The issue is you can't "hold viscosity" w/r to fuel...no oil can do this as it's just physical dilution so here, the oil had to thicken/oxidize to see a viscosity value of at least or great than the original.
HPL No VII 5W30 Euro, 1993 Volvo 240, 5,400 mile OCI
- Thread starter Sam_Julier
- Start date
Good point.
So take my Sportwagen for instance. You can look at all my UOAs and see overall, I start with a 40W around 13cST and end up with a 30W around 11.5cST. Most of that is likely fuel (BS just doesn't give great info here so it's just inferred) but some of that IS actual shearing at some level from the VIIs to get that 0 or 5 winter to 40 grade spread. The idea with the no-VII oils is that I would see less viscosity drop, but still see some from the fuel. Case in point, the high-end Star VIIs in the regular HPL Euro 5W40 gave me the best result I've had w/r to viscosity drop on my last UOA...but I still see some from the fuel....landed around 12 cST so no reason for me to run the no-VII blends where I would have ended up around 10 b/c they only have a 30.Good point.
Last edited:
There is some oxidative thickening happening which is normal. You have to consider that common API oils undergo this oxidative thickening as well. So a 30 grade diluting down to 8.8-9.0 cSt 20 grade territory could easily be in the low 8s or 7s before oxidative thickening.
API-SP / GF6 allows a 100% increase in kinematic viscosity after 100 hours in Sequence III-H.
API-SP / GF6 allows a 100% increase in kinematic viscosity after 100 hours in Sequence III-H.
Going forward I won't use B/S labs when I decide to do my next UOA. I want an oxidation reading. Otherwise the shearing/oxidation gets muddled and you don't know what is going on.
I think I'd rather use the regular Euro Oils or the Premium Plus than the No VII stuff.
Last edited:
Sorry, serious case of delayed reaction, but reading this surprised the heck out of me (I just now saw it). I don’t delve much into the tests, beyond my pay grade / mental capacity, but that sounds like a lot of allowed thickening. So what does 100% mean in terms of cst? would it mean 10cst thickens to 20cst, or is there some logrhythmic aspect to the cst viscosity numbers making it look less dramatic? (For instance, in sound levels, 10 decibel difference is twice as loud…60db is twice as loud as 50db?…100db is way more than twice as loud as 50db)
im also interested in the opposite…what would be the cst reading of an oil that has lost 50% of its viscosity. Would 10cst go to 5? Is a 10cst reading at 100C one sixth the thickness of a typical 40C reading of 60cst? If a virgin VOA 10cst drops to 8.0 in a UOA, is that a 20% decrease, or better, or worse? Maybe I’ve got this all wrong. Maybe one of the 101 articles addresses this. I think I have the concept down, but quantitatively, how do the numbers line up.
It's a 100% increase in KV40. So say a 5W-30 has a KV40 of 60 cSt, it can thicken to 120 cSt and pass API. If the VI remains about the same, the KV100 would be in the upper 40 grade to lower 50 grade range.
5W-30
KV40 - 60 cSt
KV100 - 10 cSt
VI - 154
If the KV40 thickens by 100% and VI doesn't change (though it likely would but for simplistic purposes, we'll say it doesn't)...
KV40 - 120 cSt
KV100 - 16.9 cSt
VI - 154
The KV100 would be in 50 grade range in this example. Keep in mind though that this doesn't include shear. The KV40 could start at 60 cSt, shear down to 50 cSt, then increase to 120 cSt, and would still pass.
Higher PPMs of additives do not seem to correlate to less wear metals.
This is where the formulators and people like Dr. Rudnick come into play that know how to balance these things out. This is way beyond BITOG knowledge.I know that detergents and anti-wear additives compete with each other.
HPL is very high in detergents hench the very high moly content I recon.
Also, it is true that more AW additives do not = lower wear. Especially in these newer SP blends.
What you're getting with HPL is extremely top notch base oil blend, high quality VII and high solvency. At least from my understanding.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Where are you seeing very high detergents? This oil has typical Euro-levels.I know that detergents and anti-wear additives compete with each other.
HPL is very high in detergents hench the very high moly content I recon.
Interesting. Of course, that’s a “maximum” parameter. The one thing you mention is that the VI might change as well, so “expecting” KV100 to remain under 17 is full of assumptions. but I realize, that was just an example…so, thank you!
Personally, I’ve never seen any measurement denoting thickening In my handful(s) of UOA’s, though they may have thickened after thinning, masking any thickening. My EcoBoost fuel dilution runs 3-5%; overall decreases in visc is my norm…again, I haven’t tracked changes 1k by 1k. I did test QSFS at ~2700 mi, and saw 32 abs/cm oxidation, which was an anomaly compared to other store-bought synthetics, But it followed a run of VPBR which had a virgin oxidation of 141, so that could be from residual. the QSFS kv100 was a mere 9.3 (allegedly starting at single digit virgin oxidation and 11.x KV100). If it rethickened before the UOA, then it must have gotten pretty thin. Fuel was already 3.7%.
more and more, I’m being pushed toward HPL, though first, I have some Amsoil SS to try (I have no experience with it either).
That's it. All oils undergo oxidative thickening with age and use. If an oil starts with a KV100 of 11.0 cSt and is 9.0 cSt at 5k miles with 3% fuel dilution, the oil was likely 8.0-8.5 cSt before it thickened to 9.0 cSt.
Sam_Julier
$50 Site Donor 2024
Half highway, half local During the last OCI.
Can you please provide examples? I can’t find anything even close to this in my personal UOA catalog, so it would be interesting to see how you came to this conclusion.
Here's a few from a car we used to own, 2006 Infiniti M45.
Oil: ST FS 5W30
Oil Miles: 3961
Virgin TBN: 6.8
ending TBN: 2.4
Virgin Boron: 228
ending Boron: 41
Oil: M1 0W40
Oil Miles: 4732
Virgin TBN: 10.0
ending TBN: 5.6
Virgin Boron: 317
ending Boron: 150
Oil: M1 HM 5W30 (SN+)
Oil Miles: 4999
Virgin TBN: 7.1
ending TBN: 4.2
Virgin Boron: 94
ending Boron: 50
2018 Honda CR-V
Oil: M1 EP 0W20
Oil Miles: 4323
Virgin TBN: 7.0
ending TBN: 2.9
Virgin Boron: 75
ending Boron: 35
2003 Honda Civic
Oil: M1 AFE 0W30
Oils Miles: 4328
Virgin TBN: 7.9
ending TBN: 5.2
Virgin Boron: 87
ending Boron: 55
However, I have come across a couple of oils where the Boron behaves different. It depletes at a much slower rate than the TBN. These oils were Castrol EDGE Euro 0W40 and Pennzoil Euro L 5W30. I'm sure there are more exceptions, but those are the ones I've noticed personally. I'm curious if these two oils use a different type of Boron. I don't know enough about oil formulating to know. I've brought this up a few times before on here and was pretty much ignored, so I just use it as a personal data point.
edit: I didn't do the math, but used TBN and Boron are dropping approximately the same percent from their virgin values. That is just something visually I've noticed quite often on UOAs when I also have the virgin values handy for that oil. And like I said, it's not universal. There are samples where this does not occur (such as any UOA with Pennzoil Euro L or Castrol 0W40 and I'm sure others).
Last edited:
See what I mean? LOL. As far as I know, I'm the only one that has correlated it to TBN. There are lots of examples (and many that don't fit the mold too) where Boron depletion tracks very closely to TBN loss. I have a formula in a spreadsheet that predicts mileage on oil at Boron zero and TBN at 1.0. I'm aware that TBN does not drop linearly, but in more cases than not, they track very closely. Notice Castrol 0W40 and Pennzoil Euro L the Boron depletes at roughly double the miles that TBN does.
Here's another vehicle:
Last edited:
Interesting, but IMHO I think the way you’re presenting it doesn’t really make sense, because some oils seem to last much, much longer than others based on their boron counts.
IMO, and @dnewton3 back me up please… if you were going to show that boron tracked with TBN, you’d have to track the depletion percentage of each oil during the OCI, per 1k miles. Then you’d have to show that, statistically speaking, the percentages were all similar (p>.005). This would require at least 30 oil samples to be valid to prove/disprove the first half of the theory.
Then, you’d have to do the same thing with TBN, calculating % drop and showing those are all statistically similar. THEN, you would have to link both TBN and B for each sample, and run the same test again… does that make sense?
Example, if your initial #s show TBN drops 3% per 1k, and B drops 5%. Sufficient samples (30+ from same engine family) will give you your UCL & LCL to remain “statistically similar”. Then you’d chart all of the oils, and if 95% plus are within the CLs, you would finally be able to say that B tracks TBN.
Nice work so far though… it IS data, and I think you’re on an interesting track. But I have to ask (without malice), what good does tracking B do? There are still oils today that don’t use B, or will be depleted long before TBN hits <2.0 (as your existing chart shows). Also, B is not something you can test for outside of the lab, so while it’s definitely interesting path, I don’t know how useful it is. Could you share why you think this is significant if true?
