CATERHAM

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
I do agree the label should reflect what they are getting, but the SAE grading system often doesn't accomplish that when it comes to syn oils. One simple solution would be to require the actual important oil spec's to be shown on the back of the bottle. Specifically the HTHSV (bearing viscosity), NOACK (volatility)and VI (viscosity index). He or she may not know what they mean but they don't know what 5w30 means either. Since they are listed on the bottle it's safe to assume they're important and the consumer can google the spec's from their smart phone while they're standing in the oil isle at Walmart.


GREAT ideas!

But, of course the majors and their ad/marketing depts. will just say, "too confusing and complicated, etc.".

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ


That would be nice, but raises the question "required by whom?" Personally I wouldn't want to see government get that deep in the pants of private businesses.


I think that's an easy one: it could be required by the organizations offering the approvals (API, ILSAC, etc). I agree this would be overreaching on the part of a governmental organization, but there's no reason these organizations couldn't require more accurate and useful labeling as part of the approval process.

Overall, I'm of the opinion that if an oil 'meets or exceeds' the 10W30 spec, the manufacturer should be able to label it as such, even if it's a 0W30 oil--simply because those designations really don't mean much. While I understand that the *typical* 10W30 will have lower volatility than the typical 0W30, there's simply no way to know if that's actually true. So, a labeling system that requires a degree of inferences from the end user simply seems to have outlived its usefulness.


Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Most oil suppliers make at least some data available on their websites, and those that don't list enough data will risk losing the educated end of the customer spectrum.
Tom


I agree, and there are certain products I just won't buy based on a lack of information from the mfg. That said, I don't really see a downside for requiring manufacturers to publish certain minimum specifications in order to obtain approvals.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
if a 0w30 oil contains no VIIs


Just curious, but does the above actually exist anywhere currently for sale, and if so what is it's VI??

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman

But manufacturers have to protect for worst-case operation, such as when somebody wants to do track days, and heats up the oil to 150C.

When was the last time you saw a Prius putting in some hot laps at a track event! ( I'm not including the British Top Gear show where they ran one flat out being paced by a M3 BMW and the M3 got better gas mileage....all in aid of making a point, but I digress).

These sub 20wt oils are undoubtedly for highly specialized applications, particularly the 0W-10 and 0W-5 grades, for engines of low specific output. They will not be spec'd for higher output engines if there is even the remotest possibility of high oil temp's.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
if a 0w30 oil contains no VIIs

Just curious, but does the above actually exist anywhere currently for sale, and if so what is it's VI??

I was wondering is some one was going to call me up on that so congrats!.
The answer is not that I know of, but there a few, mostly from race oriented formulators, that make heavy 0W-20 oils with HTHSVs over 2.9cP, and that in my book is a 30wt oil.

You may be interested to know, the following quote is off the label of Red Line 0W-20 and 0w30 actual oil bottles:
"Formulated to suit the requirements for ACEA A3, and B3/B4."

 

[CATERHAM]

Oh, I meant to also say that these heavy 0W-20's that are really 0w30 oils contain no VII's. And that includes Red Line 0W-20.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: A_Harman

But manufacturers have to protect for worst-case operation, such as when somebody wants to do track days, and heats up the oil to 150C.

When was the last time you saw a Prius putting in some hot laps at a track event! ( I'm not including the British Top Gear show where they ran one flat out being paced by a M3 BMW and the M3 got better gas mileage....all in aid of making a point, but I digress).

These sub 20wt oils are undoubtedly for highly specialized applications, particularly the 0W-10 and 0W-5 grades, for engines of low specific output. They will not be spec'd for higher output engines if there is even the remotest possibility of high oil temp's.



Track Days are one example of extreme operation, but there could be others. Modern engine controls being what they are, the OEM desiring to run ultra-thin oils could put the engine in limp-home mode if the oil temp gets into a dangerous zone. But my point is how much fuel economy benefit is gained from pursuing ever-thinner oils versus the amount of re-engineering required and the resultant relibility risks in the field. If I'm going to spend $100-million to re-engineer an engine for better fuel economy, are there other technologies out there that give more bang for the buck?

 

[CATERHAM]

I think the big advantage is not at operating temperature, even a low one of say 80C, but on start-up. A 0W-5 with a 200+ VI will dramatically reduce oil drag on start-up and during the warming up period. And with hybrid part-time engines that warming-up period can be where an engine spents most of it's running life.

 

[OldCowboy]

Several people have remarked on how bearing wear dramatically increases as the HTHSV drops below 2.3. It's interesting how the big end bearing wear increased slightly as the HTHSV increased above 2.6 (Figure 2a).

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ


That would be nice, but raises the question "required by whom?" Personally I wouldn't want to see government get that deep in the pants of private businesses.


I think that's an easy one: it could be required by the organizations offering the approvals (API, ILSAC, etc). I agree this would be overreaching on the part of a governmental organization, but there's no reason these organizations couldn't require more accurate and useful labeling as part of the approval process.


The problem is that these approval organizations are actually trade organizations whose members are the oil companies. Generally they don't like to put restrictions on themselves, especially with regard to valuable label space. After all these years, the only things they require on labels are the SAE Viscosity Grade and certification marks, if any.

Tom

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
if a 0w30 oil contains no VIIs


Just curious, but does the above actually exist anywhere currently for sale, and if so what is it's VI??

I could probably make one, but it would be expensive.

Tom

 

[CATERHAM]

Then there's the converse, a 0w30 with a 235 VI that likely has the highest level of VII's:
http://www.motul.fr/system/product_descr....pdf?1290086771

 

[cp3]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Oh, I meant to also say that these heavy 0W-20's that are really 0w30 oils contain no VII's. And that includes Red Line 0W-20.


Wouldn't the same be true for Red Line 0W30?....no VIIs

 

[CATERHAM]

No, according to Dave at Red Line their 0w30 does contain a small amount of VIIs. In fact I think the Red Line 0W range of oils are the same except for the VII content. None for the 166 VI 0W-20, a touch for the 183 0w30 and a bit more for the 197 VI 0W-40, but even the 0W-40 doesn't have a lot since it starts with a 166 natural VI. They all have the same 9% NOACK.

 

[river_rat]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Just like most on here think that everyone goes too thick, there HAS TO BE a point of going too thin.

I agree there is...depending on the engine design and oil temperature, etc., etc.
I don't think too thin is that easily reached, though I will not go below my spec'ed XW-20 weight. Most wear is start-up and warm-up when the oil is too thick. From all evidence I've ever seen (SAE tests and all that) that "too thin point" of failure or accelerated wear is probably well below the 20 weights which have HT/HS viscosities in the 2.6 cSt range.
The test failures usually occured when the HTHS got down to the 1.4 cSt area.

 

[GMorg]

If an oil meets the viscosity of the recommended grade, I think that you would have break the laws of physics to have winter grade that had too low of a viscosity. So, if an oil meets the operating viscosity recommendations, it CANNOT be too thin at lower temperatures.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
if a 0w30 oil contains no VIIs


Just curious, but does the above actually exist anywhere currently for sale, and if so what is it's VI??

I could probably make one, but it would be expensive.

Tom


With NO VIIs, how high would the VI be (approximately)??

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: river_rat
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Just like most on here think that everyone goes too thick, there HAS TO BE a point of going too thin.

I agree there is...depending on the engine design and oil temperature, etc., etc.
I don't think too thin is that easily reached, though I will not go below my spec'ed XW-20 weight. Most wear is start-up and warm-up when the oil is too thick. From all evidence I've ever seen (SAE tests and all that) that "too thin point" of failure or accelerated wear is probably well below the 20 weights which have HT/HS viscosities in the 2.6 cSt range.
The test failures usually occured when the HTHS got down to the 1.4 cSt area.




Of course, but I was implying at FULLLY warmed up, operating temps.

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
With NO VIIs, how high would the VI be (approximately)??


Hard to say without doing the blends, but the base oils would be in the 180s. Not sure if it would work as I never tried it, but I think it's possible.

Tom NJ

 

[DragRace]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Oh, I meant to also say that these heavy 0W-20's that are really 0w30 oils contain no VII's. And that includes Red Line 0W-20.


Call me obsessive,compulsive,needs help,whatever,but when you bring up this subject,you always put me into a tail-spin on what to use this winter.

Supposively,the pumps in the 95 explorer's were not designed to handle 20-weight oils,so with that said,I'm 90% goin with Amsoil AZO 0w30,but you keep tempting me with the Red line 0w20,thats really a 30-weight