Educate me on 0w40 please

[1JZ_E46]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
You know the lube you are using is predominantly Group III, so it's likely a majority 6cSt base IMHO with GTL and PAO at 8cSt to nail down that Noack + some VII.


Thanks. And yep Mobil 1 10w30 HM. Crazy realize how much thicker the base oil is compared to an equally thick 0W-40. Having said that, my consumption was much higher with the 10W. Looking forward to a used oil analysis in a few hundred miles.

 

[OilUzer]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by OilUzer
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
... I'm going to say your claim that 0w-16 has a heavier base than 0w-40 doesn't seem plausible. ...


I originally thought thicker oil means thicker base ... and recall asking this question in another thread when it was stated that 0Wx40 oil has thinner base oil than 0Wx30 ... and the consensus/response was that it is very typical and in order to get a wider spread, more vii and lower (thinner) basestock is needed (per Mobil blending guide?).

Not really following the back & forth in this thread and not trying to stir the pot but this caught my attention!

Maybe it's not a universal fact and depends on oil and the base?!

Edit:
Found the link and my question re 0wx30 vs. 0wx40 base

Link


Most oils with a 5w-xx or 0w-xx winter rating are going to contain a good percentage of 4cSt base oil and may be based completely on it. That can be Group II, II+, III, III+, PAO or POE. Most of the common oils on the market will be from the first four in that list. While a 0w-40 can be blended using 4cSt base oils, just like a 5w30, examples of which I gave in the post you pulled that quote from, you'll find that the volatilities (Noack) of the lighter bases result in the final lubricant having a reasonably high Noack %, which was the purpose of that post.

A Euro 0w-40 will have a Noack volatility below 10%, because that's a limit for at least one of the OEM approvals.

The Mobil blending guide gives several cases for 0w-40's blended with PAO and POE. the one that uses only 4cSt base oils is nowhere near passing that 10% threshold, also noted in that previous post.

Ergo, while it is indeed possible to blend a 0w-40 with a 4cSt base, and perhaps that's the case for the SRT 0w-40, given its much higher Noack, the majority of the 0w-40's you'll find on the shelf, having volatilities below 10%, would I believe need to contain a reasonable percentage of 6cSt base oil.

Noack volatilities of the bases being discussed:
Group II+ examples
EHC 45: EHC 50: EHC 65:
Group III examples:
Yubase 4: 15.2%
Yubase 4+: 13.5%
Yubase 6: 7.5%
Yubase 6+: 4.1%

PAO examples:
SpectraSyn 4: SpectraSyn Plus 4: SpectraSyn 6: 6.4%
SpectraSyn Plus 6:
POE examples:
Esterex NP343: 4.6%







Thank you.
Didn't mean to take your post out of context ... Since I don't know much about oil, I only retain certain data/facts that are interesting to me and it triggers a red flag when "my facts" are disputed ... lol

 

[ofelas]

What are the pros & cons of the thinner base oil in a PAO 0w40 ?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by ofelas
What are the pros & cons of the thinner base oil in a PAO 0w40 ?



Thinner base oil means better cold temp performance at the expense of volatility if we wanted to grossly over-simplify it

PAO and POE have superior cold temperature performance when compared to the other bases being discussed. You need to use PPD's to push down the crystallization point in a waxy base, whilst that's not the case for PAO for example, since it contains no wax.

So, if you are trying to hit a 0w-xx winter rating, you'll be using a selection of lighter bases to get there, but those bases are not all created equal. You could of course just take a 4cSt base and PPD/VII it into a 0w-40, but the Noack volatility would preclude it from obtaining most (all?) Euro approvals. So then you are forced into using heavier, less volatile bases to lower the Noack, which will increase the viscosity and subsequently reduce the amount of VII required.

Now, given PAO's cold temperature performance I could picture a blend that involved a significant chunk of the base oil, probably >50% consisting of a 4cSt GTL product which is then dosed with a 6cSt PAO. You'd need PPD's for the GTL, but not as much thanks to the PAO. Might toss in some POE as well to counteract the PAO seal shrink and this would further lower the Noack while keeping the base oil blend visc roughly the same. You'd then treat with sufficient VII, likely below 12%, to get the HTHS and 100C visc necessary.

Given the cold temp performance characteristics of SpectraSyn 8, one might even be able to use that in a 0w-40, though I've not seen any example blends (doesn't mean they don't exist, but I haven't seen them) blended with a lighter base to drive up the pre-VII visc more and increase HTHS while lowering Noack (it is 5.5% for that base).

 

[OVERKILL]

If we look at an oil like Redline 0w-40, which has a reasonably high HTHS, 9% Noack and we can assume likely contains no Group III, it's base oil blend is likely a combo of 4 and 6cSt PAO dosed with some similar visc POE. I supposed it could also be majority 4cSt PAO treated with a much less volatile POE and VII'd into the intended grade, though I'd expect a lower HTHS if that were the case

 

[Bryanccfshr]

That's what I imagined as the likely blending strategy. You can't get the noak down without a much lower noack base blended into the 4 cst gtl.
Could a heavier PAO could act as a Viscosity modifier in its own right, added in the correct proportions? Or am I misapplying the different viscosity index curves of each base oil overlapping incorrectly?

The
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by ofelas
What are the pros & cons of the thinner base oil in a PAO 0w40 ?



Thinner base oil means better cold temp performance at the expense of volatility if we wanted to grossly over-simplify it

PAO and POE have superior cold temperature performance when compared to the other bases being discussed. You need to use PPD's to push down the crystallization point in a waxy base, whilst that's not the case for PAO for example, since it contains no wax.

So, if you are trying to hit a 0w-xx winter rating, you'll be using a selection of lighter bases to get there, but those bases are not all created equal. You could of course just take a 4cSt base and PPD/VII it into a 0w-40, but the Noack volatility would preclude it from obtaining most (all?) Euro approvals. So then you are forced into using heavier, less volatile bases to lower the Noack, which will increase the viscosity and subsequently reduce the amount of VII required.

Now, given PAO's cold temperature performance I could picture a blend that involved a significant chunk of the base oil, probably >50% consisting of a 4cSt GTL product which is then dosed with a 6cSt PAO. You'd need PPD's for the GTL, but not as much thanks to the PAO. Might toss in some POE as well to counteract the PAO seal shrink and this would further lower the Noack while keeping the base oil blend visc roughly the same. You'd then treat with sufficient VII, likely below 12%, to get the HTHS and 100C visc necessary.

Given the cold temp performance characteristics of SpectraSyn 8, one might even be able to use that in a 0w-40, though I've not seen any example blends (doesn't mean they don't exist, but I haven't seen them) blended with a lighter base to drive up the pre-VII visc more and increase HTHS while lowering Noack (it is 5.5% for that base).

 

[OVERKILL]

That's sort of what I was driving at with SpectraSyn 8 possibly being blended in. I think if you go much heavier than that the dose rate would have to be really low, as it would significantly impact the cold temp performance. SpectraSyn 8 has an MRV of 16,200cP (so well below the limit) but its CCS visc at -35C is > 9,000cP. So you are forced to use bases that are capable of meeting the CCS visc at -35C, like SpectraSyn Plus 6, which is only 3,600cP.

 

[SonofJoe]

The reality is that at 'normal' engine operating temperature, the aggregate base oil viscosity of 0W40 oil isn't actually that much different from oils like 5W30s or 10W40s. This reflects how different oil formulations are constructed.

The base oil mix of typical mid-range Euro 10W40 Group I/III & 22 OCP VII might consist of Esso 150SN (KV100 5.5 cst), 30% Yubase 4 (KV100 4.0 cst) & 5 - 10% of Esso 600 (KV100 11 cst).

The base oil mix of cheap US Group II 5W30 with 50 SSI OCP might consist of mix of Chevron 100R (4.0 cst) & 150R (5.3 cst) with a smidge of 220R (6.4 cst) if you can squeeze it in.

A typical 0W40 base oil mix of a Euro 0W40 based of HSD VII will primarily contain predominantly PAO (a mix of 4 & 6) a small percentage of ester (say 5.5 cst) & a bit of Group III (say Yubase 4 but it could just as easily be Yubase 6).

In all three cases the aggregate base oil KV100 is roughly the same. You're manipulating the different properties of the various base oils AND the different VIIs to achieve a range of workable KV100/CCS/Noack/HTHS balances.

One should bear in mind that while the DI pack superficially impacts on aggregate base oil viscosity, if you treat the DI as 'acting like a base oil' (not an unreasonable assumption), then it's impact is actually minimal.

All this stuff about 'fake viscosity' (ie viscosity from VII & not base oil) is really the most awful rubbish peddled by people pretending to know more than they actually do. Do yourself a favour & disregard this drivel!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by SonofJoe
The reality is that at 'normal' engine operating temperature, the aggregate base oil viscosity of 0W40 oil isn't actually that much different from oils like 5W30s or 10W40s. This reflects how different oil formulations are constructed.

The base oil mix of typical mid-range Euro 10W40 Group I/III & 22 OCP VII might consist of Esso 150SN (KV100 5.5 cst), 30% Yubase 4 (KV100 4.0 cst) & 5 - 10% of Esso 600 (KV100 11 cst).

The base oil mix of cheap US Group II 5W30 with 50 SSI OCP might consist of mix of Chevron 100R (4.0 cst) & 150R (5.3 cst) with a smidge of 220R (6.4 cst) if you can squeeze it in.

A typical 0W40 base oil mix of a Euro 0W40 based of HSD VII will primarily contain predominantly PAO (a mix of 4 & 6) a small percentage of ester (say 5.5 cst) & a bit of Group III (say Yubase 4 but it could just as easily be Yubase 6).

In all three cases the aggregate base oil KV100 is roughly the same. You're manipulating the different properties of the various base oils AND the different VIIs to achieve a range of workable KV100/CCS/Noack/HTHS balances.

One should bear in mind that while the DI pack superficially impacts on aggregate base oil viscosity, if you treat the DI as 'acting like a base oil' (not an unreasonable assumption), then it's impact is actually minimal.

All this stuff about 'fake viscosity' (ie viscosity from VII & not base oil) is really the most awful rubbish peddled by people pretending to know more than they actually do. Do yourself a favour & disregard this drivel!









Thank you!

And the information you've presented here seems to correspond with my understanding and what I've tried to vocalize in this thread, so it's very nice to hear that I'm not off-base from somebody who actually knows what they are talking about

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted by SonofJoe
All this stuff about 'fake viscosity' (ie viscosity from VII & not base oil) is really the most awful rubbish peddled by people pretending to know more than they actually do. Do yourself a favour & disregard this drivel!

Certainly the technology has gotten better over the past 30 years. I remember back then the talk was about VI improvers breaking down and the consequences of thinner oil and sludge. Still - I was under the impression that modern base oil has a much higher VI than mineral oils from 30 years ago, so there's less VI improver needed.

I found this fairly easy enough to understand description from Oronite. Their research headquarters is right down the road from me in Richmond, California.

Quote
https://www.oronite.com/products-technology/viscosity-modifiers/default.aspx
To make sure the viscosity modifier is used in the most cost-effective way, polymer thickening efficiency (TE) is important. TE describes the boost in kinematic viscosity at 100°C of an oil following the addition of a specific amount of polymer. Oronite calculates a unit-less TE, which ranges from about 0.5 to 4.0. A polymer having a high value of TE indicates that it is a potent thickener.

TE is primarily a function of polymer chemistry and molecular weight. Large molecules are better thickeners than small ones and, at the same molecular weight, some polymer chemistries are better thickeners than others. There is a trade-off, though. While large molecules are good thickeners, they are also more easily broken, which impacts the shear stability of the oil. A viscosity modifier polymer's shear stability index (SSI) is defined as its resistance to mechanical degradation under shearing stress.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by y_p_w
Still - I was under the impression that modern base oil has a much higher VI than mineral oils from 30 years ago, so there's less VI improver needed.


Depends on the base oil really. PAO's VI hasn't improved markedly to my knowledge, same with POE. Group III, not sure when it came on the scene, but it has improved significantly since the 1990's.

Some of the improvements made, which have resulted in lower volatility and higher VI, caused these companies to start adding the "+" moniker to the formal groupings, so like Group II+ and Group III+ to make these improvements more obvious. FT GTL bases have extremely high VI's now when compared to their predecessors, even higher than PAO in many cases, though there is still the acknowledged caveat that they need PPD's to deal with wax crystal formation for cold temp performance.

So yes, the lower tier base oils have all improved, necessitating less VII, but this is also in conjunction with stricter oil requirements and testing parameters, which have resulted in more expensive base oils being used in order to meet them. See: Dexos for example. This is where those improvements in bases like Group II+ allow them to be slotted in to lower the cost of blending an oil to those specifications, which is why Mobil makes their SHC bases and targets those blends.

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Depends on the base oil really. PAO's VI hasn't improved markedly to my knowledge, same with POE. Group III, not sure when it came on the scene, but it has improved significantly since the 1990's.

What I recall hearing in the 90s was that some PAO-ester blends didn't even need any VI improver to meet maybe 10w30 viscosity requirements. It was that the blend that did it.

And I remember some of the more dubious attempts were when people tried making their own "semi synthetic" blends. I'm not quite sure that blending half of Mobil 1 10w30 and half of Pennzoil 10w30 conventional is going to still be an XW-30. I do remember when I had two quarts of Mobil 1 0w30 and two of Mobil 1 5w30 and I just said what the heck. I asked Mobil Oils customers service, which said it shouldn't be a problem. I guess I could have sent a sample to the testing lab to find out if it worked.

I got into a discussion with a former oil company testing lab engineer. He would talk about all sorts of things as asides. Stuff like highest wear was often at the first 500-1000 miles after an oil change because ZDDP needs to oxidize. Or that testing some 50/50 combinations of different 5w30 oils would have the viscosity of a 20W-40 oil because of weird interactions. Kind of left me to wonder about what kind of compatibility issues there might be with some oil changes when switching brands or mixing oils where the manufacturer has changed the formulation. I remember once I could only find two bottles of Kendall GT-1 10w30 and bought them. Then I found two more bottles (looked exactly the same) later to get enough for an oil change. When I opened them they were very different. One pair had a sweet honey-like odor, while the other two had this slightly burnt smell closer to what most motor oils smell like now. The engine didn't blow up so it couldn't have been that bad. My wife's Civic still has something like 1 quart of oil left after an oil change, while I believe my WRX is closer to a half quart. So there's going to be some interaction every time a different oil is used.

 

[Gokhan]

What's the point of comparing Group II oils to Group IV oils and claiming that, "Hey, look, my 0W-40 is not any worse than your 5w30 conventional?" If all being equal, 0W-40 will have more VII than 0W-30, which will have more VII than 0w-20. There is no magic here. On top of that, there is no evidence that the base oil that goes into a 0W-40 is any better than that for a good 0W-20; in fact, the opposite seems to be true.

Here is the A_Harman index and 1 - A_Harman index. 1 - A_harman index (labeled VII) is correlated with the VII content and it's in the last column. VAS 5W-20 shows negative because of inaccuracies in the data.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

You seem to be misusing an index as a quantitative measure of quality.
That is as useless as saying a 30 is better than a 20 which are both beat by a 40 because the number is higher.
Or that an oil with a higher "viscosity index " is always a better oil.

Any index is simply a measurement of a particular property. Not an indicator of quality or implying superiority.

Originally Posted by Gokhan
What's the point of comparing Group II oils to Group IV oils and claiming that, "Hey, look, my 0W-40 is not any worse than your 5w30 conventional?" If all being equal, 0W-40 will have more VII than 0W-30, which will have more VII than 0w-20. There is no magic here. On top of that, there is no evidence that the base oil that goes into a 0W-40 is any better than that for a good 0W-20; in fact, the opposite seems to be true.

Here is the A_Harman index and 1 - A_Harman index. 1 - A_harman index (labeled VII) is correlated with the VII content and it's in the last column. VAS 5W-20 shows negative because of inaccuracies in the data.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by Bryanccfshr
You seem to be misusing an index as a quantitative measure of quality.

No, I don't think anyone here confuses the A_Harman index with a rating of the overall oil quality.

As I said, it correlates with the VII content, which has been one of the main discussions of this thread and that's why I posted the table. Nevertheless, many people prefer oils with less VII.

Even my BOQI can't be taken as a rating of the overall oil quality, as the add pack and VII change the picture. However, BOQI certainly correlates with the base-oil quality (amount of PAO, GTL, etc.).

 

[ZeeOSix]

Speaking of oil blending, the API has guidelines defined for "Base Oil Interchangeability":

https://www.api.org/~/media/Files/Certification/Engine-Oil-Diesel/Publications/AnnEREV121916%20issued%20010317.pdf

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Speaking of oil blending, the API has guidelines defined for "Base Oil Interchangeability":

https://www.api.org/~/media/Files/Certification/Engine-Oil-Diesel/Publications/AnnEREV121916%20issued%20010317.pdf

Yes, API BOIG is a required reading on BITOG.

So, is my BOQI.

 

[Gokhan]

Back to ZeeOSix's very interesting and useful study:

Turbo gasoline direct injection (TGDI) engine-wear test development (January 2018)

It's interesting that people always talk about bearings when they talk thin vs. thick oil but neither 0W-16 not 5w30 had no wear on bearings whatsoever in any driving condition. This is in contrast to BMW M3 bearings, which they quickly fail even with 10W-60.

However, the questions of piston rings and the effect of viscosity on them remains. As piston rings operate on all lubrication regimes (boundary, mixed, and hydrodynamic), it's very complicated, especially for different driving conditions. Neither thin nor thick seems to provide full protection in all driving conditions.

There were some caveats with the study, such as absence of an oil filter, broken chromium segment of a ring, and leaked intercooler fluid in the cylinder.

My own study of thin vs. thick also goes on but it moves with glacier speed unfortunately.

 

[WhizkidTN]

Originally Posted by SonofJoe
The reality is that at 'normal' engine operating temperature, the aggregate base oil viscosity of 0W40 oil isn't actually that much different from oils like 5W30s or 10W40s. This reflects how different oil formulations are constructed.

The base oil mix of typical mid-range Euro 10W40 Group I/III & 22 OCP VII might consist of Esso 150SN (KV100 5.5 cst), 30% Yubase 4 (KV100 4.0 cst) & 5 - 10% of Esso 600 (KV100 11 cst).

The base oil mix of cheap US Group II 5W30 with 50 SSI OCP might consist of mix of Chevron 100R (4.0 cst) & 150R (5.3 cst) with a smidge of 220R (6.4 cst) if you can squeeze it in.

A typical 0W40 base oil mix of a Euro 0W40 based of HSD VII will primarily contain predominantly PAO (a mix of 4 & 6) a small percentage of ester (say 5.5 cst) & a bit of Group III (say Yubase 4 but it could just as easily be Yubase 6).

In all three cases the aggregate base oil KV100 is roughly the same. You're manipulating the different properties of the various base oils AND the different VIIs to achieve a range of workable KV100/CCS/Noack/HTHS balances.

One should bear in mind that while the DI pack superficially impacts on aggregate base oil viscosity, if you treat the DI as 'acting like a base oil' (not an unreasonable assumption), then it's impact is actually minimal.

All this stuff about 'fake viscosity' (ie viscosity from VII & not base oil) is really the most awful rubbish peddled by people pretending to know more than they actually do. Do yourself a favour & disregard this drivel!









Sooo, does that mean that using the currently produced Castrol Edge 0W-40 Euro oil for the US market is a pretty good compromise of these concerns for a healthy DI turbo-charged gas engine?
Trying to skip to the end.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by WhizkidTN
Sooo, does that mean that using the currently produced Castrol Edge 0W-40 Euro oil for the US market is a pretty good compromise of these concerns for a healthy DI turbo-charged gas engine?
Trying to skip to the end.

Not really. It has neither LSPI protection (Ca/Mg mixed detergent) nor IVD protection (lower SAPS). A3/B4 full-SAPS oils are used as reference oils in the VW 504.00 IVD test because they do so poorly.

Also, just because you have a TGDI engine, you don't really need SAE 40. The study ZeeOSix posted investigated SAE 16 in a common Ford TGDI engine (2.0 L EcoBoost) and it held up fairly well.