Ended up going with good ol M1 5W30 for the rebate.
Not in the league of Edge IMO … 2013 Pentastar … roughest looking oil (thick goo, and coal black 5w20 with just 3k) I have seen in decades of at work or DIY OCI … nothing like that for the first 45k on either M1 or PP … have another Magnatec fill in it now, (already purchased) and looks normal at 2k … have 2 jugs 5w20 QSUD on deck …
No more MT …two OCI runs of that should help clean it out …
Then M1, PP, QSUD, PG etc …
So this was the older version of magnatec not this new recipe/formula it sounds like. Interesting you had goo when all of the people I know in person have never had that issue, ever. Do you have a UOA to accompany this story of goo?
Older version …? Bought and used in 2017-2018 … even more interesting to me, I bought that car …
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
I am not going to argue the semantics of the definition, I have other intrest tonight.I will argue that a Higher viscosity index does not make an oil superior.
Don't know if a high VI is better or not, but based on the definition I'd think less viscosity change (a higher VI number) between say 40C and 100C would be more ideal.
zeeOsix - I do agree with you, seems lately we have people spouting off information and insulting others on this forum as if THEY are *THE PROFESSOR OF OIL*. Typical internet. Where "everybody is an expert". Funny that when challenged they dismissed your questions. No need to even acknowledge that type of behavior!
Fact is.. the VI or Viscosity Index began in 1929 to study the stability of the oil. Highly refined oils and even synthetics receive a higher score on the index. It is usually an indication of the quality of the base stock.
In my own UOA's I've seen lower VI numbers result in shearing that happened quicker than an oil with a higher VI. Yes there are other factors at play but I can make a blanket conclusion that you'd want something with a higher VI than 134.
When I saw that the 5w20 version of magnatec had that I laughed and said "no thank you". Mobil had been pulling this same cheap approach no matter who defends it as normal, it's cheap and its the bean counters at work. You sure don't see full synthetic makers trying to lower the bar like this.
So yes you are correct in believing a lower VI is not something you'd want to have. I usually draw the line around 150 for a VI.
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
Was also thinking about trying Magnatec 5W30, but it's not carried at the Walmarts near me anymore.
Ended up going with good ol M1 5W30 for the rebate.
Not in the league of Edge IMO … 2013 Pentastar … roughest looking oil (thick goo, and coal black 5w20 with just 3k) I have seen in decades of at work or DIY OCI … nothing like that for the first 45k on either M1 or PP … have another Magnatec fill in it now, (already purchased) and looks normal at 2k … have 2 jugs 5w20 QSUD on deck …
No more MT …two OCI runs of that should help clean it out …
Then M1, PP, QSUD, PG etc …
So this was the older version of magnatec not this new recipe/formula it sounds like. Interesting you had goo when all of the people I know in person have never had that issue, ever. Do you have a UOA to accompany this story of goo?
Older version …? Bought and used in 2017-2018 … even more interesting to me, I bought that car …
Originally Posted By: researcher
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Don't know if a high VI is better or not, but based on the definition I'd think less viscosity change (a higher VI number) between say 40C and 100C would be more ideal.
zeeOsix - I do agree with you, seems lately we have people spouting off information and insulting others on this forum as if THEY are *THE PROFESSOR OF OIL*. Typical internet. Where "everybody is an expert". Funny that when challenged they dismissed your questions. No need to even acknowledge that type of behavior!
Fact is.. the VI or Viscosity Index began in 1929 to study the stability of the oil. Highly refined oils and even synthetics receive a higher score on the index. It is usually an indication of the quality of the base stock.
In my own UOA's I've seen lower VI numbers result in shearing that happened quicker than an oil with a higher VI. Yes there are other factors at play but I can make a blanket conclusion that you'd want something with a higher VI than 134.
When I saw that the 5w20 version of magnatec had that I laughed and said "no thank you". Mobil had been pulling this same cheap approach no matter who defends it as normal, it's cheap and its the bean counters at work. You sure don't see full synthetic makers trying to lower the bar like this.
So yes you are correct in believing a lower VI is not something you'd want to have. I usually draw the line around 150 for a VI.
Thanks for added the info on VI.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Don't know if a high VI is better or not, but based on the definition I'd think less viscosity change (a higher VI number) between say 40C and 100C would be more ideal.
zeeOsix - I do agree with you, seems lately we have people spouting off information and insulting others on this forum as if THEY are *THE PROFESSOR OF OIL*. Typical internet. Where "everybody is an expert". Funny that when challenged they dismissed your questions. No need to even acknowledge that type of behavior!
Fact is.. the VI or Viscosity Index began in 1929 to study the stability of the oil. Highly refined oils and even synthetics receive a higher score on the index. It is usually an indication of the quality of the base stock.
In my own UOA's I've seen lower VI numbers result in shearing that happened quicker than an oil with a higher VI. Yes there are other factors at play but I can make a blanket conclusion that you'd want something with a higher VI than 134.
When I saw that the 5w20 version of magnatec had that I laughed and said "no thank you". Mobil had been pulling this same cheap approach no matter who defends it as normal, it's cheap and its the bean counters at work. You sure don't see full synthetic makers trying to lower the bar like this.
So yes you are correct in believing a lower VI is not something you'd want to have. I usually draw the line around 150 for a VI.
Thanks for added the info on VI.
A higher VI doesn't necessarily make an oil better, but a higher VI is preferable if all other factors are equivalent. You need the oil to be a given viscosity at its working temperature. A higher VI oil will be thinner when cold than a lower VI one, so during that period of time spent in the sub-optimal warm-up phase when the oil is thinning down, the higher VI oil will start from a lower viscosity and hence be closer to optimum to start with.
How this higher VI is achieved can impact the oil's performance though. If it is with lots of VM then there are issues around shear stability, piston deposits and so forth. If it is done with high VI base stock you have a more 'robust' VI, but more expensive.
How this higher VI is achieved can impact the oil's performance though. If it is with lots of VM then there are issues around shear stability, piston deposits and so forth. If it is done with high VI base stock you have a more 'robust' VI, but more expensive.
Originally Posted By: researcher
zeeOsix - I do agree with you, seems lately we have people spouting off information and insulting others on this forum as if THEY are *THE PROFESSOR OF OIL*. Typical internet. Where "everybody is an expert". Funny that when challenged they dismissed your questions. No need to even acknowledge that type of behavior!
Fact is.. the VI or Viscosity Index began in 1929 to study the stability of the oil. Highly refined oils and even synthetics receive a higher score on the index. It is usually an indication of the quality of the base stock.
In my own UOA's I've seen lower VI numbers result in shearing that happened quicker than an oil with a higher VI. Yes there are other factors at play but I can make a blanket conclusion that you'd want something with a higher VI than 134.
When I saw that the 5w20 version of magnatec had that I laughed and said "no thank you". Mobil had been pulling this same cheap approach no matter who defends it as normal, it's cheap and its the bean counters at work. You sure don't see full synthetic makers trying to lower the bar like this.
So yes you are correct in believing a lower VI is not something you'd want to have. I usually draw the line around 150 for a VI.
VI was developed to sort base-stocks...basestocks that had a lower change in viscosity with temperature were considered (quite accurately) to be superior. The arbitrary 0 and 100 ratings were based on the best and worst "natural" oils that could be dug up.
Note, it was just the difference in the change in viscosity, not necessarily indicative of other "qualitiies".
As refining, synthesising technology, GTL, novel basestocks evolved, numbers over 100 came to be common(ish)ly available..and again were desirable.
When Viscosity Modifiers came into existance, these chemicals that thicken thinner basestocks, and modify their viscosity change with temperature came into use...they worked on paper, and they worked at the shear rates that were used for the Kinematic Viscosity type tests.
As Weasley said, they started also to demonstrate other undesirable traits
* deposits
* not providing the protection that their Kinematic viscosities (and W grades) would indicate on paper
* extreme cases, turning to a block of rubber in the sump.
Those were the reasons for the absolutely deserved poor rap that the 10W40 grade received in the 60s and 70s...I read the SAE papers while at Uni (on microfiche).
The middle issue, not providing the protection that the KV100 and thus grade would otherwise indicate received a lot of scrutiny and testing, and it was found that there was a shear rate at which the polymers (sort of) flattened out, and the apparent viscosity in high shear regimes dropped, often markedly.
That's the "High Temperature High Shear Viscosity", which is the actual indicator of bearing oil film thickness and protection...for this reason, it was added to SAEJ300 with a minimum spec. Until relatively recently, xW-40s (x being 0W, 5W, and 10W) had a minimum spec of 2.9, exactly the same as an xW-30...
That's potentially how poor chasing Viscosity Index in a multigrade were with the products at the time. No more protection than a 30, but all of the downsides of loading the oils up with polymers.
High Viscosity Index is a good thing...provided, as a previous poster stated that it doesn't introduce too many compromises.
Re an arbitrary lower VI cut-off...look at this oil
https://www.amsoil.com/lit/databulletins/g27.pdf
https://cglapps.chevron.com/sdspds/PDSDetailPage.aspx?docDataId=413394&docFormat=PDF
Virtually all basestock, and no polymers...they are technically virtually unshearable, and carry none of the penalties of polymer additives...but they don't meet your bar of 150, in spite of the above.
zeeOsix - I do agree with you, seems lately we have people spouting off information and insulting others on this forum as if THEY are *THE PROFESSOR OF OIL*. Typical internet. Where "everybody is an expert". Funny that when challenged they dismissed your questions. No need to even acknowledge that type of behavior!
Fact is.. the VI or Viscosity Index began in 1929 to study the stability of the oil. Highly refined oils and even synthetics receive a higher score on the index. It is usually an indication of the quality of the base stock.
In my own UOA's I've seen lower VI numbers result in shearing that happened quicker than an oil with a higher VI. Yes there are other factors at play but I can make a blanket conclusion that you'd want something with a higher VI than 134.
When I saw that the 5w20 version of magnatec had that I laughed and said "no thank you". Mobil had been pulling this same cheap approach no matter who defends it as normal, it's cheap and its the bean counters at work. You sure don't see full synthetic makers trying to lower the bar like this.
So yes you are correct in believing a lower VI is not something you'd want to have. I usually draw the line around 150 for a VI.
VI was developed to sort base-stocks...basestocks that had a lower change in viscosity with temperature were considered (quite accurately) to be superior. The arbitrary 0 and 100 ratings were based on the best and worst "natural" oils that could be dug up.
Note, it was just the difference in the change in viscosity, not necessarily indicative of other "qualitiies".
As refining, synthesising technology, GTL, novel basestocks evolved, numbers over 100 came to be common(ish)ly available..and again were desirable.
When Viscosity Modifiers came into existance, these chemicals that thicken thinner basestocks, and modify their viscosity change with temperature came into use...they worked on paper, and they worked at the shear rates that were used for the Kinematic Viscosity type tests.
As Weasley said, they started also to demonstrate other undesirable traits
* deposits
* not providing the protection that their Kinematic viscosities (and W grades) would indicate on paper
* extreme cases, turning to a block of rubber in the sump.
Those were the reasons for the absolutely deserved poor rap that the 10W40 grade received in the 60s and 70s...I read the SAE papers while at Uni (on microfiche).
The middle issue, not providing the protection that the KV100 and thus grade would otherwise indicate received a lot of scrutiny and testing, and it was found that there was a shear rate at which the polymers (sort of) flattened out, and the apparent viscosity in high shear regimes dropped, often markedly.
That's the "High Temperature High Shear Viscosity", which is the actual indicator of bearing oil film thickness and protection...for this reason, it was added to SAEJ300 with a minimum spec. Until relatively recently, xW-40s (x being 0W, 5W, and 10W) had a minimum spec of 2.9, exactly the same as an xW-30...
That's potentially how poor chasing Viscosity Index in a multigrade were with the products at the time. No more protection than a 30, but all of the downsides of loading the oils up with polymers.
High Viscosity Index is a good thing...provided, as a previous poster stated that it doesn't introduce too many compromises.
Re an arbitrary lower VI cut-off...look at this oil
https://www.amsoil.com/lit/databulletins/g27.pdf
https://cglapps.chevron.com/sdspds/PDSDetailPage.aspx?docDataId=413394&docFormat=PDF
Virtually all basestock, and no polymers...they are technically virtually unshearable, and carry none of the penalties of polymer additives...but they don't meet your bar of 150, in spite of the above.
I always choose a PCMO with lowest VI in narrow grades in modern formulated lubes ,hence I aim of having less VII , less burnoff Quality Baseoil is what lubricte not a load of VII that burn up faster ,not all . Lot of formulators go that route including CASTROL,Magnatec proof that point . Next UOA will be @ 9000 KM will increase till I find sweet spot & out of Ford Warranty . Magnatec has delivered for me
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Thanks for added the info on VI.
you're welcome
Originally Posted By: weasley
A higher VI doesn't necessarily make an oil better, but a higher VI is preferable if all other factors are equivalent. You need the oil to be a given viscosity at its working temperature. A higher VI oil will be thinner when cold than a lower VI one, so during that period of time spent in the sub-optimal warm-up phase when the oil is thinning down, the higher VI oil will start from a lower viscosity and hence be closer to optimum to start with.
How this higher VI is achieved can impact the oil's performance though. If it is with lots of VM then there are issues around shear stability, piston deposits and so forth. If it is done with high VI base stock you have a more 'robust' VI, but more expensive.
Thank you weasley and Shannow!
I knew the basics about VI but both of your comments definitely knocked it out of the park!
Originally Posted By: Shannow
VI was developed to sort base-stocks...basestocks that had a lower change in viscosity with temperature were considered (quite accurately) to be superior. The arbitrary 0 and 100 ratings were based on the best and worst "natural" oils that could be dug up.
Note, it was just the difference in the change in viscosity, not necessarily indicative of other "qualitiies".
As refining, synthesising technology, GTL, novel basestocks evolved, numbers over 100 came to be common(ish)ly available..and again were desirable.
When Viscosity Modifiers came into existance, these chemicals that thicken thinner basestocks, and modify their viscosity change with temperature came into use...they worked on paper, and they worked at the shear rates that were used for the Kinematic Viscosity type tests.
As Weasley said, they started also to demonstrate other undesirable traits
* deposits
* not providing the protection that their Kinematic viscosities (and W grades) would indicate on paper
* extreme cases, turning to a block of rubber in the sump.
Those were the reasons for the absolutely deserved poor rap that the 10W40 grade received in the 60s and 70s...I read the SAE papers while at Uni (on microfiche).
The middle issue, not providing the protection that the KV100 and thus grade would otherwise indicate received a lot of scrutiny and testing, and it was found that there was a shear rate at which the polymers (sort of) flattened out, and the apparent viscosity in high shear regimes dropped, often markedly.
That's the "High Temperature High Shear Viscosity", which is the actual indicator of bearing oil film thickness and protection...for this reason, it was added to SAEJ300 with a minimum spec. Until relatively recently, xW-40s (x being 0W, 5W, and 10W) had a minimum spec of 2.9, exactly the same as an xW-30...
That's potentially how poor chasing Viscosity Index in a multigrade were with the products at the time. No more protection than a 30, but all of the downsides of loading the oils up with polymers.
High Viscosity Index is a good thing...provided, as a previous poster stated that it doesn't introduce too many compromises.
Re an arbitrary lower VI cut-off...look at this oil
https://www.amsoil.com/lit/databulletins/g27.pdf
https://cglapps.chevron.com/sdspds/PDSDetailPage.aspx?docDataId=413394&docFormat=PDF
Virtually all basestock, and no polymers...they are technically virtually unshearable, and carry none of the penalties of polymer additives...but they don't meet your bar of 150, in spite of the above.
And Shannow.. I only used 150 as a base for my own consideration, as you pointed out there's MUCH more to it.. My experience was only in regards to what I saw with the quality of the oil, shearing over time. But thanks for completing the rest of the "equation". I do appreciate it.
Thanks for added the info on VI.
you're welcome
Originally Posted By: weasley
A higher VI doesn't necessarily make an oil better, but a higher VI is preferable if all other factors are equivalent. You need the oil to be a given viscosity at its working temperature. A higher VI oil will be thinner when cold than a lower VI one, so during that period of time spent in the sub-optimal warm-up phase when the oil is thinning down, the higher VI oil will start from a lower viscosity and hence be closer to optimum to start with.
How this higher VI is achieved can impact the oil's performance though. If it is with lots of VM then there are issues around shear stability, piston deposits and so forth. If it is done with high VI base stock you have a more 'robust' VI, but more expensive.
Thank you weasley and Shannow!
Originally Posted By: Shannow
VI was developed to sort base-stocks...basestocks that had a lower change in viscosity with temperature were considered (quite accurately) to be superior. The arbitrary 0 and 100 ratings were based on the best and worst "natural" oils that could be dug up.
Note, it was just the difference in the change in viscosity, not necessarily indicative of other "qualitiies".
As refining, synthesising technology, GTL, novel basestocks evolved, numbers over 100 came to be common(ish)ly available..and again were desirable.
When Viscosity Modifiers came into existance, these chemicals that thicken thinner basestocks, and modify their viscosity change with temperature came into use...they worked on paper, and they worked at the shear rates that were used for the Kinematic Viscosity type tests.
As Weasley said, they started also to demonstrate other undesirable traits
* deposits
* not providing the protection that their Kinematic viscosities (and W grades) would indicate on paper
* extreme cases, turning to a block of rubber in the sump.
Those were the reasons for the absolutely deserved poor rap that the 10W40 grade received in the 60s and 70s...I read the SAE papers while at Uni (on microfiche).
The middle issue, not providing the protection that the KV100 and thus grade would otherwise indicate received a lot of scrutiny and testing, and it was found that there was a shear rate at which the polymers (sort of) flattened out, and the apparent viscosity in high shear regimes dropped, often markedly.
That's the "High Temperature High Shear Viscosity", which is the actual indicator of bearing oil film thickness and protection...for this reason, it was added to SAEJ300 with a minimum spec. Until relatively recently, xW-40s (x being 0W, 5W, and 10W) had a minimum spec of 2.9, exactly the same as an xW-30...
That's potentially how poor chasing Viscosity Index in a multigrade were with the products at the time. No more protection than a 30, but all of the downsides of loading the oils up with polymers.
High Viscosity Index is a good thing...provided, as a previous poster stated that it doesn't introduce too many compromises.
Re an arbitrary lower VI cut-off...look at this oil
https://www.amsoil.com/lit/databulletins/g27.pdf
https://cglapps.chevron.com/sdspds/PDSDetailPage.aspx?docDataId=413394&docFormat=PDF
Virtually all basestock, and no polymers...they are technically virtually unshearable, and carry none of the penalties of polymer additives...but they don't meet your bar of 150, in spite of the above.
And Shannow.. I only used 150 as a base for my own consideration, as you pointed out there's MUCH more to it.. My experience was only in regards to what I saw with the quality of the oil, shearing over time. But thanks for completing the rest of the "equation". I do appreciate it.
Sweet, no problems at all.
My target is typically the lowest "grade" spread (15W gets you going anywhere in Australia), and anything over 170VI I avoid. Like the "Harman Index" (Ratio of HTHS to the (calculated, it's not exact) "Newtonian" viscosity at 150C) to be in the 90s.
An ACEA A3/B4, or C3 10W30 full synth would be my go to, but those beasts don't live here, so 5W30 A3/B4, or C3 synthetic are what I typically buy...
My target is typically the lowest "grade" spread (15W gets you going anywhere in Australia), and anything over 170VI I avoid. Like the "Harman Index" (Ratio of HTHS to the (calculated, it's not exact) "Newtonian" viscosity at 150C) to be in the 90s.
An ACEA A3/B4, or C3 10W30 full synth would be my go to, but those beasts don't live here, so 5W30 A3/B4, or C3 synthetic are what I typically buy...
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Sweet, no problems at all.
My target is typically the lowest "grade" spread (15W gets you going anywhere in Australia), and anything over 170VI I avoid. Like the "Harman Index" (Ratio of HTHS to the (calculated, it's not exact) "Newtonian" viscosity at 150C) to be in the 90s.
An ACEA A3/B4, or C3 10W30 full synth would be my go to, but those beasts don't live here, so 5W30 A3/B4, or C3 synthetic are what I typically buy...
How about an A5/B5 10W30 ?
Any good to you ?
You can get that here as Castrol Edge, in fact I'm a bit torn between Edge 5W30 A3/B4 and Edge 10W30 A5/B5.
Sweet, no problems at all.
My target is typically the lowest "grade" spread (15W gets you going anywhere in Australia), and anything over 170VI I avoid. Like the "Harman Index" (Ratio of HTHS to the (calculated, it's not exact) "Newtonian" viscosity at 150C) to be in the 90s.
An ACEA A3/B4, or C3 10W30 full synth would be my go to, but those beasts don't live here, so 5W30 A3/B4, or C3 synthetic are what I typically buy...
How about an A5/B5 10W30 ?
Any good to you ?
You can get that here as Castrol Edge, in fact I'm a bit torn between Edge 5W30 A3/B4 and Edge 10W30 A5/B5.
I've ran magnatec 5w30 full and partial synthetics out to 8-9.5k miles without any "goop". The engine consumes about 1 quart of oil over that time period. Whoever had goop must have had a separate issue, like blowby turned the oil black and a head gasket crack created the goop.
The magnatec 5w30 fill in my zx2 is at 3k miles and 6 months right now and it looks nearly as clear as new. My Cobalt turns oil dark much much faster than my zx2, and that's the rig I ran magnatec to 8-9.5k miles. My zx2 gets an oil change once every 6 months due to severe duty, mostly trips of 1-2 miles.
The magnatec 5w30 fill in my zx2 is at 3k miles and 6 months right now and it looks nearly as clear as new. My Cobalt turns oil dark much much faster than my zx2, and that's the rig I ran magnatec to 8-9.5k miles. My zx2 gets an oil change once every 6 months due to severe duty, mostly trips of 1-2 miles.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Sweet, no problems at all.
My target is typically the lowest "grade" spread (15W gets you going anywhere in Australia), and anything over 170VI I avoid. Like the "Harman Index" (Ratio of HTHS to the (calculated, it's not exact) "Newtonian" viscosity at 150C) to be in the 90s.
An ACEA A3/B4, or C3 10W30 full synth would be my go to, but those beasts don't live here, so 5W30 A3/B4, or C3 synthetic are what I typically buy...
Interesting info.. I did plug in all the data using the "Harman Index" which uses the Widman Operational Viscosity calculator, etc.. Results are a 0.95 or 95 for the Magnatec 5w20(new formula sn plus). I see your point about VI and modifiers. Since the VI of the 5w20 Magnatec is a 134!
I plugged in the data for the 5w30 Magnatec and got 0.932. And that has a VI of 170!
So if I am to interpret these results correctly, looks like the 5w30 magnatec doesn't contain that many VI modifiers, and the base stock is just that much refined. Let me know Shannow if my interpretation is correct.
I'm re-learning what I had previously believed.. Cool!
EDIT: a score of 1 would mean there are no VI modifiers in that oil. Closer you get to 1, the less modification.
Sweet, no problems at all.
My target is typically the lowest "grade" spread (15W gets you going anywhere in Australia), and anything over 170VI I avoid. Like the "Harman Index" (Ratio of HTHS to the (calculated, it's not exact) "Newtonian" viscosity at 150C) to be in the 90s.
An ACEA A3/B4, or C3 10W30 full synth would be my go to, but those beasts don't live here, so 5W30 A3/B4, or C3 synthetic are what I typically buy...
Interesting info.. I did plug in all the data using the "Harman Index" which uses the Widman Operational Viscosity calculator, etc.. Results are a 0.95 or 95 for the Magnatec 5w20(new formula sn plus). I see your point about VI and modifiers. Since the VI of the 5w20 Magnatec is a 134!
I plugged in the data for the 5w30 Magnatec and got 0.932. And that has a VI of 170!
So if I am to interpret these results correctly, looks like the 5w30 magnatec doesn't contain that many VI modifiers, and the base stock is just that much refined. Let me know Shannow if my interpretation is correct.
I'm re-learning what I had previously believed.. Cool!
EDIT: a score of 1 would mean there are no VI modifiers in that oil. Closer you get to 1, the less modification.
Last edited:
The Harmon Index is an approximation built on assumptions. I’m not a mathematician, but there needs to be “error bars” associated with any calculation. Probably something like +- 2. We don’t have enough information to conclude if Magnatec 5W-20 is higher than 5W-30. It could very well be lower.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
The Harmon Index is an approximation built on assumptions. I’m not a mathematician, but there needs to be “error bars” associated with any calculation. Probably something like +- 2. We don’t have enough information to conclude if Magnatec 5W-20 is higher than 5W-30. It could very well be lower.
First point yes...
second point no...you have to use your head as well to see if the results are rational.
136 VI you can get almost solely with basestocks...170 you simply can't.
Edge 25W-50 comes out as 1
Nulon 25W60 comes out as 1
TGMO comes out in the 0.8s
They all tell you something without error bars.
The Harmon Index is an approximation built on assumptions. I’m not a mathematician, but there needs to be “error bars” associated with any calculation. Probably something like +- 2. We don’t have enough information to conclude if Magnatec 5W-20 is higher than 5W-30. It could very well be lower.
First point yes...
second point no...you have to use your head as well to see if the results are rational.
136 VI you can get almost solely with basestocks...170 you simply can't.
Edge 25W-50 comes out as 1
Nulon 25W60 comes out as 1
TGMO comes out in the 0.8s
They all tell you something without error bars.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
The Harmon Index is an approximation built on assumptions. I’m not a mathematician, but there needs to be “error bars” associated with any calculation. Probably something like +- 2. We don’t have enough information to conclude if Magnatec 5W-20 is higher than 5W-30. It could very well be lower.
First point yes...
second point no...you have to use your head as well to see if the results are rational.
136 VI you can get almost solely with basestocks...170 you simply can't.
Edge 25W-50 comes out as 1
Nulon 25W60 comes out as 1
TGMO comes out in the 0.8s
They all tell you something without error bars.
In this case I completely agree with you. I guess my comment was more to warn that it has limits, especially within grades.
Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
The Harmon Index is an approximation built on assumptions. I’m not a mathematician, but there needs to be “error bars” associated with any calculation. Probably something like +- 2. We don’t have enough information to conclude if Magnatec 5W-20 is higher than 5W-30. It could very well be lower.
First point yes...
second point no...you have to use your head as well to see if the results are rational.
136 VI you can get almost solely with basestocks...170 you simply can't.
Edge 25W-50 comes out as 1
Nulon 25W60 comes out as 1
TGMO comes out in the 0.8s
They all tell you something without error bars.
In this case I completely agree with you. I guess my comment was more to warn that it has limits, especially within grades.
- Status