Sure I have but it don't change the fact that it is a 20grade oil
HPL NO VII 10w20
- Thread starter 53' Stude
- Start date
From what I’m learning “it acts like a 30w” so I’ll run it for 5-7k and sample. Live and learn
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Sorry, it's not clear what you are trying to assert here? The grade, 10W-20, is a legitimate SAE grade. The oil may thicken a bit in service due to its inability to shear, due to a complete absence of VII polymers. If left to thicken enough; if kept in service long enough, it's possible it would oxidatively thicken out of the SAE 20 grade range and into that of SAE 30.
ALL oils are subject to oxidative thickening if kept in service long enough. Most inexpensive PCMO's follow a trend of viscosity loss due to shear followed by viscosity increase due to oxidation. Ideally, the blender plans for oxidative thickening and viscosity loss due to shear to cancel each other out, but once you add in fuel dilution and engine design, most often that's not the case and we generally see viscosity loss overall with value-oriented PCMO's.
Oils that use higher quality VII polymers (and less VII polymers) will be less likely to shear and more inclined to demonstrate oxidative thickening. This will be more obvious in applications without significant fuel dilution.
Do we see a increase in HTHS of the oil in this thickening process.
With no VII though, it better handles the fuel as well. This UOA is from a Mazda GDI. The first sample is the OEM 5W-30 at just 211 miles. The next 2 samples are HPL PCMO 10W-20 at 4,897 miles and 7,211 miles respectively. The 1st and 3rd samples have similar fuel dilution but with 7,000 miles difference. The KV100 of the HPL PCMO 10W-20 is the same at >7,000 miles than the OEM 5W-30 was at just ~200 miles. The OEM 5W-30 had a virgin KV100 of 9.8 cSt while the HPL PCMO 10W-20 has a virgin KV100 of 8.6 cSt. With just 200 miles on the engine, it's doubtful that much or any of the -1.7 cSt (-17.4%) viscosity loss of the OEM 5W-30 is from shear. The HPL 10W-20 is holding strong with just -0.5 cSt (-5.8%) at 5,000 and 7,000 miles. The TBN is also higher with HPL at 7,211 miles than the OEM oil at 211 miles.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yes, you'd see HTHS increase too, since there's nothing to temporarily shear, so HTHS visc would increase as KV increases.
Here's a sample of HPL PCMO 10W-20 at 15,893 miles in my wife's 2012 Mustang V6. The vehicle is used 50/50 city/hwy with some short tripping. Though not GDI, this shows how well their oils withstand long intervals. The KV100 is right on the 20/30 grade border, up a little due to oxidative thickening with no shear.
This is 100% correct.
If you see an API 5W-30 oil, with a virgin KV100 of 10.0 cSt and typical 35-50% SSI OCP VII, and it shows 9.5 cSt @ 7,500 miles, it's likely it sheared down to an upper 20 grade (8.8-9.2 cSt range) before oxidative thickening brought it back to a low 30 grade. Many would see such a UOA and say "It stayed in grade!" when in fact it most likely didn't.
This is what my K20 is getting when track weather starts this year.
I'm considering running the HPL Premium Plus PCMO 0W-30 for a cold climate engine that is experienceing 2-5% fuel dilution. I am hopeful that this oil can withstand the fuel dilution and remain in grade more than my previous oil that started out with 10.7 KV100 but quickly decreased to ~9.0 when diluted.
The PP PCMO 0W-30 starts at 10.0 KV100 which makes it counterintuitive to think it would stay in grade better than a 10.7 starting point oil. However, if results are consistent with Rdy4War's, it should still stay in grade, granted the PP PCMO might not exhibit this thickening as well as the No VII line. I might use the PP PCMO 5W-30 /10.7 KV100 instead of 0W-30 since cold starts below -20F/-30C, while possible 3-5 days per year, are somewhat uncommon, with the lowest recorded temp in the last 20 years being -24F/-31C, but only -15F/-26C in the last 10. Could also go with the no VII 5W-30.
Probably splitting hairs, overthinking, and imagining problems but that's part of the fun.
The PP PCMO 0W-30 starts at 10.0 KV100 which makes it counterintuitive to think it would stay in grade better than a 10.7 starting point oil. However, if results are consistent with Rdy4War's, it should still stay in grade, granted the PP PCMO might not exhibit this thickening as well as the No VII line. I might use the PP PCMO 5W-30 /10.7 KV100 instead of 0W-30 since cold starts below -20F/-30C, while possible 3-5 days per year, are somewhat uncommon, with the lowest recorded temp in the last 20 years being -24F/-31C, but only -15F/-26C in the last 10. Could also go with the no VII 5W-30.
Probably splitting hairs, overthinking, and imagining problems but that's part of the fun.
Last edited:
Do you think this is due to thickening counteracting it and/or because fuel directly affects the VI polymers? I think the former is certainly true and I’ve heard some people mention the latter, but there was no scientific explanation or evidence provided.
I'm still learning this realm of chemistry, but it's my understanding that gasoline (more specifically certain components of gasoline) react with the polymers. This alters the polymer's properties, potentially including its viscosity index which would diminish it's effect on increasing the oil's KV100. I'm yet to find a publication on this, and there may not be one. (yet) Gasoline and alcohol have similar reactions with elastomers, plastics, and other polymers, so I'm making a WAG that it'll react similarly with the VII polymers. This is obviously speculation at best.
Delvac 10w30 Super FA-4/SN
40C 64
100C 9.8
HTHS 3.1
VII free?
How about Delo SD 15w30? The perfect oil that nobody bought.
40C 64
100C 9.8
HTHS 3.1
VII free?
How about Delo SD 15w30? The perfect oil that nobody bought.
It's unlikely to be a no VII oil. It's a syn-blend with a VI of 137. The higher end group III+ base oils, such as Yubase 4+, have a VI of 130-134. More common group III base oils are 120-130. The group III content of that oil is likely <30% as with most syn-blends. The only way they're making a no VII syn-blend 10W-30, with a VI of 137, is if they blended their lowest viscosity group II+ base oil (say EHC 45) with 30-35% high viscosity, high VI PAO (say SpectraSyn 40) or an mPAO. That's not happening because one 1) it's dumb, 2) not economically feasible, and 3) likely violating the recipe for the SN approved add pack.
Thanks RDW4WAR. I know that base oil polarity affects how much it contracts or expands the polymers at a given temperature. The effect is on the non-polar part of the polymer, which is the part that allows them to be oil-soluble. I would be surprised if gasoline has no effect on the expansion/contraction aspect of the polymeric VIIs. Besides polarity, in chemistry, there are often effects from the sizes of atoms and molecules. Gasoline molecules tend to be smaller than base oils in motor oils.
The worst oil ever blended. If it was “perfect oil” everyone including you would have bought it
So the No.VII oils are their "top notch" tier? What is "better" about them than the regular PCMO? If there is a thread about this let me know
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2021
- Messages
- 1,367
Why isn't No VII just their "normal" oil if it's better?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
No, they were formulated specifically to be VII free, that doesn't mean they are the best performing product line. Their higher tier VII-containing oils (star VII) are basically shear-free as well, but may perform better. As @High Performance Lubricants as noted on here in the past, incorporating VII's can offer performance improvements.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
There are many grades that can't be formulated without VII's.
Also, their "normal" oil is Group III based, while the no-VII series (and the higher spec oils like Euro and Super Car) are blended using PAO as the primary base, which is more expensive. You have more flexibility in formulation using VII's, able to use a more diverse mix of bases which may perform better overall.
Similar threads
