Mobil 1 5w-30 High Miles is worth a look.
German Castrol Pumpability Poor GM6094M
- Thread starter Fallguy
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Craig in Canada
IMO GC is *first* designed to me the high HTHS requirements of ACEA A3, BMW LL-01 and the other Euro certifications it is designed for. It's a true feat that it also happens to perform as a 0W and retain excellent extreme cold behaviours.
Comparing it against thinner, low HTHS competitors and finding out that it is sometimes thicker should come as a surprise to no one.
If you don't require the hot operating properties of GC for your engine (or desire them for smoothness or whatever) then feel free to look at other oils. GC isn't the optimum oil for every engine on the road.
I have an engine which requires its hot properties, and I have not a worry in the world about its cold properties because they're the best of all of the ACEA A3/BMW LL-01 competition.
I would love love love to run GC just need help getting beyond if it has higher pumpability than GM's 6094M spec as their data sheet indicates at lower temps
IMO GC is *first* designed to me the high HTHS requirements of ACEA A3, BMW LL-01 and the other Euro certifications it is designed for. It's a true feat that it also happens to perform as a 0W and retain excellent extreme cold behaviours.
Comparing it against thinner, low HTHS competitors and finding out that it is sometimes thicker should come as a surprise to no one.
If you don't require the hot operating properties of GC for your engine (or desire them for smoothness or whatever) then feel free to look at other oils. GC isn't the optimum oil for every engine on the road.
I have an engine which requires its hot properties, and I have not a worry in the world about its cold properties because they're the best of all of the ACEA A3/BMW LL-01 competition.
I would love love love to run GC just need help getting beyond if it has higher pumpability than GM's 6094M spec as their data sheet indicates at lower temps
Last edited:
Those values that you're reading aren't the actual numbers that GC produces. They're the max limit of that grade. 6,200 is the max for CCS, 60,000 is the max for MRV. Castrol doesn't list the actual values the oil itself meets. (what a surprise lol)
It's probably around 16,000 - 17,000 if we knew the truth. It would meet 6094M without a problem. I'd use it and sleep well.
It's probably around 16,000 - 17,000 if we knew the truth. It would meet 6094M without a problem. I'd use it and sleep well.
Originally Posted By: dakota99
Those values that you're reading aren't the actual numbers that GC produces. They're the max limit of that grade. 6,200 is the max for CCS, 60,000 is the max for MRV. Castrol doesn't list the actual values the oil itself meets. (what a surprise lol)
It's probably around 16,000 - 17,000 if we knew the truth. It would meet 6094M without a problem. I'd use it and sleep well.
Bet you are correct and well explained. With this being said does anyone know the cst at 40C so I can run the calculator and get absolute verification.
Those values that you're reading aren't the actual numbers that GC produces. They're the max limit of that grade. 6,200 is the max for CCS, 60,000 is the max for MRV. Castrol doesn't list the actual values the oil itself meets. (what a surprise lol)
It's probably around 16,000 - 17,000 if we knew the truth. It would meet 6094M without a problem. I'd use it and sleep well.
Bet you are correct and well explained. With this being said does anyone know the cst at 40C so I can run the calculator and get absolute verification.
I don't think GC is blended to meet GM specs anyway, except Opel LL-025 A and B.
The +40c has been published and is posted somewhere on this site.
The +40c has been published and is posted somewhere on this site.
Doesn't the 6094M spec basically require an oil to be classified as "energy conserving" since it was meant to be similar to ILSAC GF-4 even before GF-4 was officially introduced? And if so, an oil with an HT/HS of 3.5 (such as GC) will never meet this spec.
Understand and agree but wanting to find out if it is under 30,000cp at -40C as that is what is required in the specs of GM 6094M I am concerned with. Not so much for warranty reasons but for cold pumpability. GC lists the spec at 60,000cp but that is a default value as other suggested here but am seeking their actual cP at -40c or the cst at +40C
Regards,
Regards,
If you believe that GC is the same as European Edge 0w-30, which many of us do believe it to be true, then you can go off of its spec sheet, which is here. This will get you the 40C viscosity as well as the CCS viscosity (cold cranking simulator) at -35C; however, I don't think you can deduct the MRV figure from it.
I went from M1 5w30 to GC 0w30 in a V8 specc'ed for 6094M mid-winter and didn't notice any difference in "cranking speed", for what that's worth.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Well, the closer up to zero you go more accurate the calc is, but it should show generally that PP is thinner at all temps. At -30c, all bets are off. PP should still be thinner though.
The graph showed that GC came nowhere near meeting the 0W spec. It was at about 10,000 cP at -35C. I think it's more likely that GC actually does meet the 0W spec and that it is the calculator that is incorrect. After adjusting the 40C viscosity so that the 0W spec is barely meet on the graph , GC is thinner than PP 5W-30 at all temperatures below freezing. What information do you have indicating that PP 5W-30 is thinner at these temperatures? It would have to be information showing that GC does not actually meet the 0W spec.
Well, the closer up to zero you go more accurate the calc is, but it should show generally that PP is thinner at all temps. At -30c, all bets are off. PP should still be thinner though.
The graph showed that GC came nowhere near meeting the 0W spec. It was at about 10,000 cP at -35C. I think it's more likely that GC actually does meet the 0W spec and that it is the calculator that is incorrect. After adjusting the 40C viscosity so that the 0W spec is barely meet on the graph , GC is thinner than PP 5W-30 at all temperatures below freezing. What information do you have indicating that PP 5W-30 is thinner at these temperatures? It would have to be information showing that GC does not actually meet the 0W spec.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Have you tried GC yet in our Saskatchewan winters? If so, what has your experience been like? I'm going to give it a shot this winter in my 1991 Audi 200 Turbo. It doesn't spend extensive time sitting in the cold. It's normally stored in a heated garage. If it does get to -40 C (or anywhere near that) and is outside for any period, there is a heater built into the oil pan that I can plug in.
Only in the ex's '93 MX-6. No problems, and no comments or complaints. I doubt she would notice any difference between a conventional 5W-30 and a synthetic 0W-20 in the same situation though.
Have you tried GC yet in our Saskatchewan winters? If so, what has your experience been like? I'm going to give it a shot this winter in my 1991 Audi 200 Turbo. It doesn't spend extensive time sitting in the cold. It's normally stored in a heated garage. If it does get to -40 C (or anywhere near that) and is outside for any period, there is a heater built into the oil pan that I can plug in.
Only in the ex's '93 MX-6. No problems, and no comments or complaints. I doubt she would notice any difference between a conventional 5W-30 and a synthetic 0W-20 in the same situation though.
Originally Posted By: Fallguy
GC may stay under the the conventional high limit marks for 0w but definitely goes over the GM 6094M cap on even a 5w but GM does have a lower max limit mark.
I was in love with this oil but can not get past this. Figure GM had a good reason to have lower limit numbers on pumpability (mrv "pumping" cP).
Regards.
0W-30 GC is thinner than any 5W-30 at -35C. The ASTM D-4684 MRV test is performed at -40C for 0W oils and -35C for 5W oils. At -35C a different test procedure is used for 0W oils because they are much thinner. Viscosity is a physical property; it doesn't matter that 0W oils are measured differently at -35C than 5W oils. The number is comparable. Any difference in test procedure is simply to get more accurate results for the expected viscosity range. GC 0W-30's viscosity at -35C is less than 6200 cP. GM6094M requires it to be below 40,000 cP, so it easily meets that particular condition.
GC may stay under the the conventional high limit marks for 0w but definitely goes over the GM 6094M cap on even a 5w but GM does have a lower max limit mark.
I was in love with this oil but can not get past this. Figure GM had a good reason to have lower limit numbers on pumpability (mrv "pumping" cP).
Regards.
0W-30 GC is thinner than any 5W-30 at -35C. The ASTM D-4684 MRV test is performed at -40C for 0W oils and -35C for 5W oils. At -35C a different test procedure is used for 0W oils because they are much thinner. Viscosity is a physical property; it doesn't matter that 0W oils are measured differently at -35C than 5W oils. The number is comparable. Any difference in test procedure is simply to get more accurate results for the expected viscosity range. GC 0W-30's viscosity at -35C is less than 6200 cP. GM6094M requires it to be below 40,000 cP, so it easily meets that particular condition.
Originally Posted By: rpn453
The graph showed that GC came nowhere near meeting the 0W spec. It was at about 10,000 cP at -35C. I think it's more likely that GC actually does meet the 0W spec and that it is the calculator that is incorrect. After adjusting the 40C viscosity so that the 0W spec is barely meet on the graph , GC is thinner than PP 5W-30 at all temperatures below freezing. What information do you have indicating that PP 5W-30 is thinner at these temperatures? It would have to be information showing that GC does not actually meet the 0W spec.
I now see that the value I was using for the 40C cSt viscosity from Castrol's PDS is actually (maybe) the 210F SUS viscosity. What a terrible PDS. So maybe the calculator isn't as far out as I thought. Or maybe it is, since it's even further out if the Edge 0W-30 PDS values are used. Regardless, if you enter the 100C value and adjust the 40C value so that GC barely meets the 0W spec at -35C, it's no different than what I calculated before. The 40C viscosity is then about 61 cSt.
The graph showed that GC came nowhere near meeting the 0W spec. It was at about 10,000 cP at -35C. I think it's more likely that GC actually does meet the 0W spec and that it is the calculator that is incorrect. After adjusting the 40C viscosity so that the 0W spec is barely meet on the graph , GC is thinner than PP 5W-30 at all temperatures below freezing. What information do you have indicating that PP 5W-30 is thinner at these temperatures? It would have to be information showing that GC does not actually meet the 0W spec.
I now see that the value I was using for the 40C cSt viscosity from Castrol's PDS is actually (maybe) the 210F SUS viscosity. What a terrible PDS. So maybe the calculator isn't as far out as I thought. Or maybe it is, since it's even further out if the Edge 0W-30 PDS values are used. Regardless, if you enter the 100C value and adjust the 40C value so that GC barely meets the 0W spec at -35C, it's no different than what I calculated before. The 40C viscosity is then about 61 cSt.
Originally Posted By: rpn453
Originally Posted By: rpn453
The graph showed that GC came nowhere near meeting the 0W spec. It was at about 10,000 cP at -35C. I think it's more likely that GC actually does meet the 0W spec and that it is the calculator that is incorrect. After adjusting the 40C viscosity so that the 0W spec is barely meet on the graph , GC is thinner than PP 5W-30 at all temperatures below freezing. What information do you have indicating that PP 5W-30 is thinner at these temperatures? It would have to be information showing that GC does not actually meet the 0W spec.
I now see that the value I was using for the 40C cSt viscosity from Castrol's PDS is actually (maybe) the 210F SUS viscosity. What a terrible PDS. So maybe the calculator isn't as far out as I thought. Or maybe it is, since it's even further out if the Edge 0W-30 PDS values are used. Regardless, if you enter the 100C value and adjust the 40C value so that GC barely meets the 0W spec at -35C, it's no different than what I calculated before. The 40C viscosity is then about 61 cSt.
Forgot to check the MSDS 100c = 12.01 and 40c = 71.24
Thanks for working on this.
What is the difference between cP and cst as GM spec is in cP and calculator is in cst ?
Regards again.
Originally Posted By: rpn453
The graph showed that GC came nowhere near meeting the 0W spec. It was at about 10,000 cP at -35C. I think it's more likely that GC actually does meet the 0W spec and that it is the calculator that is incorrect. After adjusting the 40C viscosity so that the 0W spec is barely meet on the graph , GC is thinner than PP 5W-30 at all temperatures below freezing. What information do you have indicating that PP 5W-30 is thinner at these temperatures? It would have to be information showing that GC does not actually meet the 0W spec.
I now see that the value I was using for the 40C cSt viscosity from Castrol's PDS is actually (maybe) the 210F SUS viscosity. What a terrible PDS. So maybe the calculator isn't as far out as I thought. Or maybe it is, since it's even further out if the Edge 0W-30 PDS values are used. Regardless, if you enter the 100C value and adjust the 40C value so that GC barely meets the 0W spec at -35C, it's no different than what I calculated before. The 40C viscosity is then about 61 cSt.
Forgot to check the MSDS 100c = 12.01 and 40c = 71.24
Thanks for working on this.
What is the difference between cP and cst as GM spec is in cP and calculator is in cst ?
Regards again.
Me: How accurate is your visco calculator from -20C to 100C?
Widman: With most oils it should be accurate until you factor pour point modifiers
Me: Hm OK, how would a PP modifier affect the visco calculator results?
Widman: It flattens out the expected results at low temperatures.
Widman: With most oils it should be accurate until you factor pour point modifiers
Me: Hm OK, how would a PP modifier affect the visco calculator results?
Widman: It flattens out the expected results at low temperatures.
Do you actually have your car sitting out all night when it's really cold?
Do you actually see temperatures of -40C, which equals -40F?
If not, you are worried about nothing.
GC meets the specs for a 0W-30 oil.
It is thinner than any 5W-XX at really low temperatures.
It could not otherwise be a 0W.
Now, getting practical, both of my Accords have run GC during the winter, and both were fine down to about -10F, the coldest they saw on GC.
OTOH, the coldest I've ever stated a car that had spent the night outdoors was with our old '76 Civic, back in the early 'eighties.
The temerature was My point is that if you want to use GC, go for it.
I can't see it hurting your engine.
A more pertinent question might be why you want to use GC.
Do you actually see temperatures of -40C, which equals -40F?
If not, you are worried about nothing.
GC meets the specs for a 0W-30 oil.
It is thinner than any 5W-XX at really low temperatures.
It could not otherwise be a 0W.
Now, getting practical, both of my Accords have run GC during the winter, and both were fine down to about -10F, the coldest they saw on GC.
OTOH, the coldest I've ever stated a car that had spent the night outdoors was with our old '76 Civic, back in the early 'eighties.
The temerature was My point is that if you want to use GC, go for it.
I can't see it hurting your engine.
A more pertinent question might be why you want to use GC.
Originally Posted By: Fallguy
What is the difference between cP and cst as GM spec is in cP and calculator is in cst ?
I've never really differentiated between the two for motor oils. There is a difference, but not a big difference. cSt is used for absolute viscosity. The kinematic viscosity (using cP) just incorporates the density by dividing the absolute viscosity by the specific gravity of the fluid. Since the specific gravity of a motor oil is reasonably close to 1, and gets even closer in cold temperatures, the units are similar enough for our purposes. The SG of GC is 0.847 near room temperature, so the cP value will be 18% higher but will become closer to the cSt value as temperature falls. Based on the little information I can find on the effect of temperature on oil density. I'd estimate that a typical motor oil would be at about .92 by -40C; a 9% difference.
What is the difference between cP and cst as GM spec is in cP and calculator is in cst ?
I've never really differentiated between the two for motor oils. There is a difference, but not a big difference. cSt is used for absolute viscosity. The kinematic viscosity (using cP) just incorporates the density by dividing the absolute viscosity by the specific gravity of the fluid. Since the specific gravity of a motor oil is reasonably close to 1, and gets even closer in cold temperatures, the units are similar enough for our purposes. The SG of GC is 0.847 near room temperature, so the cP value will be 18% higher but will become closer to the cSt value as temperature falls. Based on the little information I can find on the effect of temperature on oil density. I'd estimate that a typical motor oil would be at about .92 by -40C; a 9% difference.
Originally Posted By: BobFout
Widman: It flattens out the expected results at low temperatures.
That would account for the high viscosity it projects for GC at extreme lows. Any idea when the pour point modifiers begin to affect the curve?
Widman: It flattens out the expected results at low temperatures.
That would account for the high viscosity it projects for GC at extreme lows. Any idea when the pour point modifiers begin to affect the curve?
I just stick with comparos from temps I actually will encounter. What kind of temps are you getting up there? -25f? PP 5w-30 is still the winner in my book. You get a good price on GC up there, don't you? What about XD-3?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked