Originally Posted By: Shannow
jrustles said:
GTL base stocks better than PAO/POE?
- Thread starter BerndV
- Start date
- Status
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.
It's like I posted previously. the thin crowd have now creted an internal caste system, whereby the elite now have heavy 20s, light 20s, 20s that are realy 30s, and you are wrong if you don't light a candle to VI before bed every night.
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.
It's like I posted previously. the thin crowd have now creted an internal caste system, whereby the elite now have heavy 20s, light 20s, 20s that are realy 30s, and you are wrong if you don't light a candle to VI before bed every night.
Originally Posted By: Garak
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.
And I think this makes sense, there is always the point of diminishing returns. How much difference in time to full flow from the most remote outlet of the oiling system is there, between GrI SAE30 and Idemitsu 0w20 if two identical engines were started up right now, outside, in 80F weather? How many milliseconds difference? Would there even be a perceptible difference that could be replicated beyond the other noise factors like oil filters. Once the oil is at the intended location within the engine, then what, the evil drag? Let's talk about drag and how it consumes more energy than a higher VI oil to overcome molecular friction.
Thats bad right? We're wasting energy aren't we?
It all depends on how you look at it. Is that energy really wasted? I think not. That energy used to overcome drag results in heat, which technically warms the oil up faster, technically resulting in less time that the oil spends under NOT. So a nice 'primitive' SAE30 sub-100 VI oil theoretically warms up faster than a high VI modern oil like Mobil 1 0w40, and thins out enough at NOT, that I hypothesize that there would be less molecular friction generated in the SAE30 engine than the Mobil 1 0w40 engine at NOT, especially considering the lack of 'high-friction' polymeric VII molecules.
The only thing one can derive from VI as a property on it's own, is a range of temperature in which a fluid is resistant to viscosity change. Nothing else. Nadda. Zip. Not wear protection, startup wear protection, HTHS, pumpability, pour point, flash point, fuel economy, robustness, nothing. Just resistance to kinematic viscosity change!
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.
And I think this makes sense, there is always the point of diminishing returns. How much difference in time to full flow from the most remote outlet of the oiling system is there, between GrI SAE30 and Idemitsu 0w20 if two identical engines were started up right now, outside, in 80F weather? How many milliseconds difference? Would there even be a perceptible difference that could be replicated beyond the other noise factors like oil filters. Once the oil is at the intended location within the engine, then what, the evil drag? Let's talk about drag and how it consumes more energy than a higher VI oil to overcome molecular friction.
Thats bad right? We're wasting energy aren't we?
It all depends on how you look at it. Is that energy really wasted? I think not. That energy used to overcome drag results in heat, which technically warms the oil up faster, technically resulting in less time that the oil spends under NOT. So a nice 'primitive' SAE30 sub-100 VI oil theoretically warms up faster than a high VI modern oil like Mobil 1 0w40, and thins out enough at NOT, that I hypothesize that there would be less molecular friction generated in the SAE30 engine than the Mobil 1 0w40 engine at NOT, especially considering the lack of 'high-friction' polymeric VII molecules.
The only thing one can derive from VI as a property on it's own, is a range of temperature in which a fluid is resistant to viscosity change. Nothing else. Nadda. Zip. Not wear protection, startup wear protection, HTHS, pumpability, pour point, flash point, fuel economy, robustness, nothing. Just resistance to kinematic viscosity change!
Originally Posted By: Shannow
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.
It's like I posted previously. the thin crowd have now creted an internal caste system, whereby the elite now have heavy 20s, light 20s, 20s that are realy 30s, and you are wrong if you don't light a candle to VI before bed every night.
omg
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.
It's like I posted previously. the thin crowd have now creted an internal caste system, whereby the elite now have heavy 20s, light 20s, 20s that are realy 30s, and you are wrong if you don't light a candle to VI before bed every night.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
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.
Shannow, you are indeed funny.
No one ever said OP and VI ever lubricated a bearing but of course you know that.
Your remarks unfortunately are therefore meaningless and a total obfuscation of the subject matter; but nice try!
But I do wonder if you do have a full grasp on the subject of viscosity, like when you suggested it would be okay to run a ultra high VI 0W-20 oil in a turbo Subaru in the following thread:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...246#Post3048246
I politely pointed out why it wouldn't be such a good idea.
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.
Shannow, you are indeed funny.
No one ever said OP and VI ever lubricated a bearing but of course you know that.
Your remarks unfortunately are therefore meaningless and a total obfuscation of the subject matter; but nice try!
But I do wonder if you do have a full grasp on the subject of viscosity, like when you suggested it would be okay to run a ultra high VI 0W-20 oil in a turbo Subaru in the following thread:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...246#Post3048246
I politely pointed out why it wouldn't be such a good idea.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
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).
CATERHAM is about 60 km SW of what I'd call Smuggsville, ON, but I digress.
Originally Posted By: jrustles
And I think this makes sense, there is always the point of diminishing returns.
Except that a lubricant that maintained the same viscosity whether it were at -40 ambient or at full operating temperatures would be rather nice.
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).
CATERHAM is about 60 km SW of what I'd call Smuggsville, ON, but I digress.
Originally Posted By: jrustles
And I think this makes sense, there is always the point of diminishing returns.
Except that a lubricant that maintained the same viscosity whether it were at -40 ambient or at full operating temperatures would be rather nice.
http://image.lubrizolnews.com/lib/fefc16...csvid=210048454
Here is a good article from awhile back on VM'ers. I read an article a few months ago about the complexity of them and how they don't quite understand everything about them yet.
Again, the general idea behind them is great and you would ideally like to have a higher VI, however, the quality and variation of them is not even close to being the same and therefore the performance isn't either.
All oils are balanced and formulated for specific purposes. Among all the ultra high performance synthetics on the market, they generally have a VI of 150-195.
Redline/Amsoil Dominator are built for maximum shear stability. RL acheives their VI from the POE base oils. Amsoil's Domintar oils have low VI and are mostly PAO. Both are relying on the inherent VI of the base oil, not VI'ers.
JGR apparently considers very high VI to be around 165.
For your average Toyota driver, using TGMO is perfectly fine and will have advantages from it's high VI. However, not all engines and conditions are where you want them.
Quote:
Another change associated with API SN/ILSAC GF-5 oils will be greater fuel economy performance. This improvement in fuel economy will be achieved by increased use of polymers called Viscosity Modifiers. These polymers help a “‘thin”‘ oil act “‘thicker”‘ under low stress conditions. While the liberal use of polymers helps improve fuel economy in modern passenger car engines, older style push-rod and race engines produce greater shear stresses that can “‘tear”‘ these polymers. When these polymers are sheared, oil losses viscosity, and that can lead to increased wear.
Here is a good article from awhile back on VM'ers. I read an article a few months ago about the complexity of them and how they don't quite understand everything about them yet.
Again, the general idea behind them is great and you would ideally like to have a higher VI, however, the quality and variation of them is not even close to being the same and therefore the performance isn't either.
All oils are balanced and formulated for specific purposes. Among all the ultra high performance synthetics on the market, they generally have a VI of 150-195.
Redline/Amsoil Dominator are built for maximum shear stability. RL acheives their VI from the POE base oils. Amsoil's Domintar oils have low VI and are mostly PAO. Both are relying on the inherent VI of the base oil, not VI'ers.
JGR apparently considers very high VI to be around 165.
For your average Toyota driver, using TGMO is perfectly fine and will have advantages from it's high VI. However, not all engines and conditions are where you want them.
Quote:
Another change associated with API SN/ILSAC GF-5 oils will be greater fuel economy performance. This improvement in fuel economy will be achieved by increased use of polymers called Viscosity Modifiers. These polymers help a “‘thin”‘ oil act “‘thicker”‘ under low stress conditions. While the liberal use of polymers helps improve fuel economy in modern passenger car engines, older style push-rod and race engines produce greater shear stresses that can “‘tear”‘ these polymers. When these polymers are sheared, oil losses viscosity, and that can lead to increased wear.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
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.
I'm still waiting for the tear down results. The $10 a year I "might" save in gas doesn't matter to me. Performance improvements, only my butt dino would know, I have no way of measuring or proving there were any gains. Most people here posting about improvements by changing oil or using an additive are quickly ripped apart many times. BTW lower VI oils aren't always cheaper.
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.
I'm still waiting for the tear down results. The $10 a year I "might" save in gas doesn't matter to me. Performance improvements, only my butt dino would know, I have no way of measuring or proving there were any gains. Most people here posting about improvements by changing oil or using an additive are quickly ripped apart many times. BTW lower VI oils aren't always cheaper.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
OVERKILL. no offence but you haven't added anything factual to the discussion here.
And your inference here is that you pontifying about the virtues of VI add more to the discussion than the sum of my contribution, is that correct? How am I NOT supposed to be offended by this? That I cite the value of manufacturer testing, and you cite VI as some sort of Holy Grail, and my position is useless blather whilst yours should be shouted from the rooftops? Really?
Quote:
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.
Yet you are willing to argue the opposite in the other thread when you cited the Mobil 1 0w-20 CDN PDS:
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
For years Mobil 1 0W-20 was the undisputed extreme cold temp' champ with it's MRV @ -40 of 10,400cP. Well that has been eclipsed by the non PAO based (although it is a GP III+ GTL equivalent) Sustina with a MRV of 9630cP. It's other spec's are as follows:
So which is it? Relevant when its the Sustina with the advantage, but irrelevant when it is the lower VI lubricant?
Quote:
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.
Point to where I said that. I CLEARLY stated that Mobil 1 0w-40 is lighter at some point around the MRV measuring point of -40C, and I'm basing this on the FACTS presented in respect to the MRV values from the two PDS's, not conjecture, make believe or Peter Pan whispering sweet nothings in my ear
I ALSO said I would like to see the CCS measurement for Mobil 1 0w-20, as that would give us another valuable data point.
Quote:
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.
OK, and I have a fair bit of engine tear-down experience, what is your point? I don't need to run EITHER of these oils to argue my point with respect to the crossover around -40C, and I don't have an application that I'd trust with either of these oils to run at 150C plus, and I'm doubting you have experience doing this either, correct? So if this somehow meant to make my input less valuable, I believe you've failed.
Quote:
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.
And based on the PDS's. I've never argued otherwise. My point was that there is a crossover on the bottom end, and your argument here is that due to the VI, there should be a crossover on the top-end somewhere too. And we know it hasn't happened yet at 150C based on the HTHS values. I'm not sure what you are trying to argue that you think I'm disagreeing with
It's like I make one point and you attack a point I didn't even make
Quote:
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.
And if you have an application that can benefit from this lighter oil, I'm sure that's wonderful. But that wasn't in any of the points I was making, which were more in respect to the nature of the viscosity curve relative to VI and the fact that there's a crossover somewhere on the lower end, and your inference that there's one on the top-end too, which I would honestly like to see, if possible. My other point was in reference to manufacturer spec's and approvals as a relative performance benchmark, not a single lubricant trait like VI.
OVERKILL. no offence but you haven't added anything factual to the discussion here.
And your inference here is that you pontifying about the virtues of VI add more to the discussion than the sum of my contribution, is that correct? How am I NOT supposed to be offended by this? That I cite the value of manufacturer testing, and you cite VI as some sort of Holy Grail, and my position is useless blather whilst yours should be shouted from the rooftops? Really?
Quote:
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.
Yet you are willing to argue the opposite in the other thread when you cited the Mobil 1 0w-20 CDN PDS:
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
For years Mobil 1 0W-20 was the undisputed extreme cold temp' champ with it's MRV @ -40 of 10,400cP. Well that has been eclipsed by the non PAO based (although it is a GP III+ GTL equivalent) Sustina with a MRV of 9630cP. It's other spec's are as follows:
So which is it? Relevant when its the Sustina with the advantage, but irrelevant when it is the lower VI lubricant?
Quote:
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.
Point to where I said that. I CLEARLY stated that Mobil 1 0w-40 is lighter at some point around the MRV measuring point of -40C, and I'm basing this on the FACTS presented in respect to the MRV values from the two PDS's, not conjecture, make believe or Peter Pan whispering sweet nothings in my ear
I ALSO said I would like to see the CCS measurement for Mobil 1 0w-20, as that would give us another valuable data point.
Quote:
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.
OK, and I have a fair bit of engine tear-down experience, what is your point? I don't need to run EITHER of these oils to argue my point with respect to the crossover around -40C, and I don't have an application that I'd trust with either of these oils to run at 150C plus, and I'm doubting you have experience doing this either, correct? So if this somehow meant to make my input less valuable, I believe you've failed.
Quote:
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.
And based on the PDS's. I've never argued otherwise. My point was that there is a crossover on the bottom end, and your argument here is that due to the VI, there should be a crossover on the top-end somewhere too. And we know it hasn't happened yet at 150C based on the HTHS values. I'm not sure what you are trying to argue that you think I'm disagreeing with
Quote:
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.
And if you have an application that can benefit from this lighter oil, I'm sure that's wonderful. But that wasn't in any of the points I was making, which were more in respect to the nature of the viscosity curve relative to VI and the fact that there's a crossover somewhere on the lower end, and your inference that there's one on the top-end too, which I would honestly like to see, if possible. My other point was in reference to manufacturer spec's and approvals as a relative performance benchmark, not a single lubricant trait like VI.
Originally Posted By: Solarent
Originally Posted By: TXCarGeek
Why are higher VIs preferable? I've been meaning to ask this.
When it comes to base oils, the only difference between a conventional oil (Group II) and a synthetic oil (Group III) is the natural VI.
Boy, is that an inaccurate statement.
Originally Posted By: TXCarGeek
Why are higher VIs preferable? I've been meaning to ask this.
When it comes to base oils, the only difference between a conventional oil (Group II) and a synthetic oil (Group III) is the natural VI.
Boy, is that an inaccurate statement.
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Originally Posted By: Solarent
Originally Posted By: TXCarGeek
Why are higher VIs preferable? I've been meaning to ask this.
When it comes to base oils, the only difference between a conventional oil (Group II) and a synthetic oil (Group III) is the natural VI.
Boy, is that an inaccurate statement.
How is it inaccurate?
http://globalindustrialsolutions.net/base-oil-definition.php
Originally Posted By: Solarent
Originally Posted By: TXCarGeek
Why are higher VIs preferable? I've been meaning to ask this.
When it comes to base oils, the only difference between a conventional oil (Group II) and a synthetic oil (Group III) is the natural VI.
Boy, is that an inaccurate statement.
How is it inaccurate?
http://globalindustrialsolutions.net/base-oil-definition.php
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Originally Posted By: Solarent
Originally Posted By: TXCarGeek
Why are higher VIs preferable? I've been meaning to ask this.
When it comes to base oils, the only difference between a conventional oil (Group II) and a synthetic oil (Group III) is the natural VI.
Boy, is that an inaccurate statement.
How is it inaccurate?
http://globalindustrialsolutions.net/base-oil-definition.php
I was referring to the "natural" VI part. None of these base oils exhibit a "natural" VI. The VI of any base oil is the result of the processing, i.e., hydrocracking, hydrotreating, etc. If he had said the only difference is the "finished" VI, that would be accurate.
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Originally Posted By: Solarent
Originally Posted By: TXCarGeek
Why are higher VIs preferable? I've been meaning to ask this.
When it comes to base oils, the only difference between a conventional oil (Group II) and a synthetic oil (Group III) is the natural VI.
Boy, is that an inaccurate statement.
How is it inaccurate?
http://globalindustrialsolutions.net/base-oil-definition.php
I was referring to the "natural" VI part. None of these base oils exhibit a "natural" VI. The VI of any base oil is the result of the processing, i.e., hydrocracking, hydrotreating, etc. If he had said the only difference is the "finished" VI, that would be accurate.
How a base oil is made "hydrocracking, hydrotreating' etc determines whether it is a GP I, GP II or GP III oil and the main difference between those groups is the resulting VI.
Reference to a "finished VI" would be to the final product or finished blended oil including DI package and any added VMs.
Reference to a "finished VI" would be to the final product or finished blended oil including DI package and any added VMs.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
How a base oil is made "hydrocracking, hydrotreating' etc determines whether it is a GP I, GP II or GP III oil and the main difference between those groups is the resulting VI.
Reference to a "finished VI" would be to the final product or finished blended oil including DI package and any added VMs.
Yeah, whatever.
How a base oil is made "hydrocracking, hydrotreating' etc determines whether it is a GP I, GP II or GP III oil and the main difference between those groups is the resulting VI.
Reference to a "finished VI" would be to the final product or finished blended oil including DI package and any added VMs.
Yeah, whatever.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: jrustles
And I think this makes sense, there is always the point of diminishing returns.
Except that a lubricant that maintained the same viscosity whether it were at -40 ambient or at full operating temperatures would be rather nice.
+1.
The oil formulation, including need for an ultra high or a normal-high VI depends on requirements of the engine & driving conditions.
Originally Posted By: jrustles
And I think this makes sense, there is always the point of diminishing returns.
Except that a lubricant that maintained the same viscosity whether it were at -40 ambient or at full operating temperatures would be rather nice.
+1.
The oil formulation, including need for an ultra high or a normal-high VI depends on requirements of the engine & driving conditions.
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
About 135 to 140.
As Solarent pointed out early in this thread the VI of PAO's can be as low as 120 for very light base oils. Some other GP V syn's such as ANs may only have VI's in the 105 area.
About 135 to 140.
As Solarent pointed out early in this thread the VI of PAO's can be as low as 120 for very light base oils. Some other GP V syn's such as ANs may only have VI's in the 105 area.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Originally Posted By: Solarent
Originally Posted By: TXCarGeek
Why are higher VIs preferable? I've been meaning to ask this.
When it comes to base oils, the only difference between a conventional oil (Group II) and a synthetic oil (Group III) is the natural VI.
Boy, is that an inaccurate statement.
How is it inaccurate?
http://globalindustrialsolutions.net/base-oil-definition.php
Way MORE to base oils than your VI fixation...
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/533/base-oil-trends
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Originally Posted By: Solarent
Originally Posted By: TXCarGeek
Why are higher VIs preferable? I've been meaning to ask this.
When it comes to base oils, the only difference between a conventional oil (Group II) and a synthetic oil (Group III) is the natural VI.
Boy, is that an inaccurate statement.
How is it inaccurate?
http://globalindustrialsolutions.net/base-oil-definition.php
Way MORE to base oils than your VI fixation...
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/533/base-oil-trends
Good find Shannow
Quote:
A modern Group III oil can actually outperform a PAO in several areas important to lubricants, such as additive solubility, lubricity and antiwear performance. Group III base oils can now rival PAO stocks in pour point, viscosity index and oxidation stability performance.
Quote:
A modern Group III oil can actually outperform a PAO in several areas important to lubricants, such as additive solubility, lubricity and antiwear performance. Group III base oils can now rival PAO stocks in pour point, viscosity index and oxidation stability performance.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked