CATERHAM

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
If you label a 0w30 oil as a 10w30 oil, the consumer is fooled and not getting what they intended to purchase.
Tom NJ

A 0w30 that's arketed as a 10w30 is a bit of a stretch but as I mentioned with my 5w30 example I don't see how a consumer is being fooled.
A 0W-XX is a technically superior product to a 5w30 or 10w30 for that matter. The fact that it flow better at extreme cold temp's has no disadvantages that I can see.


The consumer is being fooled because he is not getting what he intended to buy, and what the label told him he was buying. A 0w30 may have some superior properties compared to a 5w30, but if the consumer wants a 5w30 than that's what he should get. Perhaps he wants a 5w30 because it is called for under his warranty, or he wants a lower Noack, or more shear stability, or a higher HTHS viscosity, or whatever his reason may be. This is why the rule is in place. I don't doubt that some companies violate it, but I'd be surprised if a major oil company did - they should know better.

I misspoke above - I meant to say that the oil must be labeled with the lowest W grade that it meets. The actual wording in SAE J300 is "In labelling 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."

By the way, here is a paper on new ultra low viscosity grades you may find interesting: New Low Viscosity Grades

Tom NJ

 

[CATERHAM]

Tom, thanks again for your input.

What you say makes perfect sense with regard to mineral oils where lower XW grades do consistently have higher NOACK percentages, lower HTHSV values and higher VII levels and therefore less shear stability.
But all bets are off when it comes to synthetic oils.
0W oils can have higher NOACK percentages, higher HTHSV values and more shear stability than higher XW grade oils if higher quality GP IV & V base oils are used vs GP III. And since formulations tend to be proprietary the consumer is really left out in the dark on the matter.
BTW, the SAE J300 wording you excerpted did not include 0W and 5W grades which leads me to surmise that the concern may indeed have more to do with conventional motor oils?

Tom thanks for the SAE paper link on the proposed new lower grades. I have read it before at least in part regarding Honda's and Toyota's lighter grade requests.
I must say it makes so much more sense defining the SAE grades
based on HTHSV values with less emphasis on KV values.
It would be useful if they would include maximum HTHSV values by grade as well. It's sort of implied but not spelled out. And that goes for the existing 20wt and higher grades. Minimum and maximum HTHSV values would eliminate a lot of confusion when comparing oils from different formulators.

 

[Stelth]

Peter, I thank you for all the information that you've supplied both in this thread and others. You've definitely answered my questions.

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
0W oils can have higher NOACK percentages, higher HTHSV values and more shear stability than higher XW grade oils if higher quality GP IV & V base oils are used vs GP III. And since formulations tend to be proprietary the consumer is really left out in the dark on the matter.

True, but as you say the consumer doesn't know the composition, and therefore it is reasonable for them to assume that a lower W grade uses a lower viscosity base oil, yielding a higher Noack, lower HTHS, and more VI Improver (lower shear stability). This may lead them to seek a 5W over a 0W, and the label should reflect what they are getting.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
BTW, the SAE J300 wording you excerpted did not include 0W and 5W grades which leads me to surmise that the concern may indeed have more to do with conventional motor oils?

The wording they used was just for an example - the rule applies equally for 0W and 5W oils. I don't think they are concerned about conventional versus synthetic, just that labels accurate describe the oils and consumers get what they expect. Without such a rule, a blender can make a single 0w30 product and market it as a 0W-30, 5w30, 10w30, 15w30, 20W-30, 25w30, and straight 30. Clearly this would be wrong.

Glad you enjoyed the paper. The future could bring some interesting new light oils. I just hope they set the HTHS viscosities high enough to really protect the engines. These new grades would certainly benefit esters - too bad I'm retired................NOT!

Tom

 

[river_rat]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Part of the advantage of going with a syn oil in the first place is having the benefit of a lighter oil on start-up at all temperatures not just extreme cold.

Now I have a question, too. Does this statement hold true for run-of-the-mill-off-the-shelf group III synthetics?
There is a lot of arguments on this board that conventional motor oil is just as good as most "synthetics" as they are usually mostly Group III, and I can understand where they are coming from with the high quality conventionals out there, but I am still a believer in synthetics.

 

[cp3]

The GPIIIs still have better cold properties but with the SN oils the gap seems to be narrowing.

 

[river_rat]

Originally Posted By: cp3
The GPIIIs still have better cold properties but with the SN oils the gap seems to be narrowing.

Ever narrowing, that's true.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
By the way, here is a paper on new ultra low viscosity grades you may find interesting: New Low Viscosity Grades

Tom NJ


That's a very interesting paper. It does give some good reminders as to how oil viscosity specifications got to where they are today. Figures 2 and 3 show that conrod bearing wear has a tendency to increase greatly once the HTHS goes below 2.3. I can see the consideration that went into setting the limit of 2.6cP for 20-weight oils: If the oil shears 10%, it's at the limit where high bearing wear can start to occur. I can see that 15-weight oils with HTHS of 2.3 may be practical in current engines if they are shear-proof, but below that, automakers have a lot of work to do to safely specify 5 and 10-weight oils. I don't see it happening unless engines are completely redesigned to use rolling-element bearings everywhere or the sizes of the conventional bearings are increased.

Assuming the bearing problems can be overcome, there would also be issues with ring, bore, and piston pin wear. Higher volatility of lower viscosity oils would mean less lubrication for the upper cylinders, and high-temperature tribological coatings would have to be used.

All of this means a very expensive engine, and just to save a couple of percent in fuel economy? This seems to me to be the Land of Diminishing Returns.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: river_rat
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Part of the advantage of going with a syn oil in the first place is having the benefit of a lighter oil on start-up at all temperatures not just extreme cold.

Now I have a question, too. Does this statement hold true for run-of-the-mill-off-the-shelf group III synthetics?
There is a lot of arguments on this board that conventional motor oil is just as good as most "synthetics" as they are usually mostly Group III, and I can understand where they are coming from with the high quality conventionals out there, but I am still a believer in synthetics.


I don't think there's a hard and fast answer to that question; ultimately, you have to look at the specs of the different oils. Take for instance, PP vs. Pennzoil conventional. The difference between the 5W20's @ 40C is .5 degrees, so there's no significant advantage at most start-up temps (MRV specs are quite a bit better, so below 0 degrees it starts to look better). Comparing 5W30 though, the PP is >10% lighter at start-up compared to Pennzoil conventional.

Meanwhile, Pennzoil Conventional 5w20 is lighter on start-up than Synpower. So, I guess the answer to your question is "it depends".

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ

True, but as you say the consumer doesn't know the composition, and therefore it is reasonable for them to assume that a lower W grade uses a lower viscosity base oil, yielding a higher Noack, lower HTHS, and more VI Improver (lower shear stability). This may lead them to seek a 5W over a 0W, and the label should reflect what they are getting.
Tom

Tom I'm enjoying our open conversation here.
My point is that when it comes to synthetics the consumer can't assume that a lower W grade will necessarily yield a higher NOACK, lower HTHSV or the use of more VII's. Choosing a 5W over a 0W will often result in the exact opposite. Case in point; Syntec 5w30 vs Syntec (GC) 0w30 but there are many more examples.
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.

 

[paulswagelock]

One of the best threads in a long time. No bashing, little opinion, just open dialog with factual info.

Reminds me of why I belong to this forum. Great.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

just that labels accurate describe the oils and consumers get what they expect. Without such a rule, a blender can make a single 0w30 product and market it as a 0W-30, 5w30, 10w30, 15w30, 20W-30, 25w30, and straight 30. Clearly this would be wrong.
Tom

But is it wrong with the better synthetic oils that contain no VIIs? For example, if a 0w30 oil contains no VIIs it is a straight 30wt oil as well so it covers the entire spectrum you've listed. My point again is that the SAE grading system that was designed for mineral oils doesn't work well with synthetic oils.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
My point again is that the SAE grading system that was designed for mineral oils doesn't work well with synthetic oils.


I think the grading system still "works," but might be getting to the point of strain. However, I definitely like your idea about publishing on the bottle certain specs like HTHS, VI, and the like. Of course, as you pointed out, it won't mean a lot to most people, but for those in the know, it makes comparing one 5w30, say, to another 5w30 in the store a much easier proposition.

 

[cp3]

Originally Posted By: paulswagelock
One of the best threads in a long time. No bashing, little opinion, just open dialog with factual info.

Reminds me of why I belong to this forum. Great.


I'll second that for sure. Thank you gentlemen.

I will also second Caterham's suggestion that some important spec be put on the label. At very least it would be nice if they were required to publish them.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ

Tom NJ

That's a very interesting paper. It does give some good reminders as to how oil viscosity specifications got to where they are today. Figures 2 and 3 show that conrod bearing wear has a tendency to increase greatly once the HTHS goes below 2.3. I can see the consideration that went into setting the limit of 2.6cP for 20-weight oils: If the oil shears 10%, it's at the limit where high bearing wear can start to occur. I can see that 15-weight oils with HTHS of 2.3 may be practical in current engines if they are shear-proof, but below that, automakers have a lot of work to do to safely specify 5 and 10-weight oils. I don't see it happening unless engines are completely redesigned to use rolling-element bearings everywhere or the sizes of the conventional bearings are increased.
Assuming the bearing problems can be overcome, there would also be issues with ring, bore, and piston pin wear. Higher volatility of lower viscosity oils would mean less lubrication for the upper cylinders, and high-temperature tribological coatings would have to be used.
All of this means a very expensive engine, and just to save a couple of percent in fuel economy? This seems to me to be the Land of Diminishing Returns.

One point you're overlooking with the push by the Japanese OEM's for these sub HTHSV 2.6cP oils is the effect of oil temperature.
If you're operating with low oil temp's most of the time and you've got a handle on maximum oil temp's then I can definitely see the interest in the use of 0W-15, 0W-10 and even 0W-5 oils.

 

[jaj]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
... 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)...


In a very limited way HTHS is already on most labels, although in a highly encoded format. ACEA ratings distinguish between HTHS levels within a single SAE grade. A1 and A5 are "low" and A3 is "high". It's not perfect, but it's helpful.

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Tom I'm enjoying our open conversation here.

Me too.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
My point is that when it comes to synthetics the consumer can't assume that a lower W grade will necessarily yield a higher NOACK, lower HTHSV or the use of more VII's..... 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.

I agree. But while consumers cannot always assume this, especially with synthetics, lacking sufficient data and compositional information it is reasonable that they do. Those with more technical knowledge can always consult oil data sheets for Noack and HTHS results (if available) and make individual decisions. Without the labeling rule, a lot of conventional oil blenders would exploit the over-lapping aspects of the J300 specification in order to reduce their inventory, and this would make a mess of the system.

Like you, I would prefer that viscosity grades be defined only by specifications for CCS, MRV, and HTHS (non-overlapping), with less emphasis on Kv, but changes like that are slow to acheive in this complex industry. It would require agreement among the SAE, ASTM, API, OEMs, and ILSAC, and that takes time.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
One simple solution would be to require the actual important oil spec's to be shown on the back of the bottle.

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. 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

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: jaj
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
... 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)...

In a very limited way HTHS is already on most labels, although in a highly encoded format. ACEA ratings distinguish between HTHS levels within a single SAE grade. A1 and A5 are "low" and A3 is "high". It's not perfect, but it's helpful.

Yes it may be helpful but you still have to be fairly well educated on the subject matter to understand the ACEA ratings.
Or it can add to consumer confusion as was discussed on another thread when A3, B4 labels were popping up on SAE 0W-20 grade oils which implies a HTHSV 3.5cP oil which of course it can't be unless it's really a 30wt oil.
Which then raised the question can you trust A3, B4 ACEA labels on even 30wt oils particularly when the KV100 spec's are very low.
There is so much marketing horsing around with labeling I say just put the real spec's on the bottle. Of course that is no guarantee of truthfulness on the part of the formulator but it would be an improvement on what we have currently.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
One point you're overlooking with the push by the Japanese OEM's for these sub HTHSV 2.6cP oils is the effect of oil temperature.
If you're operating with low oil temp's most of the time and you've got a handle on maximum oil temp's then I can definitely see the interest in the use of 0W-15, 0W-10 and even 0W-5 oils.


Yes, I was looking at the problem as one of changing the oil viscosity specification, and assessing the impact on engine designs of the future. Considering the oil temperature, there is the question of how each manufacturer manages their safety margins for bearing oil film thickness. We know that most engines operate in the range of 80-100C for oil temperature most of the time. As long as the oil temperature can be controlled within that range, I would expect that 0w5 or 0w10 oils would be fine because they would still have dynamic viscosity easily in excess of 2.6cP.

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. The engine has to have enough design margin so that occasional excursions from normal operation will not cause catastrophic failure. This is where manufacturer's different engineering practices come into play. If Honda has specified 0w10 for their engine, then they should have enough cooling capacity to keep the oil from thinning out excessively, thereby allowing the bearings to go into mixed lubrication. On the other hand, if GM has stuck with 0w20 (I'm talking hypothetically here, in the automotive world of the future!), they can allow the oil to run hotter before they run the risk of losing full hydrodynamic lubrication. In Honda's case, maybe they find that it's necessary to include an oil cooler in their car, whereas GM may not. It all depends on how much margin the OEM wants to design in for operation by boneheads.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
All of this means a very expensive engine, and just to save a couple of percent in fuel economy? This seems to me to be the Land of Diminishing Returns.


AGREED!

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