Honda has developed a 0W-10

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
This of course is a hypothetical discussion but I don't see why it would it be any more expensive to make than their current house brand 0W-20 which is an SM oil?


It probably won't be any more to produce the product. It will take MILLIONS in R&D to validate it for any production car for warranty and beyond. It's not like they tell Bruce to go find some jeep owner to run the stuff for a couple of years for nothing and see if his cam grinds to paste.

So, they spend millions in on an oil that costs no more to produce ..will only be used in their cars for probably 2-3 years ..and probably not all of them ..and they're going to stock it on the shelf for the same price as the already old news 20 grade synthetics?

That would be real nice of them.

 

[CATERHAM]

Just thinking out loud, but RL make a readily available 0W-10 race oil.
The viscosity is about the same as the 0W-10 Bruce blend oil. 100C vis is 5.2 cSt with a VI of 130 and the NOACK is a very low 9% for such a light oil.
The main problem in using it on the street would be the low TBN of 2.
How hard would it be to bump up the TBN by adding some lubricant grade calcium?

 

[Gary Allan]

Just being typical wiseguy Gary thinking back. Sorry, bad habit.

I dunno. The additive level in RL would be prohibitive ..or so I would imagine. Bruce managed a TBN of 10+ but he didn't have the high potency additive level (Joe Gibbs+ levels) to take up all the "room" with carrier oil.

That's just speculation since I haven't a clue what Bruce did to get what he got. He made it look easy enough, but that's why he's pad the big bucks.

 

[CATERHAM]

I do know that Red Line's Street and Race oils are totally miscible with each other. So one could definitely concoct a 0W-10 oil from their street 0W-20 and say their 0W-5 race oil (NOACK of 12%) to get something that would be good for a few 1000 miles.

Or use RP XRP 0W-10 which has a TBN of 12.2 and cut in some Red Line 0W-5 to make a REAL 0W-10.

Just kicking around ideas.

 

[Gary Allan]

IIRC, Bruce told me that any lower visc base stock carries with it a 30% volatility penalty. He may not have been referring to a POE ...which is (I assume) what RL uses.

 

[CROWNVIC4LIFE]

I think I will just keep using the heavy oil which is my 5w20 Motorcraft.

 

[Gary Allan]

There's nothing wrong with training oil, pal. Don't let anyone tell you different.

 

[Audi Junkie]

A Red Line 0w-10 used oil analysis would be nice.

 

[CATERHAM]

So yes a 0W-10 can be concocted.
But whether it be the Bruce Blend, RL or a further lightened up RP, the main problem that I see with them is their VI in the 130 range is simply too low to be considered a satisfactory fully formulated oil.

Honda's current 0W-20 has a VI of 200 and Toyota's is even higher at 214. If you're going to develop something even lighter you want it lighter primarily at start-up temp's while retain as much high temp viscosity as you can. So the VI will have to be high; maybe not 200+ but I would think at least in the 170 range.

That's why I think it would be so neat to so what Honda has come up with in a 0W-10 grade.

 

[Gary Allan]

I can see this means something substantial to you. I'm probably ignorant (as in lack of awareness in terms consideration) to where you're leaning but ..sure, higher VI is always a good thing, but I'm uncertain what can be achieved when you have such a low ceiling. Any new "magic" base stock would surely have to be very expensive.

I'll play with the VI calculator to see where a 200-227 VI 20 weight fluid compares to a 132-150 0w-10 fluid at various temps to see where the cross over and divergence occurs.

 

[Gary Allan]

I think I put everything in the right place (tired).

Current Bruce formula

40C 23.9 cSt
100C 4.9 cSt
VI = 132

Visc @ 0C/32F = 179.4
Visc @-10C = 374

@ 200 VI

40C 18.9
100C 4.9

Visc @ 0C/32F= 94.5

@ 227 VI

40C 17.6
100C 4.9

Visc @ 0C/32F= 78.4

I don't have Toy's or Honda's specs on hand, so let me use Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy 0w20 which has a VI of 171 and massage that to 200 and 227.

40C 45.5
100C 8.6
VI 171

Visc @ 0C = 345cSt

w/202 VI
40C = 40
100C = 8.6

Visc @ 0c/32F = 245cSt 0w-10 wins @ 0C/32F and above
Visc @-10C = 461 cSt 0w-10 wins @ -10C/14F
w/227

40C 36.5
100C 8.6

Visc @ 0C = 194 0w-10 wins @ 0C/32F and above
.....@-10C= 329 lower than 0w-10 by 50cSt.


So, I guess you're right. To perform "better" on the colder end, it would need a broader VI. Without alteration, it would be superior to 202/227 VI 0w-20 with a 8.6 100C visc only @ 0C/32F.

But with only achieving a VI of 153, the 0w-10 resets the finish line a bit further away.

40C 22cSt
100C 4.9

Visc @ -10C = 278cSt

 

[CATERHAM]

Gary, an excellent analysis!

Honda's spec's are:
40C vis 39.94 cSt
100C 8.52 cSt
VI 200

Toyota's 0W-20
40C vis 39.3 cSt
100C 8.8 cSt
VI 214

Using the Toyota 0W-20 the break even point with the Bruce blend 0W-10 would be -15C (5F). At temps below that Toyota is actually lighter.
Looking at it another way, the percentage difference in viscosity between the two oils is zero at -15C; (they're the same), but it increases progressively as you deviate from that point. With rising temps, because of the much higher VI of the Toyota oil it will thin out at a much slower rate. At 100C the Bruce Blend 0W-10 will be 44% lighter than the 0W-20. I would suggest that's an unacceptable trade-off for a street oil. In other words, a 132 VI is too low by today's standards.

That's why I said, I would love to see a used oil analysis of the purported FF 0W-10 of Honda. To be competitive even with their own 0W-20 it would have to have a fairly high VI, and as demonstrated no such formulation yet exists.

Of course I understand that wasn't the purpose of the Bruce Blend 10wt, but rather to see if acceptable wear rates could be achieved with a 5 cSt oil in typical "in the field" service. And that experiment seems to have been a success.

BTW, Toyota's combination of a low 40C vis and high VI makes it the lightest SM oil currently available on the market at start-up temps. That doesn't mean it is the lightest 0W at -40; we don't know it's MVR and/or CCS specs, but those super cold temps are academic for most applications.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
At 100C the Bruce Blend 0W-10 will be 44% lighter than the 0W-20. I would suggest that's an unacceptable trade-off for a street oil. In other words, a 132 VI is too low by today's standards.


Well, yes and no. If one is going to evolve to a 10 weight for the alleged fuel economy advantages, Bruce's 0w-10 will serve the vast majority of users over the 20 weight offerings.

That is, the 44% trade off is going to be made by Bruce or anyone else. @ 4.9 he's just below the 5.35cSt limit. It can only be complimented by extended cold(er) properties.

Now for Canadians ..and some of our northern midwest state users ..nope.

That is, point well taken. For a manufacturer to make the evolution there will be more involved on the bottom end.

..but I don't think it will be cheap. The OEM, just like XOM does with all the "cooperative" Euro engine designing, will keep this locked up as long as possible, or charge a good ante to play. That "Honda xxxyyyzz" spec won't be given away for the good of humankind.

 

[CATERHAM]

On further reflection, you may very well be right on the "it won't be cheap" part.
I don't recall if you mentioned the NOACK percentage for Bruce's 0W-10? Of course for any SM oil it has to be under 15% and I'm sure most 0W-20's that are largely GPIII based are already pushing that limit; Pennzoil Platinum 0w20 comes to mind with it's NOACK of 14.4%.
Consiquently a fully formulated 0W-10 will likely have to contain a higher percentage of low NOACK PAO and/or Ester base oils which equals higher cost.

If we ever get to see a used oil analysis of Honda's 0W-10 I tend to doubt the 100C spec' will be under the 5.35cSt limit; that's a huge drop from their current 0W-20's vis of 8.52cSt. Rather I suspect they will cheat like RP does with their 0W-10 and it will something in the 6-7cSt range. They can still call it a 10wt if the HTHS is under 2.6cP.

 

[Gary Allan]

Bruce pegged the NOACH @ 6% with this formula.

TBN D-2896 10.6
Stealth Polymer @ 8%wt
SL system with the SM AO and FM added
NOACK around 6%


This was a Group III/PAO blend. I have no idea what the "stealth" polymer is. He has never told me over all this time, nor have I asked. I keep scanning the process and formula patent application registries (no-I don't

)

You could surely be correct on the lack of specific SAE designation for sub 2.6 HTHS fluids. There is no official SAE 10 weight. The accepted nomenclature for a 10w-20 fluid with
Which poses another question/problem. Bruce stated that this has a HTHS of 2.6 or greater, so it passes the 20 weight barrier criteria and would be an SAE recognized 0w-20 with just a few tenths of a cSt more visc. For Honda to even cheat they will have to fall into the sub 2.6 realm for HTHS.

That's what leads me to believe that this will be only spec'd in a limited number of engines (like the hybrids, as was suggested) where lower HTHS demands will (perhaps) work. I mean, it's obvious that high HTHS isn't required in my case, even under the most sensible sustained output level that I can manage, but that's a different story for some product wide adoption.

 

[21Rouge]

Very interesting thread CATERHAM and Gary. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Gary Allan]

Thank CATERHAM. He's a member you can actually have a protracted discussion with instead of an exchange of rapid fire declarations. You've "got time" ..so to speak.

I must admit being more used to the volley/salvo format.

 

[CATERHAM]

Up-date.

The Honda Brand 0W-10 oil is called ULTRA GREEN.
Unfortunately, AFAIK it's only sold in Japan.

Here's the Japanese link:

www.honda.co.jp/auto-parts/oil/ultragreen/

 

[buster]

 

[Zaedock]

*sigh* I miss Gary.


Regarding 0W10, It appears the economics of really robust base oils and add packs have caught up with fuel economy savings. I would love to test it in my Jeep 4.0L rock crawler (tube buggy). More power and economy = win, win. I wonder how it would hold up at the rev limiter?