They just have more VII. Higher the VI, it's always a better oil. However, more the VII makes better or worse an oil? It's hard to say but it's certainly a compromise. You don't want to have too much VII. If that wasn't the case, all oils out there would have VI greater than 200.
High V.I. oils, on purpose, or consequence??
- Thread starter dailydriver
- Start date
- Status
It's a double edged sword...
when it was developed, clearly the best of the best crudes made the best oils...they had less viscosity/temperature variance, and better low temperature performance.
Then when VIIs came onto the field, the traditional "knowledge" was that you need VI for a good oil, and you ended up with things like the 10W40s that promised well but delivered little, and extra problems like sludge and rubberised sump impressions.
Which meant that high shear rate viscometry was tested, proven, and became part of the J300 standards.
2.9min HTHS for a 30 grade (and indeed for a 0W, 5W, and 10W 40 up until fairly recently) is farcical, when a 20W20 is naturally AT 2.9.
when it was developed, clearly the best of the best crudes made the best oils...they had less viscosity/temperature variance, and better low temperature performance.
Then when VIIs came onto the field, the traditional "knowledge" was that you need VI for a good oil, and you ended up with things like the 10W40s that promised well but delivered little, and extra problems like sludge and rubberised sump impressions.
Which meant that high shear rate viscometry was tested, proven, and became part of the J300 standards.
2.9min HTHS for a 30 grade (and indeed for a 0W, 5W, and 10W 40 up until fairly recently) is farcical, when a 20W20 is naturally AT 2.9.
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
I don't have access to my old tool box these days to check, but I would have thought that VI is essentially a function of the width of the viscosity grade.
I've always maintained that, too. While formulators might not be hunting for a really high VI as their primary goal, if an oil specification is well served by a 0w-40 or a 5w-40, it seems fairly obvious that such an oil will have a higher VI than a monograde or a 15w40 conventional. The same thing goes with the North American trend from monogrades to 10w30 and to 5w30 and so forth.
I don't have access to my old tool box these days to check, but I would have thought that VI is essentially a function of the width of the viscosity grade.
I've always maintained that, too. While formulators might not be hunting for a really high VI as their primary goal, if an oil specification is well served by a 0w-40 or a 5w-40, it seems fairly obvious that such an oil will have a higher VI than a monograde or a 15w40 conventional. The same thing goes with the North American trend from monogrades to 10w30 and to 5w30 and so forth.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
They just have more VII. Higher the VI, it's always a better oil. However, more the VII makes better or worse an oil? It's hard to say but it's certainly a compromise. You don't want to have too much VII. If that wasn't the case, all oils out there would have VI greater than 200.
Very definitely, more VII always, always, always makes for a worse oil! I used to think that God invented VII polymer because he hated all formulators! VII is one of the primary causes of piston deposits and given the choice between a VII-free narrow grade and a VII laden wide grade, I'd always opt for the former.
They just have more VII. Higher the VI, it's always a better oil. However, more the VII makes better or worse an oil? It's hard to say but it's certainly a compromise. You don't want to have too much VII. If that wasn't the case, all oils out there would have VI greater than 200.
Very definitely, more VII always, always, always makes for a worse oil! I used to think that God invented VII polymer because he hated all formulators! VII is one of the primary causes of piston deposits and given the choice between a VII-free narrow grade and a VII laden wide grade, I'd always opt for the former.
Last edited:
^^^So, ALL VIIs are the same, and just as 'destructive' and shear prone as another (i.e.; there are NO 'grades' of VII)??
I AM seeking genuine knowledge here, and NOT contesting anyone's expertise.
I AM seeking genuine knowledge here, and NOT contesting anyone's expertise.
I sense your frustration...here's some plastic unicorns
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb......#Post3931838
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb......#Post3931838
Given that Asteric has been mentioned in the thread as a standard, do we KNOW that it's even making it's way into engine oils ?
All the Lubrizol data seems to be aimed at gear, trans, and hydraulic fluids...and despite the conjecture, it DOES shear.
All the Lubrizol data seems to be aimed at gear, trans, and hydraulic fluids...and despite the conjecture, it DOES shear.
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
^^^So, ALL VIIs are the same, and just as 'destructive' and shear prone as another (i.e.; there are NO 'grades' of VII)??
I AM seeking genuine knowledge here, and NOT contesting anyone's expertise.
There are a few different classes of VII polymer...
The Styrene-Butadiene (Shellvis) polymers are generally the most polymerically efficient but also tend to be the most expensive and shearable of the VIIs.
Olefin Co-Polymers (OCPs) are the cheapest and most commonly used. They also tend to be the most shear stable (although they still shear). They do however tend to dump a lot if raw polymer in the oil.
Poly-Methacrylates (PMAs) combine the role of VII and Pour Point Depressants. IMO they are totally useless.
Crudely put, all things being equal, engine dirtyness is proportional to how much raw polymer you have in an oil. On an equal polymer basis, is one chemical class less dirty than the others? That I can't answer. When engine tests cost $US 50k a pop it's hard to justify finding the answers to such esoteric questions.
^^^So, ALL VIIs are the same, and just as 'destructive' and shear prone as another (i.e.; there are NO 'grades' of VII)??
I AM seeking genuine knowledge here, and NOT contesting anyone's expertise.
There are a few different classes of VII polymer...
The Styrene-Butadiene (Shellvis) polymers are generally the most polymerically efficient but also tend to be the most expensive and shearable of the VIIs.
Olefin Co-Polymers (OCPs) are the cheapest and most commonly used. They also tend to be the most shear stable (although they still shear). They do however tend to dump a lot if raw polymer in the oil.
Poly-Methacrylates (PMAs) combine the role of VII and Pour Point Depressants. IMO they are totally useless.
Crudely put, all things being equal, engine dirtyness is proportional to how much raw polymer you have in an oil. On an equal polymer basis, is one chemical class less dirty than the others? That I can't answer. When engine tests cost $US 50k a pop it's hard to justify finding the answers to such esoteric questions.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Given that Asteric has been mentioned in the thread as a standard, do we KNOW that it's even making it's way into engine oils ?
All the Lubrizol data seems to be aimed at gear, trans, and hydraulic fluids...and despite the conjecture, it DOES shear.
Until you just mentioned it, I had never heard of Lz's Asteric VIIs. I Googled it and they seem to be claiming to have made a 'star' PMA. Yes, I too noted the blurb focussing these towards things other than engine oils.
I don't know, but suspect, that these VIIs will share the same characteristics as Styrene-Butadiene 'star' polymers in that they will be extremely polymerically efficient, very good on Bosch shear, hopeless on HTHS (the arms of the starfish get severed off!) and mind-cringingly expensive.
Fair do's to Lz though for having a go at inventing a new VI. The last genuinely new one (Dave St.Clair's Shellvis work) must be getting on for forty years old now!
Given that Asteric has been mentioned in the thread as a standard, do we KNOW that it's even making it's way into engine oils ?
All the Lubrizol data seems to be aimed at gear, trans, and hydraulic fluids...and despite the conjecture, it DOES shear.
Until you just mentioned it, I had never heard of Lz's Asteric VIIs. I Googled it and they seem to be claiming to have made a 'star' PMA. Yes, I too noted the blurb focussing these towards things other than engine oils.
I don't know, but suspect, that these VIIs will share the same characteristics as Styrene-Butadiene 'star' polymers in that they will be extremely polymerically efficient, very good on Bosch shear, hopeless on HTHS (the arms of the starfish get severed off!) and mind-cringingly expensive.
Fair do's to Lz though for having a go at inventing a new VI. The last genuinely new one (Dave St.Clair's Shellvis work) must be getting on for forty years old now!
Joe90_guy
in relation to the OPs original post, and I think he's reference a number of posits of another poster, who has claimed that in things like racing oils, extremely high VIs are an artifact of using the best of the best of basestocks.
Is the 200+ VI (microtrend) in your opinion an artifact of only using the best of the best ingredients, or are they targetting VI and using polymers to that end ?
Given that basestocks seem to max out at around 140 (typically), are there any other benefits that adding these polymers play other than VI, and PPD ?
in relation to the OPs original post, and I think he's reference a number of posits of another poster, who has claimed that in things like racing oils, extremely high VIs are an artifact of using the best of the best of basestocks.
Is the 200+ VI (microtrend) in your opinion an artifact of only using the best of the best ingredients, or are they targetting VI and using polymers to that end ?
Given that basestocks seem to max out at around 140 (typically), are there any other benefits that adding these polymers play other than VI, and PPD ?
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
Very definitely, more VII always, always, always makes for a worse oil! I used to think that God invented VII polymer because he hated all formulators! VII is one of the primary causes of piston deposits and given the choice between a VII-free narrow grade and a VII laden wide grade, I'd always opt for the former.
So why can't we get VII free full synthetics? (Or have in just missed them all)
Not saying you have to get rid of them completely, they are probably needed for certain traditional grades. But a few new grades made with a group 3 & 4 blends and no VII, should appeal to some people.
What, VII free, synthetic oil grades could be made easily? 15w30 or 20W-40 ?? I could use that instead of a 15W40 mineral oil.
Very definitely, more VII always, always, always makes for a worse oil! I used to think that God invented VII polymer because he hated all formulators! VII is one of the primary causes of piston deposits and given the choice between a VII-free narrow grade and a VII laden wide grade, I'd always opt for the former.
So why can't we get VII free full synthetics? (Or have in just missed them all)
Not saying you have to get rid of them completely, they are probably needed for certain traditional grades. But a few new grades made with a group 3 & 4 blends and no VII, should appeal to some people.
What, VII free, synthetic oil grades could be made easily? 15w30 or 20W-40 ?? I could use that instead of a 15W40 mineral oil.
Amsoil has a VII free oil, it's a 10w30
You could ask Redline which of their oils is VII free, there could be some.
You could ask Redline which of their oils is VII free, there could be some.
SR5,
as per Jetronic's post, there are some out there.
Boutique oils like Amsoil ACD are straight grades with multigrade characteristics. ACD is a straight 30 that does 10W30 as well, and has an inherent HTHS of 3.4...
Redline have a couple that are know, a 5W20 and a 5W30...the 5W20 has an HTHS of greater than 2.9, which is about where a Newtonian 20W20 would be.
M1 V Twin does also, but the HTHS of that oil makes it pretty unusable except in the V Twins.
There's the "Harman Index" which can give you an insight into how much of the manufacturer's data sheet numbers are affected by the presence or otherwise of VIIs.
Use a viscosity calculator to work out the KV at 150, then a density calculator to work out the density at 150...multiply KV150 by density 150, and you have a 150 low shear absolute viscosity approximation.
Compare that with the HTHS, and you can see roughly ho much the polymers are in play.
HTHS/absolute calculated 150 gives a ratio...1 is no apparent VII play (an HD30 will have a ratio of 1, Castrol Edge 25W50 has a ratio of 1, Mobil 1 VTwin does 1
as per Jetronic's post, there are some out there.
Boutique oils like Amsoil ACD are straight grades with multigrade characteristics. ACD is a straight 30 that does 10W30 as well, and has an inherent HTHS of 3.4...
Redline have a couple that are know, a 5W20 and a 5W30...the 5W20 has an HTHS of greater than 2.9, which is about where a Newtonian 20W20 would be.
M1 V Twin does also, but the HTHS of that oil makes it pretty unusable except in the V Twins.
There's the "Harman Index" which can give you an insight into how much of the manufacturer's data sheet numbers are affected by the presence or otherwise of VIIs.
Use a viscosity calculator to work out the KV at 150, then a density calculator to work out the density at 150...multiply KV150 by density 150, and you have a 150 low shear absolute viscosity approximation.
Compare that with the HTHS, and you can see roughly ho much the polymers are in play.
HTHS/absolute calculated 150 gives a ratio...1 is no apparent VII play (an HD30 will have a ratio of 1, Castrol Edge 25W50 has a ratio of 1, Mobil 1 VTwin does 1
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Joe90_guy
in relation to the OPs original post, and I think he's reference a number of posits of another poster, who has claimed that in things like racing oils, extremely high VIs are an artifact of using the best of the best of basestocks.
Is the 200+ VI (microtrend) in your opinion an artifact of only using the best of the best ingredients, or are they targetting VI and using polymers to that end ?
Given that basestocks seem to max out at around 140 (typically), are there any other benefits that adding these polymers play other than VI, and PPD ?
As you might expect from someone who rarely drives above 60mph, racing oils aren't really my thing!
However, thinking about it, I would probably regard racing oils as not being normal engine oils in that the duty they need to perform is so radically different. I would guess that a racing oil only has to last for one race or one race weekend before it's dumped. The need for cold start is non-existant. A racing oil probably has to run way hotter for way longer under far higher stress than normal oils. I guess you also don't need any API/ACEA/OEM accreditation on a racing oil. Finally...and this is a biggie...money is probably no object for race oils.
I watched a video on YouTube. It was someone called Lake Speed Jr from Driven Racing Oils waxing lyrical about how great high VI mPAO's were, next generation technology, etc, etc, blah, blah. And yes, I thought both the narrative and his delivery were first class. He had obviously been practising his lines in front of the bathroom mirror.
But is it right? I looked up mPAO on Google and I'm confused. It looks to me that these are basically PAOs. The 'm' stands for metallocene which is just the catalyst they use to polymerise the alpha-olefins. And they are EXTREMELY viscous...way more so than Bright Stock. How much of this stuff could you realistically blend into a heavy racing oil? Not 100%, that's for sure. I'd guess you would looking at 10 - 30% at most with the balance coming from conventionally catalysed light PAO.
And this begs the question, how relevant are these ultra-heavy mPAO's to the engine oils that us lesser mortals have to buy? On the basis of what I see right now, I'd say they are completely irrelevant.
Joe90_guy
in relation to the OPs original post, and I think he's reference a number of posits of another poster, who has claimed that in things like racing oils, extremely high VIs are an artifact of using the best of the best of basestocks.
Is the 200+ VI (microtrend) in your opinion an artifact of only using the best of the best ingredients, or are they targetting VI and using polymers to that end ?
Given that basestocks seem to max out at around 140 (typically), are there any other benefits that adding these polymers play other than VI, and PPD ?
As you might expect from someone who rarely drives above 60mph, racing oils aren't really my thing!
However, thinking about it, I would probably regard racing oils as not being normal engine oils in that the duty they need to perform is so radically different. I would guess that a racing oil only has to last for one race or one race weekend before it's dumped. The need for cold start is non-existant. A racing oil probably has to run way hotter for way longer under far higher stress than normal oils. I guess you also don't need any API/ACEA/OEM accreditation on a racing oil. Finally...and this is a biggie...money is probably no object for race oils.
I watched a video on YouTube. It was someone called Lake Speed Jr from Driven Racing Oils waxing lyrical about how great high VI mPAO's were, next generation technology, etc, etc, blah, blah. And yes, I thought both the narrative and his delivery were first class. He had obviously been practising his lines in front of the bathroom mirror.
But is it right? I looked up mPAO on Google and I'm confused. It looks to me that these are basically PAOs. The 'm' stands for metallocene which is just the catalyst they use to polymerise the alpha-olefins. And they are EXTREMELY viscous...way more so than Bright Stock. How much of this stuff could you realistically blend into a heavy racing oil? Not 100%, that's for sure. I'd guess you would looking at 10 - 30% at most with the balance coming from conventionally catalysed light PAO.
And this begs the question, how relevant are these ultra-heavy mPAO's to the engine oils that us lesser mortals have to buy? On the basis of what I see right now, I'd say they are completely irrelevant.
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
They just have more VII. Higher the VI, it's always a better oil. However, more the VII makes better or worse an oil? It's hard to say but it's certainly a compromise. You don't want to have too much VII. If that wasn't the case, all oils out there would have VI greater than 200.
Very definitely, more VII always, always, always makes for a worse oil! I used to think that God invented VII polymer because he hated all formulators! VII is one of the primary causes of piston deposits and given the choice between a VII-free narrow grade and a VII laden wide grade, I'd always opt for the former.
Actually, VIIs are not necessarily bad at all. In fact, they help clean the engine, and they reduce the wear in the EHD (elastohydrodynamic) regime.
Some modern VIIs also serve as dispersants and they actually help clean the engine.
For example, Mobil 1 0W-40 and GC 0W-30/40 are loaded with a very high concentration VIIs; yet, they are some of the very most-cleaning oils in the world.
See this (PDF link):
http://www.aftonchemical.com/ProductDataSheets/Lubricant Components/HiTEC-5710_PDS.pdf
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
They just have more VII. Higher the VI, it's always a better oil. However, more the VII makes better or worse an oil? It's hard to say but it's certainly a compromise. You don't want to have too much VII. If that wasn't the case, all oils out there would have VI greater than 200.
Very definitely, more VII always, always, always makes for a worse oil! I used to think that God invented VII polymer because he hated all formulators! VII is one of the primary causes of piston deposits and given the choice between a VII-free narrow grade and a VII laden wide grade, I'd always opt for the former.
Actually, VIIs are not necessarily bad at all. In fact, they help clean the engine, and they reduce the wear in the EHD (elastohydrodynamic) regime.
Some modern VIIs also serve as dispersants and they actually help clean the engine.
For example, Mobil 1 0W-40 and GC 0W-30/40 are loaded with a very high concentration VIIs; yet, they are some of the very most-cleaning oils in the world.
See this (PDF link):
http://www.aftonchemical.com/ProductDataSheets/Lubricant Components/HiTEC-5710_PDS.pdf
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
They just have more VII. Higher the VI, it's always a better oil. However, more the VII makes better or worse an oil? It's hard to say but it's certainly a compromise. You don't want to have too much VII. If that wasn't the case, all oils out there would have VI greater than 200.
Very definitely, more VII always, always, always makes for a worse oil! I used to think that God invented VII polymer because he hated all formulators! VII is one of the primary causes of piston deposits and given the choice between a VII-free narrow grade and a VII laden wide grade, I'd always opt for the former.
Actually, VIIs are not necessarily bad at all. In fact, they help clean the engine, and they reduce the wear in the EHD (elastohydrodynamic) regime.
Some modern VIIs also serve as dispersants and they actually help clean the engine.
For example, Mobil 1 0W-40 and GC 0W-30/40 are loaded with a very high concentration VIIs; yet, they are some of the very most-cleaning oils in the world.
See this (PDF link):
http://www.aftonchemical.com/ProductDataSheets/Lubricant Components/HiTEC-5710_PDS.pdf
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
They just have more VII. Higher the VI, it's always a better oil. However, more the VII makes better or worse an oil? It's hard to say but it's certainly a compromise. You don't want to have too much VII. If that wasn't the case, all oils out there would have VI greater than 200.
Very definitely, more VII always, always, always makes for a worse oil! I used to think that God invented VII polymer because he hated all formulators! VII is one of the primary causes of piston deposits and given the choice between a VII-free narrow grade and a VII laden wide grade, I'd always opt for the former.
Actually, VIIs are not necessarily bad at all. In fact, they help clean the engine, and they reduce the wear in the EHD (elastohydrodynamic) regime.
Some modern VIIs also serve as dispersants and they actually help clean the engine.
For example, Mobil 1 0W-40 and GC 0W-30/40 are loaded with a very high concentration VIIs; yet, they are some of the very most-cleaning oils in the world.
See this (PDF link):
http://www.aftonchemical.com/ProductDataSheets/Lubricant Components/HiTEC-5710_PDS.pdf
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
...I watched a video on YouTube. It was someone called Lake Speed Jr from Driven Racing Oils waxing lyrical about how great high VI mPAO's were, next generation technology, etc, etc, blah, blah. And yes, I thought both the narrative and his delivery were first class. He had obviously been practising his lines in front of the bathroom mirror.
But is it right? I looked up mPAO on Google and I'm confused. It looks to me that these are basically PAOs. The 'm' stands for metallocene which is just the catalyst they use to polymerise the alpha-olefins. And they are EXTREMELY viscous...way more so than Bright Stock. How much of this stuff could you realistically blend into a heavy racing oil? Not 100%, that's for sure. I'd guess you would looking at 10 - 30% at most with the balance coming from conventionally catalysed light PAO.
And this begs the question, how relevant are these ultra-heavy mPAO's to the engine oils that us lesser mortals have to buy? On the basis of what I see right now, I'd say they are completely irrelevant.
I would say that in low percentages they are relevant in terms of increasing shear resistance, improving VI, and in reducing volativity, for both engine oils and transmission fluids.
...I watched a video on YouTube. It was someone called Lake Speed Jr from Driven Racing Oils waxing lyrical about how great high VI mPAO's were, next generation technology, etc, etc, blah, blah. And yes, I thought both the narrative and his delivery were first class. He had obviously been practising his lines in front of the bathroom mirror.
But is it right? I looked up mPAO on Google and I'm confused. It looks to me that these are basically PAOs. The 'm' stands for metallocene which is just the catalyst they use to polymerise the alpha-olefins. And they are EXTREMELY viscous...way more so than Bright Stock. How much of this stuff could you realistically blend into a heavy racing oil? Not 100%, that's for sure. I'd guess you would looking at 10 - 30% at most with the balance coming from conventionally catalysed light PAO.
And this begs the question, how relevant are these ultra-heavy mPAO's to the engine oils that us lesser mortals have to buy? On the basis of what I see right now, I'd say they are completely irrelevant.
I would say that in low percentages they are relevant in terms of increasing shear resistance, improving VI, and in reducing volativity, for both engine oils and transmission fluids.
Last edited:
OK, thanks all.
In response to the various posts that came in while I was asleep...
If you look at the PDS of the D-VII you quoted, you will read the words 'suited to automatic transmission fluids and tractor hydraulic fluid formulations'. Draw your own conclusions.
If you properly understand how engine oil componentry blends, you get to realise that, all things being equal, adding low percentages of an extremely heavy stock makes for WORSE volatility, higher levels of conventional VII use and a concomitant worsening of the oils shearability. It's one of those counter-intuitive things that takes a while to get your head around.
If you look at the PDS of the D-VII you quoted, you will read the words 'suited to automatic transmission fluids and tractor hydraulic fluid formulations'. Draw your own conclusions.
If you properly understand how engine oil componentry blends, you get to realise that, all things being equal, adding low percentages of an extremely heavy stock makes for WORSE volatility, higher levels of conventional VII use and a concomitant worsening of the oils shearability. It's one of those counter-intuitive things that takes a while to get your head around.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked