Originally Posted By: 4WD
Thought I saw the Delvac dino had a decent NOACK … like 10.8 IIRC?
10.2%
PQIA HDEO list
Thought I saw the Delvac dino had a decent NOACK … like 10.8 IIRC?
10.2%
PQIA HDEO list
Do you think that's "thick" oil? Think again!
- Thread starter Gokhan
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Thought I saw the Delvac dino had a decent NOACK … like 10.8 IIRC?
10.2%
PQIA HDEO list
And the 2015 PYB dino 10W-30 NOACK = 4.2%. Do you think your oil is really dino? Lol.
PQIA PCMO list
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Thought I saw the Delvac dino had a decent NOACK … like 10.8 IIRC?
10.2%
PQIA HDEO list
And the 2015 PYB dino 10W-30 NOACK = 4.2%. Do you think your oil is really dino? Lol.
PQIA PCMO list
Speaking of Mobil Delvac 1300 Super 15W-40 CK-4, I calculated its A_Harman index to be 0.982, which is the highest I've ever seen in a mainstream oil. It's practically a SAE 40 straight grade. In fact if I use the PQIA values and the HTHSV in the datasheet, I get 0.996.
However, they've gone skinny on the AW additives because it's SN-rated. It's not approved by Ford HDEO specification WSS-M2C171-F1. Ford came up with it because they discovered CK-4 oils fell behind CJ-4 oils in wear protection and they required 1,000 - 1,200 ppm phosphorus as a result.
I'm inclined for M1 15W-50 for next OCI. It's VII-heavy but AW pack is as strong as it gets with 1,200 phosphorus and generous moly as well. It's specifically recommended for flat tappets.
However, they've gone skinny on the AW additives because it's SN-rated. It's not approved by Ford HDEO specification WSS-M2C171-F1. Ford came up with it because they discovered CK-4 oils fell behind CJ-4 oils in wear protection and they required 1,000 - 1,200 ppm phosphorus as a result.
I'm inclined for M1 15W-50 for next OCI. It's VII-heavy but AW pack is as strong as it gets with 1,200 phosphorus and generous moly as well. It's specifically recommended for flat tappets.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
... I'm inclined for M1 15W-50 for next OCI. ...
Does this imply your enthusiasm for TGMO 0W-20 has cooled?
... I'm inclined for M1 15W-50 for next OCI. ...
Does this imply your enthusiasm for TGMO 0W-20 has cooled?
Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
... I'm inclined for M1 15W-50 for next OCI. ...
Does this imply your enthusiasm for TGMO 0W-20 has cooled?
Experimenting... Will do a UOA with TGMO and then compare with a really thick oil.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
... I'm inclined for M1 15W-50 for next OCI. ...
Does this imply your enthusiasm for TGMO 0W-20 has cooled?
Experimenting... Will do a UOA with TGMO and then compare with a really thick oil.
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Thought I saw the Delvac dino had a decent NOACK … like 10.8 IIRC?
It could be. I'd have to check the PQIA archives. I haven't paid a lot of attention to the 15w-40 since I had the Audi.
I see Gokhan found the value! Gokhan, by the way, the 15w-40 doesn't have to reduce phosphorus for SN, but they may choose to. Delvac varieties customarily don't worry about Ford's specification, considering they've played stupid little HDEO games since the 1980s. Delvac 1 LE 5w-30 had the previous spec (and it's still okay for Ford because it's CJ-4, despite low phosphorus) and Mobil bulk 15w-40 has the current Motorcraft spec.
Thought I saw the Delvac dino had a decent NOACK … like 10.8 IIRC?
It could be. I'd have to check the PQIA archives. I haven't paid a lot of attention to the 15w-40 since I had the Audi.
I see Gokhan found the value! Gokhan, by the way, the 15w-40 doesn't have to reduce phosphorus for SN, but they may choose to. Delvac varieties customarily don't worry about Ford's specification, considering they've played stupid little HDEO games since the 1980s. Delvac 1 LE 5w-30 had the previous spec (and it's still okay for Ford because it's CJ-4, despite low phosphorus) and Mobil bulk 15w-40 has the current Motorcraft spec.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Gokhan, by the way, the 15w-40 doesn't have to reduce phosphorus for SN, but they may choose to.
Nope, apparently they have to in CK-4. It's a little odd that if it's only SN (such as M1 15W-50) or only CK-4 (such as Rotella 15W-40), they don't have to. That's exactly why most CK-4 HDEO is not SN-rated. They say they've closed the phosphorus loophole in CK-4.
Gokhan, by the way, the 15w-40 doesn't have to reduce phosphorus for SN, but they may choose to.
Nope, apparently they have to in CK-4. It's a little odd that if it's only SN (such as M1 15W-50) or only CK-4 (such as Rotella 15W-40), they don't have to. That's exactly why most CK-4 HDEO is not SN-rated. They say they've closed the phosphorus loophole in CK-4.
No, actually they don't. That only applies to the so-called ILSAC grades, which are 0w-30, 5w-30, and 10w-30, when used in HDEO. It's the same as how GC 0w-30 cannot be SN, but M1 0w-40 can be. This has been discussed ad nauseum in the HDEO section, with references. That's another reason why M1 15w-50 can be SN. I bet it has a CF on the back, too. There are CK-4/SN HDEOs with higher phosphorus, just not in 30 grades.
HDEO was never ILSAC GF-4 or GF-5. If nothing has changed regarding phosphorus in CK-4, I don't understand the confusion in industry and lack of SN-rated HDEO. I saw one or two articles from industry talking about the "phosphorus loophole" having been eliminated. It's strange.
In any case the end result is that SN-rated high-phosphorus HDEOs have been uncommon.
In any case the end result is that SN-rated high-phosphorus HDEOs have been uncommon.
I know that HDEO was never GF-4 or GF-5. However, the API's terminology is that all 0w-30, 5w-30, and 10w-30 grades (and 0w-20 and 5w-20, but that doesn't apply here because there are no HDEOs like that) are called ILSAC grades, regardless of what the certification actually is. So, if a 0w-30, 5w-30, or 10w-30 has SN on it, it must not exceed 800 ppm phosphorus, regardless of CK-4. And, a 5w-30 is a so-called ILSAC grade, whether it's SN/GF-5 or SJ or SL and A3/B4 or CK-4/SN. The HDEOs in ILSAC grades simply have to follow the rules that were in place at the time of certification, just like the Euro grades do. GC 0w-30 cannot be SN while Castrol 0w-40 can be (at least for now). CJ-4/SM (and the very few CJ-4/SN ones that exist) can remain as they are, just like GC 0w-30 does.
The exemption disappearing refers only to the ILSAC grades; the exemption previously was for ILSAC grades where a C spec precedes an S spec. Non-ILSAC grades of all sort still have the exemption. Now, some oil companies are gambling on that exemption disappearing for non-ILSAC grades and are either not bothering with the SN in the first place, or lowering phosphorus across the board. The latter also makes sense from a formulation standpoint. Why shovel in the phosphorus for a 15w-40 CK-4/SN and then have a completely different additive strategy for the same tier 10w-30 CK-4/SN?
If the exemption disappears across the board, expect current 40 grade A3/B4 options to be frozen at SN or eliminate API specifications altogether. As for confusion, we can thank Ford for helping to spread and amplify. If Ford doesn't get wadded up about HDEOs at least once every ten to fifteen years, they're not happy.
The exemption disappearing refers only to the ILSAC grades; the exemption previously was for ILSAC grades where a C spec precedes an S spec. Non-ILSAC grades of all sort still have the exemption. Now, some oil companies are gambling on that exemption disappearing for non-ILSAC grades and are either not bothering with the SN in the first place, or lowering phosphorus across the board. The latter also makes sense from a formulation standpoint. Why shovel in the phosphorus for a 15w-40 CK-4/SN and then have a completely different additive strategy for the same tier 10w-30 CK-4/SN?
If the exemption disappears across the board, expect current 40 grade A3/B4 options to be frozen at SN or eliminate API specifications altogether. As for confusion, we can thank Ford for helping to spread and amplify. If Ford doesn't get wadded up about HDEOs at least once every ten to fifteen years, they're not happy.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Speaking of Mobil Delvac 1300 Super 15W-40 CK-4, I calculated its A_Harman index to be 0.982, which is the highest I've ever seen in a mainstream oil. It's practically a SAE 40 straight grade. In fact if I use the PQIA values and the HTHSV in the datasheet, I get 0.996.
However, they've gone skinny on the AW additives because it's SN-rated. It's not approved by Ford HDEO specification WSS-M2C171-F1. Ford came up with it because they discovered CK-4 oils fell behind CJ-4 oils in wear protection and they required 1,000 - 1,200 ppm phosphorus as a result.
I'm inclined for M1 15W-50 for next OCI. It's VII-heavy but AW pack is as strong as it gets with 1,200 phosphorus and generous moly as well. It's specifically recommended for flat tappets.
From one extreme to the other?
You're kidding, right?
There was an old boy from Kentucky here a while back who bragged of the excellent engine life he got using M1 EP 15W-50 in everything all of the time, and I believe that the NLA EP had even higher HTHS than does the current M1 15W-50.
Let me relate my experience with M1 15W-50 in a '99 Accord VTEC and save you some effort. The oil worked fine during the warm weather in which I ran it. Fuel economy was somewhat reduced, but the Accord still remained a 30 MPG+ machine. The engine was extremely smooth and quiet, but felt noticeably less willing to rev in use.
If this oil made a 150 bhp Accord feel sluggish, just imagine what it would do for for your 'rolla.
If you're serious, skip this stuff and try a good 10W-30.
Speaking of Mobil Delvac 1300 Super 15W-40 CK-4, I calculated its A_Harman index to be 0.982, which is the highest I've ever seen in a mainstream oil. It's practically a SAE 40 straight grade. In fact if I use the PQIA values and the HTHSV in the datasheet, I get 0.996.
However, they've gone skinny on the AW additives because it's SN-rated. It's not approved by Ford HDEO specification WSS-M2C171-F1. Ford came up with it because they discovered CK-4 oils fell behind CJ-4 oils in wear protection and they required 1,000 - 1,200 ppm phosphorus as a result.
I'm inclined for M1 15W-50 for next OCI. It's VII-heavy but AW pack is as strong as it gets with 1,200 phosphorus and generous moly as well. It's specifically recommended for flat tappets.
From one extreme to the other?
You're kidding, right?
There was an old boy from Kentucky here a while back who bragged of the excellent engine life he got using M1 EP 15W-50 in everything all of the time, and I believe that the NLA EP had even higher HTHS than does the current M1 15W-50.
Let me relate my experience with M1 15W-50 in a '99 Accord VTEC and save you some effort. The oil worked fine during the warm weather in which I ran it. Fuel economy was somewhat reduced, but the Accord still remained a 30 MPG+ machine. The engine was extremely smooth and quiet, but felt noticeably less willing to rev in use.
If this oil made a 150 bhp Accord feel sluggish, just imagine what it would do for for your 'rolla.
If you're serious, skip this stuff and try a good 10W-30.
Originally Posted By: Garak
I know that HDEO was never GF-4 or GF-5. However, the API's terminology is that all 0w-30, 5w-30, and 10w-30 grades (and 0w-20 and 5w-20, but that doesn't apply here because there are no HDEOs like that) are called ILSAC grades, regardless of what the certification actually is. So, if a 0w-30, 5w-30, or 10w-30 has SN on it, it must not exceed 800 ppm phosphorus, regardless of CK-4. And, a 5w-30 is a so-called ILSAC grade, whether it's SN/GF-5 or SJ or SL and A3/B4 or CK-4/SN. The HDEOs in ILSAC grades simply have to follow the rules that were in place at the time of certification, just like the Euro grades do. GC 0w-30 cannot be SN while Castrol 0w-40 can be (at least for now). CJ-4/SM (and the very few CJ-4/SN ones that exist) can remain as they are, just like GC 0w-30 does.
The exemption disappearing refers only to the ILSAC grades; the exemption previously was for ILSAC grades where a C spec precedes an S spec. Non-ILSAC grades of all sort still have the exemption. Now, some oil companies are gambling on that exemption disappearing for non-ILSAC grades and are either not bothering with the SN in the first place, or lowering phosphorus across the board. The latter also makes sense from a formulation standpoint. Why shovel in the phosphorus for a 15w-40 CK-4/SN and then have a completely different additive strategy for the same tier 10w-30 CK-4/SN?
If the exemption disappears across the board, expect current 40 grade A3/B4 options to be frozen at SN or eliminate API specifications altogether. As for confusion, we can thank Ford for helping to spread and amplify. If Ford doesn't get wadded up about HDEOs at least once every ten to fifteen years, they're not happy.
Got it, thanks. So, in CK-4/SN they have removed the phosphorus exemption for xW-30 and thinner grades that is present in SN but xW-40 grades and thicker don't have limits in SN on phosphorus to begin with and only CK-4 limits apply there.
Yes, I can see that for a given oil, it makes sense to use the same add pack irrespective of the viscosity, which explains the disappearance of SN in even thicker HDEO grades.
I know that HDEO was never GF-4 or GF-5. However, the API's terminology is that all 0w-30, 5w-30, and 10w-30 grades (and 0w-20 and 5w-20, but that doesn't apply here because there are no HDEOs like that) are called ILSAC grades, regardless of what the certification actually is. So, if a 0w-30, 5w-30, or 10w-30 has SN on it, it must not exceed 800 ppm phosphorus, regardless of CK-4. And, a 5w-30 is a so-called ILSAC grade, whether it's SN/GF-5 or SJ or SL and A3/B4 or CK-4/SN. The HDEOs in ILSAC grades simply have to follow the rules that were in place at the time of certification, just like the Euro grades do. GC 0w-30 cannot be SN while Castrol 0w-40 can be (at least for now). CJ-4/SM (and the very few CJ-4/SN ones that exist) can remain as they are, just like GC 0w-30 does.
The exemption disappearing refers only to the ILSAC grades; the exemption previously was for ILSAC grades where a C spec precedes an S spec. Non-ILSAC grades of all sort still have the exemption. Now, some oil companies are gambling on that exemption disappearing for non-ILSAC grades and are either not bothering with the SN in the first place, or lowering phosphorus across the board. The latter also makes sense from a formulation standpoint. Why shovel in the phosphorus for a 15w-40 CK-4/SN and then have a completely different additive strategy for the same tier 10w-30 CK-4/SN?
If the exemption disappears across the board, expect current 40 grade A3/B4 options to be frozen at SN or eliminate API specifications altogether. As for confusion, we can thank Ford for helping to spread and amplify. If Ford doesn't get wadded up about HDEOs at least once every ten to fifteen years, they're not happy.
Got it, thanks. So, in CK-4/SN they have removed the phosphorus exemption for xW-30 and thinner grades that is present in SN but xW-40 grades and thicker don't have limits in SN on phosphorus to begin with and only CK-4 limits apply there.
Yes, I can see that for a given oil, it makes sense to use the same add pack irrespective of the viscosity, which explains the disappearance of SN in even thicker HDEO grades.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
The engine was extremely smooth and quiet, but felt noticeably less willing to rev in use.
If this oil made a 150 bhp Accord feel sluggish, just imagine what it would do for for your 'rolla.
Thanks for the feedback but I'm not sure what "less willing to rev in use" means. I ran an HTHSV = 4.3 cP oil for many years and didn't notice any difference in revving or high-end power.
The engine was extremely smooth and quiet, but felt noticeably less willing to rev in use.
If this oil made a 150 bhp Accord feel sluggish, just imagine what it would do for for your 'rolla.
Thanks for the feedback but I'm not sure what "less willing to rev in use" means. I ran an HTHSV = 4.3 cP oil for many years and didn't notice any difference in revving or high-end power.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Got it, thanks. So, in CK-4/SN they have removed the phosphorus exemption for xW-30 and thinner grades that is present in SN but xW-40 grades and thicker don't have limits in SN on phosphorus to begin with and only CK-4 limits apply there.
Yes, it's strange, and confusing, to say the least, and can't make the formulators' jobs any easier. I wonder how much of this is a nanny reaction to people using a 10w-30 HDEO in a vehicle calling for 10w-30 PCMO, though that's such a dated thing. If someone grabs a 5w-30 HDEO by mistake instead of an ILSAC 5w-30, the HDEO is probably going to be E6 anyhow, and have ILSAC phosphorus levels, long before this changed. Some of the 0w-30 HDEOs were formulated to CJ-4 standards and haven't been updated at all, and sometimes aren't even technically API certified, even though they're formulated by a major.
I understand wanting to rationalise how a 0w-30 A3/B4 is labelled under the API regime versus a hypothetical 0w-30 CK-4, but it is very nitpicky. How many people in North America are having a hard time over phosphorus levels fouling a cat by purchasing a 0w-30 HDEO over M1 0w-30 AFE. Three?
For HDEOs, if an OEM or end user wants lower phosphorus, there are enough E6 varieties available from all the majors without worrying about what API says. It's interesting to note that Castrol's 5w-30 in E6 in North America never had the gasoline spec in the first place, despite the lower phosphorus.
Got it, thanks. So, in CK-4/SN they have removed the phosphorus exemption for xW-30 and thinner grades that is present in SN but xW-40 grades and thicker don't have limits in SN on phosphorus to begin with and only CK-4 limits apply there.
Yes, it's strange, and confusing, to say the least, and can't make the formulators' jobs any easier. I wonder how much of this is a nanny reaction to people using a 10w-30 HDEO in a vehicle calling for 10w-30 PCMO, though that's such a dated thing. If someone grabs a 5w-30 HDEO by mistake instead of an ILSAC 5w-30, the HDEO is probably going to be E6 anyhow, and have ILSAC phosphorus levels, long before this changed. Some of the 0w-30 HDEOs were formulated to CJ-4 standards and haven't been updated at all, and sometimes aren't even technically API certified, even though they're formulated by a major.
I understand wanting to rationalise how a 0w-30 A3/B4 is labelled under the API regime versus a hypothetical 0w-30 CK-4, but it is very nitpicky. How many people in North America are having a hard time over phosphorus levels fouling a cat by purchasing a 0w-30 HDEO over M1 0w-30 AFE. Three?
For HDEOs, if an OEM or end user wants lower phosphorus, there are enough E6 varieties available from all the majors without worrying about what API says. It's interesting to note that Castrol's 5w-30 in E6 in North America never had the gasoline spec in the first place, despite the lower phosphorus.
- Status
Similar threads
