How oil characteristics change throughout an OCI

[Patman]

Originally Posted by pitzel
Volatility of the lubricant reduces over the interval as higher vapour pressure components of the lubricant hydrocarbon mixture are boiled off in the ordinary operation of the engine.
Its for such reason that it is believed that intake deposits due to recirculated crankcase vapours are reduced when longer drains are used on the DI engines.



It is BELIEVED by you, but never proven....

 

[OilUzer]

Re video #3

The only thing the video may show is that dino oxidized (became thicker) quicker than synthetic ... A known fact I assume!

Even then, the 15W was tested @-35°C well below it's spec. Maybe when it is that cold (outside spec), the impact of oxidation is magnified! Basically the old dino may not be as bad it looked in that video.

besides comparing different grade oils which is a major issue, how many miles on the 2 used oils and were they running them in the same engines and under same conditions? you can not exceed dino limitations (e.g. Millage) and expect it to perform like synthetic.

I like that guy in the video but like he said himself, it was not a real test ... Just a demo that in general syn is better than dino. it was just a marketing video for synthetic oil. I think oil companies in general make more $ with synthetic ... and I'm not saying that syn is bad

 

[pitzel]

Originally Posted by Patman
Originally Posted by pitzel
Volatility of the lubricant reduces over the interval as higher vapour pressure components of the lubricant hydrocarbon mixture are boiled off in the ordinary operation of the engine.
Its for such reason that it is believed that intake deposits due to recirculated crankcase vapours are reduced when longer drains are used on the DI engines.



It is BELIEVED by you, but never proven....


There's SAE papers on ZDDP off-gassing which quite thoroughly prove such. A basic course in physical chemistry may also be useful in understanding the theory, ie: distillates and distillands become successively purer when subjected to successive courses of distillation.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by pitzel

BTW StevieC, some of those "20W50" oils suspiciously look like 5W-50's based on specs, but are not marketed as such. Probably catering to the sort of people who might want a 20W50 possessing an unfortunate lack of lubricant knowledge.


No...pour point has nothing to do with the "W" rating of any engine oil any more...they abandoned that decades ago as not representative of cold weather performance.

By the standards, if the oil meets a 10W, or per your premise a 5W, then it MUST be labelled to the lowest W grade that it achieves.

To do otherwise would have amsoil cheating the J300 system.

Suggesting that W grades are represented by pour point could display an un....nah, not going there.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by pitzel
Volatility of the lubricant reduces over the interval as higher vapour pressure components of the lubricant hydrocarbon mixture are boiled off in the ordinary operation of the engine.
Its for such reason that it is believed that intake deposits due to recirculated crankcase vapours are reduced when longer drains are used on the DI engines. Or stated differently, increased when short drains are used.

BTW StevieC, some of those "20W50" oils suspiciously look like 5W-50's based on specs, but are not marketed as such. Probably catering to the sort of people who might want a 20W50 possessing an unfortunate lack of lubricant knowledge.

See the ASTM testing? How could they possibly be using a 5w50 as a 20w50.

Sounds like you have a problem admitting that they might be using a quality bases stock to achieve this cold temperature rating and not "shady" business as you are implying.

This one is labelled both as a multi-weight and straight weight when none of their other oils are like this proving no shady business or hiding is going on and they are being up-front about it all.

Quote
Exceeds both 10w30 multi-grade and SAE 30 straight-grade viscosity requirements.
Source: https://www.amsoil.com/shop/by-prod...-sae-10w-30-sae-30-heavy-duty-motor-oil/

 

[pitzel]

Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by pitzel

BTW StevieC, some of those "20W50" oils suspiciously look like 5W-50's based on specs, but are not marketed as such. Probably catering to the sort of people who might want a 20W50 possessing an unfortunate lack of lubricant knowledge.


No...pour point has nothing to do with the "W" rating of any engine oil any more...they abandoned that decades ago as not representative of cold weather performance.


Page 7 basically summarizes J300:

https://www.infineum.com/media/80723/api-engine-oil-classifications.pdf

Basically you just don't get those sorts of pour points without the oil having a "W" rating of much better than 20W.

Amsoil isn't cheating -- they're just marketing what appears to be probably a product that could meet the 5W-50 spec, as a 20W-50 product. As I suggested, catering to certain marketplace whims.


Quote

By the standards, if the oil meets a 10W, or per your premise a 5W, then it MUST be labelled to the lowest W grade that it achieves.


I don't see anything of the sort on the Infineum chart. Its my understanding that an oil vendor can sell 0w30 as 10w30 quite safely/legally, and the only 'damage' done is to his wallet as it usually costs more $$$ to manufacture a 0w30 than a 10w30. ie: higher quality (more expensive) basestocks are needed. Plus 0W-x oils are considered premium products so it'd be pointless to cheat unless there's alterior motives such as marketing or maintaining one processing line and just slapping on different labelling.

 

[Patman]

Originally Posted by pitzel
Originally Posted by Patman
Originally Posted by pitzel
Volatility of the lubricant reduces over the interval as higher vapour pressure components of the lubricant hydrocarbon mixture are boiled off in the ordinary operation of the engine.
Its for such reason that it is believed that intake deposits due to recirculated crankcase vapours are reduced when longer drains are used on the DI engines.



It is BELIEVED by you, but never proven....


There's SAE papers on ZDDP off-gassing which quite thoroughly prove such. A basic course in physical chemistry may also be useful in understanding the theory, ie: distillates and distillands become successively purer when subjected to successive courses of distillation.



That still isn't proof that frequent oil changes cause more deposits in DI engines. It's still just your interpretation.

 

[pitzel]

Originally Posted by Patman

That still isn't proof that frequent oil changes cause more deposits in DI engines. It's still just your interpretation.


Doesn't take much of a leap of common sense to come to that conclusion though. If you've followed my long drain posts over the years, basically when I got that particular car, it was on a diet of cheap dino changed every 1k miles or so by its previous owner who adhered to the "3 month" part of the classic "3000 miles / 3 month" OCI interval but didn't drive much. The valve cover to intake breather and the throttle body were an absolute mess when I acquired it. I changed immediately to XD-3 0w30 full synthetic on long (ie: 50k mile+) OCIs, and only a minor amount of easily wiped oil appears on the throttle body and in the air hosing consistent with normal PCV operation. (the air box has to be removed to do any other repairs on the car including changing the battery!). Its very obvious to me that simply changing the lubricant and correcting the problem of overly frequent oil changes resolved the intake/throttle body contamination issues by addressing the root cause. If the engine were DI, there's no doubt in my mind that the overly frequent maintenance regime with crappy oil would have been an utter disaster.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by pitzel


Basically you just don't get those sorts of pour points without the oil having a "W" rating of much better than 20W.


Shannow's summation of J300 is correct.

Pour point is, as he noted, unrelated to the W classification at this juncture. The oil must meet the CCS and MRV requirements for the W classification, and CCS is likely what's failing here.

CCS limit for the 20W designation is 9,500cP at -15C

Using the AMSOIL lubricant, we see that the KV100 is 18.5cSt.

Assuming we are using heavy PAO bases to blend the oil, we'll start with:
- SpectraSyn 10, which has a CCS of 8,840cP @ -30C (meets 10W) and MRV of 36,650cP @ -40C (0W) and a Pour Point of -48C. KV -40 is 39,000cSt, similar to MRV visc.
and we'll mix it with:
- SpectraSyn 40, which doesn't unfortunately list CCS, but MRV is 102,000cP @ -26C (20W using the halving rule). Pour Point is -36C. KV -20 is 40,500cSt @ , so roughly 20,000@ -15C, 10,000cSt @ -10C meaning it probably classifies as a 25W.

Using Widman's Visc calculator, using these two bases we end up with 51% SpectraSyn 10 and 49% SpectraSyn 40 to obtain our 18.5cSt KV100. Getting really creative, since the calc has a -5C function, and since the PDS for PAO 40 shows a 0C visc of 4,840cSt which is actually a bit heavier than halving our -20C visc backwards, we'd be around 8,500cSt at -5C. If we halve back from our -40C value for PAO 10 we get ~300cSt at -5C, resulting in ~1,300cSt for the blend @ -5C. 2,600cSt @ -10C and 5,200cSt @ -15C; 10,400cSt @ -20C, which is the CCS temp for the 15W designation and the limit is 7,000cSt.

So yes, it's quite possible to blend an honest 20w-50 using a heavy PAO blend and that requires no PPD's and no VII's while having a very low pour point and not meeting the CCS visc requirements for a lower W rating.

 

[StevieC]

And we know they do this because of their technical response email I posted in the past said they use little to no PPDs and/or VIIs in their oils.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by StevieC
And we know they do this because of their technical response email I posted in the past said they use little to no PPDs and/or VIIs in their oils.


And we discussed at length that in order to have VI's in the 160+ range they MUST use VIIs, and about the same amount as their competitors.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by pitzel

Amsoil isn't cheating -- they're just marketing what appears to be probably a product that could meet the 5W-50 spec, as a 20W-50 product. As I suggested, catering to certain marketplace whims.
Quote


By the standards, if the oil meets a 10W, or per your premise a 5W, then it MUST be labelled to the lowest W grade that it achieves.


I don't see anything of the sort on the Infineum chart. Its my understanding that an oil vendor can sell 0w30 as 10w30 quite safely/legally, and the only 'damage' done is to his wallet as it usually costs more $$$ to manufacture a 0w30 than a 10w30. ie: higher quality (more expensive) basestocks are needed. Plus 0W-x oils are considered premium products so it'd be pointless to cheat unless there's alterior motives such as marketing or maintaining one processing line and just slapping on different labelling.


Just because it's not in the infineum document doesn't mean it's not in the standard

Originally Posted by ASTMJ300
A manufacturer may not release a product if its low-temperature cranking viscosity as measured by the manufacturer
exceeds the maximum limit for its W grade. Similarly, a manufacturer may not release a product if its CCS viscosity as
measured by the manufacturer is less than or equal to the stated limit of the next lower W grade.


Originally Posted by ASTMJ300
Most oils will meet the viscosity requirements of at least one of the W grades. Nevertheless, consistent with historic
practice, any Newtonian oil may be labeled as a single-grade oil (either with or without a W). Oils which are formulated
with polymeric viscosity index improvers for the purpose of making them multiviscosity-grade products are non-Newtonian
and must be labeled with the appropriate multiviscosity grade (both W and high-temperature grade). Since each W grade
is defined on the basis of maximum cranking and pumping viscosities as well as minimum kinematic viscosities at 100 °C,
it is possible for an oil to satisfy the requirements of more than one W grade. In labeling either a W grade or a
multiviscosity grade oil, only the lowest W grade satisfied may be referred to on the label. Thus, an oil meeting the
requirements for SAE grades 10W, 15W, 20W, 25W, and 30 must be referred to as an SAE 10w30 grade only


So there are two scenarios
a) it's genuinely a 20W50.
b) it's not, and amsoil is cheating in their labelling.

I'm leaning to the a), but if you believe that it's b), then they have some issues, don't they ?

(it's ulterior)

And yes, people don't appear to know as much as they argue some times

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by StevieC
And we know they do this because of their technical response email I posted in the past said they use little to no PPDs and/or VIIs in their oils.


And we discussed at length that in order to have VI's in the 160+ range they MUST use VIIs, and about the same amount as their competitors.

No I remember you trying to force that down my throat... Doesn't mean that I agreed with it. Unless you want to cough up the bucks to reverse engineer the fluid it's speculation, I'll go with the e-mail from the technical line. G'day.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by StevieC
And we know they do this because of their technical response email I posted in the past said they use little to no PPDs and/or VIIs in their oils.


And we discussed at length that in order to have VI's in the 160+ range they MUST use VIIs, and about the same amount as their competitors.

No I remember you trying to force that down my throat... Doesn't mean that I agreed with it. Unless you want to cough up the bucks to reverse engineer the fluid it's speculation, I'll go with the e-mail from the technical line. G'day.



I was trying to present reasonable information that a rational, non gullible, person who was genuinely after an understanding would review and consider.

But such usually end up with a tannie, and refusal, and hater labels.

If you want to willingly swallow their email, have at it...

Have included below the base oil classification, and the asmoil numbers that you keep posting....

Also the spec sheets for Spectrasyn 4, 6, 8, and the most excellent Shell XHVI 8
http://exxonmobilchemical.ides.com/en-US/ds244622/SpectraSynâ„¢%204.aspx?I=30156&U=0
http://exxonmobilchemical.ides.com/en-US/ds244628/SpectraSynâ„¢%206.aspx?I=30156&U=1
https://exxonmobilchemical.ulprospector.com/en-US/ds244631/SpectraSynâ„¢%208.aspx?I=30156&U=1
https://prodepc.blob.core.windows.net/epcblobstorage/GPCDOC_GTDS_XHVI_8.2.pdf

Note that NONE of the PAOs has a VI above 140...none.

So how can ANY of the amsoil offerings have a VI HIGHER than than 140 without ANY viscosity modifiers ?

Clearly they can't, and don't, emails notwithstanding...the closest would be the 5W20, which almost matches the PAO8...but CLEARLY has VMs in it.

the rest of the SS range, don't make me laugh StevieC...it's obvious.

Have also attached mobil's blending guide, so that you can see comparable oils built with the SpectraSyn PAOs and how much VM Mobil have to put in to get similar viscometrics to amsoil.

Note to watcher,s it's not "HATE" it's trying to dispel internet myths, to people who aren't afraid of scary data.

 

[OilUzer]

In old days, i used to wonder if 5Wx30 and/or 0Wx30 can be sold as 10Wx30 since 5W or 0W can handle the cold temps better than 10W ... kind of one dimensional thinking!

I assume it is illegal for oil companies to do the above! Who is enforcing, policing or testing for this?


from wikipedia:

The SAE designation for multi-grade oils includes two viscosity grades; for example, 10w30 designates a common multi-grade oil. The first number '10W' is the equivalent grade of the single grade oil that has the oil's viscosity at cold temperature and the second number is the grade of the equivalent single-grade oil that describes its viscosity at 100 °C (212 °F). Note that both numbers are grades and not viscosity values. The two numbers used are individually defined by SAE J300 for single-grade oils. Therefore, an oil labeled as 10w30 must pass the SAE J300 viscosity grade requirement for both 10W and 30, and all limitations placed on the viscosity grades (for example, a 10w30 oil must fail the J300 requirements at 5W). Also, if an oil does not contain any VIIs, and can pass as a multi-grade, that oil can be labelled with either of the two SAE viscosity grades. For example, a very simple multi-grade oil that can be easily made with modern base oils without any VII is a 20W-20. This oil can be labeled as 20W-20, 20W, or 20. Note, if any VIIs are used however, then that oil cannot be labeled as a single grade.

 

[Shannow]

I just posted excerpt
Originally Posted by OilUzer
In old days, i used to wonder if 5Wx30 and/or 0Wx30 can be sold as 10Wx30 since 5W or 0W can handle the cold temps better than 10W ... kind of one dimensional thinking!


I posted excerpts from J300 a few posts up...