GTL base stocks better than PAO/POE?
- Thread starter BerndV
- Start date
- Status
One other point regarding Mobil 1 0W-20. The prior SM version had a HTHSV of 2.63cP.
Mobil has unfortunately stopped providing HTHSV spec's to two decimal places. I'm willing to bet that when Mobil says there is no difference between the Cdn and US made version of Mobil 1 0W-20 I suspect the actual HTHSV of the Cdn oil published at 2.6cP is likely closer to 2.64cP rounded down to 2.6cP and the US spec' of 2.7cP is really something closer to 2.66cP rounded up to 2.7cP; hence the negligible viscosity difference in reality.
Mobil has unfortunately stopped providing HTHSV spec's to two decimal places. I'm willing to bet that when Mobil says there is no difference between the Cdn and US made version of Mobil 1 0W-20 I suspect the actual HTHSV of the Cdn oil published at 2.6cP is likely closer to 2.64cP rounded down to 2.6cP and the US spec' of 2.7cP is really something closer to 2.66cP rounded up to 2.7cP; hence the negligible viscosity difference in reality.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
These are the spec's for the Cdn version of Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy 0W-20:
MRV 10,400cP
VI 170
HTHSV 2.6cP
Does this oil appear to be different than the US version? Yes.
Is there any difference in the two formulations according to Mobil? No, it is just normal batch variation.
I don't buy that two PDS's with VI, MRV and HTHS all being different are all just "batch variations". If the oils were the same, they'd have the same Product Data Sheets. But they don't. So either the Canadian PDS is wrong (possible) or we are getting two different oils (less likely).
Quote:
The only reason I point this out is the MRV difference between the two Mobil 1 versions is a 1,200cP which may appear significant but is actually an insignificant at that temperature. In fact a temperature variation of a fraction of a degree can affect the viscosity of an oil that much at those extremely cold temp's.
Given the thread that this first appeared in (and you cited the CDN PDS back then) was started by you and was boldly pointing out that the ENEOS oil had SUPERIOR MRV to the Mobil 1 0w-20 lubricant, why was it relevant then, and not relevant now? I mean then you were arguing that the 770cP difference between the CDN Mobil 1 0w-20 and the ENOS Sustina 0w-20 was significant. But we are to believe that the 1,200cP difference between the two Mobil 1 PDS's is "insignificant" and that if we use the US Mobil 1 0w-20 PDS as our reference, that it is also insignificant
which is it? It seems that this cold temp thing is an argument of convenience. Used to bolster your point when it favours your high VI argument and dismissed as "insigificant" when it doesn't.
Quote:
So based on the MRV spec's alone, Sustina is 730cP lighter than Cdn Mobil 1 and 430cP heavier than US Mobil 1 or lighter than an average of the two Mobil 1 oils. But for the sake of argument let just say Mobil 1 ans Sustina have the same MRV performance.
But you just said the 1,200cP difference between the two Mobil 1 grades was "insignificant", yet now we are being told that if we average the two Mobil PDS's and compare it to Sustina, that the 170cP difference between the two (in favour of Sustina) IS relevant because it "makes them equal for the sake of argument"
What's this double-talk about sir?
Quote:
As for your conclusion that "at some point below 0 Mobil 1 passes VI-ZILLA in terms of thinness" you're wrong. At 0C Sustina is 34% lighter than Mobil 1 0W-20 and will remain lighter all the way down to -40 degrees at which point there virtually no difference.
Hold on a second, so you are saying that if I look at the two figures I quoted above, the 9,200cP and the 9,630cP, and we KNOW that at higher temps, the Mobil 1 0w-20 is heavier, but that the crossover I'm seeing here is all in my imagination? Is this because of this magically irrelevant 1,200cP again?
We don't have the CCS value for the Mobil 1 0w-20, so we don't know how close they are (or whether the Mobil 1 is, like it is at -40C, thinner).
Quote:
As for their HTHS viscosity spec's you're referencing the US Mobil 1 0W-20 (HTHSV 2.7cP), so I guess purchasers of the Cdn Mobil 1 0W-20 (HTHSV 2.6cP) don't have the same protection?
Where did I say ANYTHING about protection? I said it (the US version of Mobil 1 0w-20) was still heavier at 150C. This was because part of your posit here is that the "uber VI" also means the oil thins less at temps beyond the two points used to calculate it. So I simply pointed out that the "much lower" VI Mobil 1 0w-20 is still heavier at 150C than the ENEOS lubricant. So if there's some "high VI/high temp" (HVHT, hey, I've made a new acronym!!) crossover here, it hasn't yet occurred at 150C.
Quote:
The reality according to Mobil is that there is no difference between the two oils.
Unless you spoke to an actual Engineer at Mobil, I'd be careful in drawing a concrete conclusion here. We've had reps from Mobil say all kinds of neat things about their products, many of which we know to be patently false. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case here just to placate you and get you off the phone.
These are the spec's for the Cdn version of Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy 0W-20:
MRV 10,400cP
VI 170
HTHSV 2.6cP
Does this oil appear to be different than the US version? Yes.
Is there any difference in the two formulations according to Mobil? No, it is just normal batch variation.
I don't buy that two PDS's with VI, MRV and HTHS all being different are all just "batch variations". If the oils were the same, they'd have the same Product Data Sheets. But they don't. So either the Canadian PDS is wrong (possible) or we are getting two different oils (less likely).
Quote:
The only reason I point this out is the MRV difference between the two Mobil 1 versions is a 1,200cP which may appear significant but is actually an insignificant at that temperature. In fact a temperature variation of a fraction of a degree can affect the viscosity of an oil that much at those extremely cold temp's.
Given the thread that this first appeared in (and you cited the CDN PDS back then) was started by you and was boldly pointing out that the ENEOS oil had SUPERIOR MRV to the Mobil 1 0w-20 lubricant, why was it relevant then, and not relevant now? I mean then you were arguing that the 770cP difference between the CDN Mobil 1 0w-20 and the ENOS Sustina 0w-20 was significant. But we are to believe that the 1,200cP difference between the two Mobil 1 PDS's is "insignificant" and that if we use the US Mobil 1 0w-20 PDS as our reference, that it is also insignificant
Quote:
So based on the MRV spec's alone, Sustina is 730cP lighter than Cdn Mobil 1 and 430cP heavier than US Mobil 1 or lighter than an average of the two Mobil 1 oils. But for the sake of argument let just say Mobil 1 ans Sustina have the same MRV performance.
But you just said the 1,200cP difference between the two Mobil 1 grades was "insignificant", yet now we are being told that if we average the two Mobil PDS's and compare it to Sustina, that the 170cP difference between the two (in favour of Sustina) IS relevant because it "makes them equal for the sake of argument"
Quote:
As for your conclusion that "at some point below 0 Mobil 1 passes VI-ZILLA in terms of thinness" you're wrong. At 0C Sustina is 34% lighter than Mobil 1 0W-20 and will remain lighter all the way down to -40 degrees at which point there virtually no difference.
Hold on a second, so you are saying that if I look at the two figures I quoted above, the 9,200cP and the 9,630cP, and we KNOW that at higher temps, the Mobil 1 0w-20 is heavier, but that the crossover I'm seeing here is all in my imagination? Is this because of this magically irrelevant 1,200cP again?
We don't have the CCS value for the Mobil 1 0w-20, so we don't know how close they are (or whether the Mobil 1 is, like it is at -40C, thinner).
Quote:
As for their HTHS viscosity spec's you're referencing the US Mobil 1 0W-20 (HTHSV 2.7cP), so I guess purchasers of the Cdn Mobil 1 0W-20 (HTHSV 2.6cP) don't have the same protection?
Where did I say ANYTHING about protection? I said it (the US version of Mobil 1 0w-20) was still heavier at 150C. This was because part of your posit here is that the "uber VI" also means the oil thins less at temps beyond the two points used to calculate it. So I simply pointed out that the "much lower" VI Mobil 1 0w-20 is still heavier at 150C than the ENEOS lubricant. So if there's some "high VI/high temp" (HVHT, hey, I've made a new acronym!!) crossover here, it hasn't yet occurred at 150C.
Quote:
The reality according to Mobil is that there is no difference between the two oils.
Unless you spoke to an actual Engineer at Mobil, I'd be careful in drawing a concrete conclusion here. We've had reps from Mobil say all kinds of neat things about their products, many of which we know to be patently false. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case here just to placate you and get you off the phone.
Quote:
As if you would know.
Quote:
Lubricants with VIs as low as minus 60 are available today. Other lubricants can have VIs ranging over 400. However, the vast majority of lubricants on the market will have VIs in the range of 90 to 160. - Jim Fitch
As if you would know.
Quote:
Lubricants with VIs as low as minus 60 are available today. Other lubricants can have VIs ranging over 400. However, the vast majority of lubricants on the market will have VIs in the range of 90 to 160. - Jim Fitch
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
These are the spec's for the Cdn version of Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy 0W-20:
MRV 10,400cP
VI 170
HTHSV 2.6cP
Does this oil appear to be different than the US version? Yes.
Is there any difference in the two formulations according to Mobil? No, it is just normal batch variation.
I don't buy that two PDS's with VI, MRV and HTHS all being different are all just "batch variations". If the oils were the same, they'd have the same Product Data Sheets. But they don't. So either the Canadian PDS is wrong (possible) or we are getting two different oils (less likely).
Quote:
The only reason I point this out is the MRV difference between the two Mobil 1 versions is a 1,200cP which may appear significant but is actually an insignificant at that temperature. In fact a temperature variation of a fraction of a degree can affect the viscosity of an oil that much at those extremely cold temp's.
Given the thread that this first appeared in (and you cited the CDN PDS back then) was started by you and was boldly pointing out that the ENEOS oil had SUPERIOR MRV to the Mobil 1 0w-20 lubricant, why was it relevant then, and not relevant now? I mean then you were arguing that the 770cP difference between the CDN Mobil 1 0w-20 and the ENOS Sustina 0w-20 was significant. But we are to believe that the 1,200cP difference between the two Mobil 1 PDS's is "insignificant" and that if we use the US Mobil 1 0w-20 PDS as our reference, that it is also insignificant
which is it? It seems that this cold temp thing is an argument of convenience. Used to bolster your point when it favours your high VI argument and dismissed as "insigificant" when it doesn't.
Quote:
So based on the MRV spec's alone, Sustina is 730cP lighter than Cdn Mobil 1 and 430cP heavier than US Mobil 1 or lighter than an average of the two Mobil 1 oils. But for the sake of argument let just say Mobil 1 ans Sustina have the same MRV performance.
But you just said the 1,200cP difference between the two Mobil 1 grades was "insignificant", yet now we are being told that if we average the two Mobil PDS's and compare it to Sustina, that the 170cP difference between the two (in favour of Sustina) IS relevant because it "makes them equal for the sake of argument"
What's this double-talk about sir?
Quote:
As for your conclusion that "at some point below 0 Mobil 1 passes VI-ZILLA in terms of thinness" you're wrong. At 0C Sustina is 34% lighter than Mobil 1 0W-20 and will remain lighter all the way down to -40 degrees at which point there virtually no difference.
Hold on a second, so you are saying that if I look at the two figures I quoted above, the 9,200cP and the 9,630cP, and we KNOW that at higher temps, the Mobil 1 0w-20 is heavier, but that the crossover I'm seeing here is all in my imagination? Is this because of this magically irrelevant 1,200cP again?
We don't have the CCS value for the Mobil 1 0w-20, so we don't know how close they are (or whether the Mobil 1 is, like it is at -40C, thinner).
Quote:
As for their HTHS viscosity spec's you're referencing the US Mobil 1 0W-20 (HTHSV 2.7cP), so I guess purchasers of the Cdn Mobil 1 0W-20 (HTHSV 2.6cP) don't have the same protection?
Where did I say ANYTHING about protection? I said it (the US version of Mobil 1 0w-20) was still heavier at 150C. This was because part of your posit here is that the "uber VI" also means the oil thins less at temps beyond the two points used to calculate it. So I simply pointed out that the "much lower" VI Mobil 1 0w-20 is still heavier at 150C than the ENEOS lubricant. So if there's some "high VI/high temp" (HVHT, hey, I've made a new acronym!!) crossover here, it hasn't yet occurred at 150C.
Quote:
The reality according to Mobil is that there is no difference between the two oils.
Unless you spoke to an actual Engineer at Mobil, I'd be careful in drawing a concrete conclusion here. We've had reps from Mobil say all kinds of neat things about their products, many of which we know to be patently false. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case here just to placate you and get you off the phone.
OVERKILL. no offence but you haven't added anything factual to the discussion here.
The bottom line is that there is no significant difference in extreme cold performance based on the MRV spec's between Mobil 1 0W-20 and Sustina.
And contrary to what you said about Sustina being heavier than Mobil 1 below 0 degrees that clearly is no the case. Sustina is lighter at all temp's between 150C and -40C.
I should also point out that unlike yourself I have actually used both these oils not to mention a lot of other 0W-20 and 5W-20 oils. Without question Sustina 0W-20 is the lightest API oil you can buy on start-up and at normal operating temp's based actual oil pressure values. It is lighter than TGMO 0W-20 (VI 214), which which is lighter than the Idemitsu made Honda 0W-20 (200 VI) which is considerably lighter than Mobil 1 0W-20 (170-173 VI).
Again not just on start-up where the differences are most dramatic but also at normal operating temp's.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
These are the spec's for the Cdn version of Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy 0W-20:
MRV 10,400cP
VI 170
HTHSV 2.6cP
Does this oil appear to be different than the US version? Yes.
Is there any difference in the two formulations according to Mobil? No, it is just normal batch variation.
I don't buy that two PDS's with VI, MRV and HTHS all being different are all just "batch variations". If the oils were the same, they'd have the same Product Data Sheets. But they don't. So either the Canadian PDS is wrong (possible) or we are getting two different oils (less likely).
Quote:
The only reason I point this out is the MRV difference between the two Mobil 1 versions is a 1,200cP which may appear significant but is actually an insignificant at that temperature. In fact a temperature variation of a fraction of a degree can affect the viscosity of an oil that much at those extremely cold temp's.
Given the thread that this first appeared in (and you cited the CDN PDS back then) was started by you and was boldly pointing out that the ENEOS oil had SUPERIOR MRV to the Mobil 1 0w-20 lubricant, why was it relevant then, and not relevant now? I mean then you were arguing that the 770cP difference between the CDN Mobil 1 0w-20 and the ENOS Sustina 0w-20 was significant. But we are to believe that the 1,200cP difference between the two Mobil 1 PDS's is "insignificant" and that if we use the US Mobil 1 0w-20 PDS as our reference, that it is also insignificant
Quote:
So based on the MRV spec's alone, Sustina is 730cP lighter than Cdn Mobil 1 and 430cP heavier than US Mobil 1 or lighter than an average of the two Mobil 1 oils. But for the sake of argument let just say Mobil 1 ans Sustina have the same MRV performance.
But you just said the 1,200cP difference between the two Mobil 1 grades was "insignificant", yet now we are being told that if we average the two Mobil PDS's and compare it to Sustina, that the 170cP difference between the two (in favour of Sustina) IS relevant because it "makes them equal for the sake of argument"
Quote:
As for your conclusion that "at some point below 0 Mobil 1 passes VI-ZILLA in terms of thinness" you're wrong. At 0C Sustina is 34% lighter than Mobil 1 0W-20 and will remain lighter all the way down to -40 degrees at which point there virtually no difference.
Hold on a second, so you are saying that if I look at the two figures I quoted above, the 9,200cP and the 9,630cP, and we KNOW that at higher temps, the Mobil 1 0w-20 is heavier, but that the crossover I'm seeing here is all in my imagination? Is this because of this magically irrelevant 1,200cP again?
We don't have the CCS value for the Mobil 1 0w-20, so we don't know how close they are (or whether the Mobil 1 is, like it is at -40C, thinner).
Quote:
As for their HTHS viscosity spec's you're referencing the US Mobil 1 0W-20 (HTHSV 2.7cP), so I guess purchasers of the Cdn Mobil 1 0W-20 (HTHSV 2.6cP) don't have the same protection?
Where did I say ANYTHING about protection? I said it (the US version of Mobil 1 0w-20) was still heavier at 150C. This was because part of your posit here is that the "uber VI" also means the oil thins less at temps beyond the two points used to calculate it. So I simply pointed out that the "much lower" VI Mobil 1 0w-20 is still heavier at 150C than the ENEOS lubricant. So if there's some "high VI/high temp" (HVHT, hey, I've made a new acronym!!) crossover here, it hasn't yet occurred at 150C.
Quote:
The reality according to Mobil is that there is no difference between the two oils.
Unless you spoke to an actual Engineer at Mobil, I'd be careful in drawing a concrete conclusion here. We've had reps from Mobil say all kinds of neat things about their products, many of which we know to be patently false. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case here just to placate you and get you off the phone.
OVERKILL. no offence but you haven't added anything factual to the discussion here.
The bottom line is that there is no significant difference in extreme cold performance based on the MRV spec's between Mobil 1 0W-20 and Sustina.
And contrary to what you said about Sustina being heavier than Mobil 1 below 0 degrees that clearly is no the case. Sustina is lighter at all temp's between 150C and -40C.
I should also point out that unlike yourself I have actually used both these oils not to mention a lot of other 0W-20 and 5W-20 oils. Without question Sustina 0W-20 is the lightest API oil you can buy on start-up and at normal operating temp's based actual oil pressure values. It is lighter than TGMO 0W-20 (VI 214), which which is lighter than the Idemitsu made Honda 0W-20 (200 VI) which is considerably lighter than Mobil 1 0W-20 (170-173 VI).
Again not just on start-up where the differences are most dramatic but also at normal operating temp's.
^^ Is there any difference in engine wear after 100,000 miles with the Sustina 0W20 or the Honda 0W20 vs. Mobil 1 0w20? After 200,000 miles? 250,000 miles? 300,000 miles? Are there any tear down results posted anywhere to check? Those pictures and measurements would probably put this to rest once and for all.
At the end of the day all most of us care about is making our engines last as long as possible.
At the end of the day all most of us care about is making our engines last as long as possible.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
^^ Is there any difference in engine wear after 100,000 miles with the Sustina 0W20 or the Honda 0W20 vs. Mobil 1 0w20? After 200,000 miles? 250,000 miles? 300,000 miles? Are there any tear down results posted anywhere to check? Those pictures and measurements would probably put this to rest once and for all.
CATERHAM does not believe in teardown results.The thing he relies on is an oil pressure gauge.
^^ Is there any difference in engine wear after 100,000 miles with the Sustina 0W20 or the Honda 0W20 vs. Mobil 1 0w20? After 200,000 miles? 250,000 miles? 300,000 miles? Are there any tear down results posted anywhere to check? Those pictures and measurements would probably put this to rest once and for all.
CATERHAM does not believe in teardown results.The thing he relies on is an oil pressure gauge.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
^^ Is there any difference in engine wear after 100,000 miles with the Sustina 0W20 or the Honda 0W20 vs. Mobil 1 0w20? After 200,000 miles? 250,000 miles? 300,000 miles? Are there any tear down results posted anywhere to check? Those pictures and measurements would probably put this to rest once and for all.
At the end of the day all most of us care about is making our engines last as long as possible.
This discussion is not about engine wear but VI. You can have a high VI light oil or a high VI heavy oil.
Sustina 0W-20 is formulated to be the lightest 0W-20 oil you can buy suitable for a 0W-20 application.
Mobil 1 0W-20 is a much heavier oil suitable for a 5W-20 application.
^^ Is there any difference in engine wear after 100,000 miles with the Sustina 0W20 or the Honda 0W20 vs. Mobil 1 0w20? After 200,000 miles? 250,000 miles? 300,000 miles? Are there any tear down results posted anywhere to check? Those pictures and measurements would probably put this to rest once and for all.
At the end of the day all most of us care about is making our engines last as long as possible.
This discussion is not about engine wear but VI. You can have a high VI light oil or a high VI heavy oil.
Sustina 0W-20 is formulated to be the lightest 0W-20 oil you can buy suitable for a 0W-20 application.
Mobil 1 0W-20 is a much heavier oil suitable for a 5W-20 application.
^^ Honestly tears downs and measurements is really the only way to tell which oil is doing a better job. We can debate this till H-Ell freezes over, visual inspections and actual measurements in a controlled test run with several engines using Mobil 1 0W20 and the thinner high VI competition is the only way to go. Until then all we have is a lot of educated guessing.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
^^ Is there any difference in engine wear after 100,000 miles with the Sustina 0W20 or the Honda 0W20 vs. Mobil 1 0w20? After 200,000 miles? 250,000 miles? 300,000 miles? Are there any tear down results posted anywhere to check? Those pictures and measurements would probably put this to rest once and for all.
At the end of the day all most of us care about is making our engines last as long as possible.
This discussion is not about engine wear but VI. You can have a high VI light oil or a high VI heavy oil.
Sustina 0W-20 is formulated to be the lightest 0W-20 oil you can buy suitable for a 0W-20 application.
Mobil 1 0W-20 is a much heavier oil suitable for a 5W-20 application.
Isn't reducing engine wear and running an oil that will make an engine last the longest what most of us are after? If not then I see this as pointless. Isn't the point of the higher VI thinner oil to reduce wear during that crucial cold start, until the engine reaches operating temps? That's where most of the wear occurs, isn't it? And why some people claim the thinner high VI oil is supposed to be better. A tear down, visual inspection, and measurements will put it all to rest won't it?
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
^^ Is there any difference in engine wear after 100,000 miles with the Sustina 0W20 or the Honda 0W20 vs. Mobil 1 0w20? After 200,000 miles? 250,000 miles? 300,000 miles? Are there any tear down results posted anywhere to check? Those pictures and measurements would probably put this to rest once and for all.
At the end of the day all most of us care about is making our engines last as long as possible.
This discussion is not about engine wear but VI. You can have a high VI light oil or a high VI heavy oil.
Sustina 0W-20 is formulated to be the lightest 0W-20 oil you can buy suitable for a 0W-20 application.
Mobil 1 0W-20 is a much heavier oil suitable for a 5W-20 application.
Isn't reducing engine wear and running an oil that will make an engine last the longest what most of us are after? If not then I see this as pointless. Isn't the point of the higher VI thinner oil to reduce wear during that crucial cold start, until the engine reaches operating temps? That's where most of the wear occurs, isn't it? And why some people claim the thinner high VI oil is supposed to be better. A tear down, visual inspection, and measurements will put it all to rest won't it?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
^^ Is there any difference in engine wear after 100,000 miles with the Sustina 0W20 or the Honda 0W20 vs. Mobil 1 0w20? After 200,000 miles? 250,000 miles? 300,000 miles? Are there any tear down results posted anywhere to check? Those pictures and measurements would probably put this to rest once and for all.
At the end of the day all most of us care about is making our engines last as long as possible.
This discussion is not about engine wear but VI. You can have a high VI light oil or a high VI heavy oil.
Sustina 0W-20 is formulated to be the lightest 0W-20 oil you can buy suitable for a 0W-20 application.
Mobil 1 0W-20 is a much heavier oil suitable for a 5W-20 application.
Isn't reducing engine wear and running an oil that will make an engine last the longest what most of us are after? If not then I see this as pointless. Isn't the point of the higher VI thinner oil to reduce wear during that crucial cold start, until the engine reaches operating temps? That's where most of the wear occurs, isn't it? And why some people claim the thinner high VI oil is supposed to be better. A tear down, visual inspection, and measurements will put it all to rest won't it?
Tear down is the ONLY way period!
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
^^ Is there any difference in engine wear after 100,000 miles with the Sustina 0W20 or the Honda 0W20 vs. Mobil 1 0w20? After 200,000 miles? 250,000 miles? 300,000 miles? Are there any tear down results posted anywhere to check? Those pictures and measurements would probably put this to rest once and for all.
At the end of the day all most of us care about is making our engines last as long as possible.
This discussion is not about engine wear but VI. You can have a high VI light oil or a high VI heavy oil.
Sustina 0W-20 is formulated to be the lightest 0W-20 oil you can buy suitable for a 0W-20 application.
Mobil 1 0W-20 is a much heavier oil suitable for a 5W-20 application.
Isn't reducing engine wear and running an oil that will make an engine last the longest what most of us are after? If not then I see this as pointless. Isn't the point of the higher VI thinner oil to reduce wear during that crucial cold start, until the engine reaches operating temps? That's where most of the wear occurs, isn't it? And why some people claim the thinner high VI oil is supposed to be better. A tear down, visual inspection, and measurements will put it all to rest won't it?
Tear down is the ONLY way period!
Originally Posted By: buster
Quote:
As if you would know.
Quote:
Lubricants with VIs as low as minus 60 are available today. Other lubricants can have VIs ranging over 400. However, the vast majority of lubricants on the market will have VIs in the range of 90 to 160. - Jim Fitch
Buster you're really good a digging up obscure unrelated quotes to the discussion at hand.
Dig up just one multi-grade oil with a VI as low 90 (I'll save you the time there isn't one) and what is the average VI of the 24 5w30 syn oils PQIA has listed? I'll tell you it's 167.
And if you factor in all the cars that are now spec'd for 0W-20 with an average 200+ VI, that's most Japanese cars and soon GM, plus all the cars spec'd for a 0W-40 (185 VI), the average VI will easily rise into the 180s.
Quote:
As if you would know.
Quote:
Lubricants with VIs as low as minus 60 are available today. Other lubricants can have VIs ranging over 400. However, the vast majority of lubricants on the market will have VIs in the range of 90 to 160. - Jim Fitch
Buster you're really good a digging up obscure unrelated quotes to the discussion at hand.
Dig up just one multi-grade oil with a VI as low 90 (I'll save you the time there isn't one) and what is the average VI of the 24 5w30 syn oils PQIA has listed? I'll tell you it's 167.
And if you factor in all the cars that are now spec'd for 0W-20 with an average 200+ VI, that's most Japanese cars and soon GM, plus all the cars spec'd for a 0W-40 (185 VI), the average VI will easily rise into the 180s.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
^^ Is there any difference in engine wear after 100,000 miles with the Sustina 0W20 or the Honda 0W20 vs. Mobil 1 0w20? After 200,000 miles? 250,000 miles? 300,000 miles? Are there any tear down results posted anywhere to check? Those pictures and measurements would probably put this to rest once and for all.
At the end of the day all most of us care about is making our engines last as long as possible.
Well, it would be awesome if that information were available, in a controlled environment--but I'm holding my breath. So, we're left making logical interferences. Mine is that there really wouldn't be much difference, and you could add Supertech conventional 5W20 or 10W30 into the mix and I still doubt you'd see much difference. But hey, you gotta put something in there, so why no over-analyze it? I do think there are small, but real (and difficult to measure) fuel economy gains from the higher VI, lighter oils, but at the end of the day I also think it doesn't make much difference as long you have enough in the sump and change it regularly.
Yes, I think the lighter oils have the possibility of providing a little less wear, but I doubt it will make a huge difference in the life and performance of the engine.
^^ Is there any difference in engine wear after 100,000 miles with the Sustina 0W20 or the Honda 0W20 vs. Mobil 1 0w20? After 200,000 miles? 250,000 miles? 300,000 miles? Are there any tear down results posted anywhere to check? Those pictures and measurements would probably put this to rest once and for all.
At the end of the day all most of us care about is making our engines last as long as possible.
Well, it would be awesome if that information were available, in a controlled environment--but I'm holding my breath. So, we're left making logical interferences. Mine is that there really wouldn't be much difference, and you could add Supertech conventional 5W20 or 10W30 into the mix and I still doubt you'd see much difference. But hey, you gotta put something in there, so why no over-analyze it? I do think there are small, but real (and difficult to measure) fuel economy gains from the higher VI, lighter oils, but at the end of the day I also think it doesn't make much difference as long you have enough in the sump and change it regularly.
Yes, I think the lighter oils have the possibility of providing a little less wear, but I doubt it will make a huge difference in the life and performance of the engine.
^^ Fair enough. Until we have these tear down results all we can do is make educated guesses. We can then use words like: think, guess, probably, might, etc. It's a good discussion though, one that most likely will never be resolved.
Originally Posted By: threeputtpar
I would be interested in knowing if MolaKule or anyone else in the field thinks the same thing. Not trying to single you out, just would really like to know.
With respect to VI, I made a post in another thread some time ago. I'm too lazy to search for it right now or re-type the entire diatribe. The gist of the matter, though, was that I don't personally look too much at VI when selecting an oil. A terrible VI might make me look elsewhere, but I'm not looking for the highest VI no matter what. That being said, though, I mentioned that an increase in VI has been the one steadfast thing in the evolution of oils over the years. Straight grades to multigrades provided higher VI. Synthetics provided higher VIs, particularly with more viscosity choices. Whether you're a North American who switched from 10w30 to 5w30 and beyond or driving a European vehicle (or diesel) that went from 15w40 to 0w-40, the one constant is a higher VI.
I'm not using the highest VI oils out there. I assure you, though, I appreciate the fact that I no longer have to change oil with the seasons and that one can have an oil that's relatively heavy while still having good cold weather properties.
I would be interested in knowing if MolaKule or anyone else in the field thinks the same thing. Not trying to single you out, just would really like to know.
With respect to VI, I made a post in another thread some time ago. I'm too lazy to search for it right now or re-type the entire diatribe. The gist of the matter, though, was that I don't personally look too much at VI when selecting an oil. A terrible VI might make me look elsewhere, but I'm not looking for the highest VI no matter what. That being said, though, I mentioned that an increase in VI has been the one steadfast thing in the evolution of oils over the years. Straight grades to multigrades provided higher VI. Synthetics provided higher VIs, particularly with more viscosity choices. Whether you're a North American who switched from 10w30 to 5w30 and beyond or driving a European vehicle (or diesel) that went from 15w40 to 0w-40, the one constant is a higher VI.
I'm not using the highest VI oils out there. I assure you, though, I appreciate the fact that I no longer have to change oil with the seasons and that one can have an oil that's relatively heavy while still having good cold weather properties.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
^^ Is there any difference in engine wear after 100,000 miles with the Sustina 0W20 or the Honda 0W20 vs. Mobil 1 0w20? After 200,000 miles? 250,000 miles? 300,000 miles? Are there any tear down results posted anywhere to check? Those pictures and measurements would probably put this to rest once and for all.
At the end of the day all most of us care about is making our engines last as long as possible.
This discussion is not about engine wear but VI. You can have a high VI light oil or a high VI heavy oil.
Sustina 0W-20 is formulated to be the lightest 0W-20 oil you can buy suitable for a 0W-20 application.
Mobil 1 0W-20 is a much heavier oil suitable for a 5W-20 application.
Isn't reducing engine wear and running an oil that will make an engine last the longest what most of us are after? If not then I see this as pointless. Isn't the point of the higher VI thinner oil to reduce wear during that crucial cold start, until the engine reaches operating temps? That's where most of the wear occurs, isn't it? And why some people claim the thinner high VI oil is supposed to be better. A tear down, visual inspection, and measurements will put it all to rest won't it?
That's right, a high VI oil reduces oil drag on start-up but it also is heavier at extreme oil temp's (for a given normal operational viscosity) vs a low VI oil which is why modern race oils are are formulated with much higher VI's than in the past (Mobil 1 R 0w50 has a 189 VI).
The thing is, the OEM 0W-20's are formulated to be as light as possible at all temp's, so they are lighter than a 5W-20 at normal operating temp's as well.
If you take a look at the back-dated oil recommended charts for both Toyota and Honda, the heavier 5W-20 grade is still specified for certain models.
It's why I suggest to the most conservative, if your car is spec'd for a 5W-20 and hasn't been back spec'd for a 0W-20 grade to go with Mobil 1 0W-20, it's at least lighter on start-up than a typical 5W-20 or for those that really do what to take advantage of the ultra high VI 0W-20's to add a pint or a quart of Mobil 1 0W-40 to increase the HTHSV without having much effect on the cold start performance.
Or you can go with a version of the CATERHAM Blend below:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/caterham-blend-mobil-0w40-sm-tgmo-0w20-sn.198118/
This 200+ VI 0w30 is still lighter on start-up even at room temperature than a 5W-20. So you're definitely maximizing your high temp' protection while still improving cold start performance.
That's the advantage of a high VI oil.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
^^ Is there any difference in engine wear after 100,000 miles with the Sustina 0W20 or the Honda 0W20 vs. Mobil 1 0w20? After 200,000 miles? 250,000 miles? 300,000 miles? Are there any tear down results posted anywhere to check? Those pictures and measurements would probably put this to rest once and for all.
At the end of the day all most of us care about is making our engines last as long as possible.
This discussion is not about engine wear but VI. You can have a high VI light oil or a high VI heavy oil.
Sustina 0W-20 is formulated to be the lightest 0W-20 oil you can buy suitable for a 0W-20 application.
Mobil 1 0W-20 is a much heavier oil suitable for a 5W-20 application.
Isn't reducing engine wear and running an oil that will make an engine last the longest what most of us are after? If not then I see this as pointless. Isn't the point of the higher VI thinner oil to reduce wear during that crucial cold start, until the engine reaches operating temps? That's where most of the wear occurs, isn't it? And why some people claim the thinner high VI oil is supposed to be better. A tear down, visual inspection, and measurements will put it all to rest won't it?
That's right, a high VI oil reduces oil drag on start-up but it also is heavier at extreme oil temp's (for a given normal operational viscosity) vs a low VI oil which is why modern race oils are are formulated with much higher VI's than in the past (Mobil 1 R 0w50 has a 189 VI).
The thing is, the OEM 0W-20's are formulated to be as light as possible at all temp's, so they are lighter than a 5W-20 at normal operating temp's as well.
If you take a look at the back-dated oil recommended charts for both Toyota and Honda, the heavier 5W-20 grade is still specified for certain models.
It's why I suggest to the most conservative, if your car is spec'd for a 5W-20 and hasn't been back spec'd for a 0W-20 grade to go with Mobil 1 0W-20, it's at least lighter on start-up than a typical 5W-20 or for those that really do what to take advantage of the ultra high VI 0W-20's to add a pint or a quart of Mobil 1 0W-40 to increase the HTHSV without having much effect on the cold start performance.
Or you can go with a version of the CATERHAM Blend below:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/caterham-blend-mobil-0w40-sm-tgmo-0w20-sn.198118/
This 200+ VI 0w30 is still lighter on start-up even at room temperature than a 5W-20. So you're definitely maximizing your high temp' protection while still improving cold start performance.
That's the advantage of a high VI oil.
All I'd like to see is the difference in engine wear reduction via tear down and measurements as I mentioned above. Without it we really don't know what is happening, and all if this discussion can be a waste of time.
Originally Posted By: jrustles
It's been touched on before regarding industry-wide viscosity changes and bearing design. I too notice bearing journals decreasing in width, and increasing in circumference as engine generations evolve. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but thinner oils need higher bearing speeds to maintain an equal hydrodynamic wedge. Increasing the circumference of the crankpin accomplishes this. Thinning the journal allows a greater flow of oil out of the journal, increasing the 'refresh rate', which is good for a thinner oil under pressure.
I agree, and if you check, I have been stating this for ages, in the face of condescending ridicule from a number of quarters (one in particular).
In response to thinner oils, the manufacturers are increasing diameters, reducing radial clearances, and increasing side leakage (reducing the operation temperature rise in the bearing, which some "don't beleive" in), all of which allow thinner oil in journal bearings.
It's one of the reasons that I keep point Caterham back to the laws of physics (which function equally in Smuggsville Ontario as Third World Australia).
Oil pressure and VI are NOT lubricating bearings.
Originally Posted By: jrustles
So, with what seems like an anti-thin, anti-VI diatribe, I will close with this: I prefer lighter oils like light 20s in my Mazda V6- because I know the bearing dimensions, and they are very suitable for thin oils despite being made in 1993 and speccd for 5w30. The oil pump has good capacity, the bearings are std three-layer, the main and rod journals have been rolled, nitride hardened and micropolished, so I KNOW a light viscosity would perform well in my engine's bearings that see a high redline and higher-speed bearings (large circumference). In fact, I prefer low viscosity because I can't imagine the local heat that would be generated strictly from molecular shear if using a 50grade! "Bearing" in mind that bearing design is only one part of engine building.
Agreed, pistons and rings work well with thinner oils. My lecturer back at University made the point that engines really needed three lubricants. One for bearings, one for cylinders, and one for valve gear, but alas, only had one sump and the oil in it had to compromise on all parts.
Was a discussion that I was going to bring up at some stage, but obfuscation with VI and oil pressure as lubrication fundamentals, when they are nothing of the sort has delayed the discussion.
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Most new engines though have these design changes and treatments applied now-days, so engineers don't lose sleep about the engines that get shipped to our shores with FE obsessed bean counters hiding in EPA offices somewhere.
Put short, not all low-vis oils have super-crazy VIs yet may protect better than the high VI oil, and that not all super-high VI oils are suitable for all conditions and most importantly, not all VIs are achieved the same way- so unless you only care about the VI, without considering what it affects, if anything, then VI as a standalone parameter is truly dimensionless.
It's been touched on before regarding industry-wide viscosity changes and bearing design. I too notice bearing journals decreasing in width, and increasing in circumference as engine generations evolve. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but thinner oils need higher bearing speeds to maintain an equal hydrodynamic wedge. Increasing the circumference of the crankpin accomplishes this. Thinning the journal allows a greater flow of oil out of the journal, increasing the 'refresh rate', which is good for a thinner oil under pressure.
I agree, and if you check, I have been stating this for ages, in the face of condescending ridicule from a number of quarters (one in particular).
In response to thinner oils, the manufacturers are increasing diameters, reducing radial clearances, and increasing side leakage (reducing the operation temperature rise in the bearing, which some "don't beleive" in), all of which allow thinner oil in journal bearings.
It's one of the reasons that I keep point Caterham back to the laws of physics (which function equally in Smuggsville Ontario as Third World Australia).
Oil pressure and VI are NOT lubricating bearings.
Originally Posted By: jrustles
So, with what seems like an anti-thin, anti-VI diatribe, I will close with this: I prefer lighter oils like light 20s in my Mazda V6- because I know the bearing dimensions, and they are very suitable for thin oils despite being made in 1993 and speccd for 5w30. The oil pump has good capacity, the bearings are std three-layer, the main and rod journals have been rolled, nitride hardened and micropolished, so I KNOW a light viscosity would perform well in my engine's bearings that see a high redline and higher-speed bearings (large circumference). In fact, I prefer low viscosity because I can't imagine the local heat that would be generated strictly from molecular shear if using a 50grade! "Bearing" in mind that bearing design is only one part of engine building.
Agreed, pistons and rings work well with thinner oils. My lecturer back at University made the point that engines really needed three lubricants. One for bearings, one for cylinders, and one for valve gear, but alas, only had one sump and the oil in it had to compromise on all parts.
Was a discussion that I was going to bring up at some stage, but obfuscation with VI and oil pressure as lubrication fundamentals, when they are nothing of the sort has delayed the discussion.
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Most new engines though have these design changes and treatments applied now-days, so engineers don't lose sleep about the engines that get shipped to our shores with FE obsessed bean counters hiding in EPA offices somewhere.
Put short, not all low-vis oils have super-crazy VIs yet may protect better than the high VI oil, and that not all super-high VI oils are suitable for all conditions and most importantly, not all VIs are achieved the same way- so unless you only care about the VI, without considering what it affects, if anything, then VI as a standalone parameter is truly dimensionless.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
All I'd like to see is the difference in engine wear reduction via tear down and measurements as I mentioned above. Without it we really don't know what is happening, and all if this discussion can be a waste of time.
If you drive carefully, no high rev's when cold, I don't think you'll see any significant difference in engine wear as JOD pointed out.
So if the performance and fuel economy improvements aren't of value to you stick with a cheaper lower VI oil.
All I'd like to see is the difference in engine wear reduction via tear down and measurements as I mentioned above. Without it we really don't know what is happening, and all if this discussion can be a waste of time.
If you drive carefully, no high rev's when cold, I don't think you'll see any significant difference in engine wear as JOD pointed out.
So if the performance and fuel economy improvements aren't of value to you stick with a cheaper lower VI oil.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: buster
Quote:
As if you would know.
Quote:
Lubricants with VIs as low as minus 60 are available today. Other lubricants can have VIs ranging over 400. However, the vast majority of lubricants on the market will have VIs in the range of 90 to 160. - Jim Fitch
Buster you're really good a digging up obscure unrelated quotes to the discussion at hand.
Dig up just one multi-grade oil with a VI as low 90 (I'll save you the time there isn't one) and what is the average VI of the 24 5w30 syn oils PQIA has listed? I'll tell you it's 167.
And if you factor in all the cars that are now spec'd for 0W-20 with an average 200+ VI, that's most Japanese cars and soon GM, plus all the cars spec'd for a 0W-40 (185 VI), the average VI will easily rise into the 180s.
Closest that I could find was 100...
http://www.77lubricants.nl/fileadmin/use...L_CF_20W-20.pdf
Originally Posted By: buster
Quote:
As if you would know.
Quote:
Lubricants with VIs as low as minus 60 are available today. Other lubricants can have VIs ranging over 400. However, the vast majority of lubricants on the market will have VIs in the range of 90 to 160. - Jim Fitch
Buster you're really good a digging up obscure unrelated quotes to the discussion at hand.
Dig up just one multi-grade oil with a VI as low 90 (I'll save you the time there isn't one) and what is the average VI of the 24 5w30 syn oils PQIA has listed? I'll tell you it's 167.
And if you factor in all the cars that are now spec'd for 0W-20 with an average 200+ VI, that's most Japanese cars and soon GM, plus all the cars spec'd for a 0W-40 (185 VI), the average VI will easily rise into the 180s.
Closest that I could find was 100...
http://www.77lubricants.nl/fileadmin/use...L_CF_20W-20.pdf
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked