HPL SAE 40 PCMO

[Hohn]

@High Performance Lubricants what are the differences in base stocks and additives between your SAE30 and various No-VII 10W-30 oils?

It’s been stated elsewhere that no-VII is PAO based with mPAO used as a thickener instead of vii. This, with the usual AN and Ester.

The monograde PCMOs are similar but rely primarily on GTL base. I don’t know how they are thickened because the heaviest GTL bases generally top out at 8 cSt KV100. So there’s definitely some co-bases doing thickening. Perhaps mPAO, perhaps esters, perhaps AN.

Personally I strongly suspect mPAO because it’s available it extremely high viscosity so it makes for a very low treat rate that’s very cost effective.

But there are some pretty heavy Esterex bases, 25cSt and up. So it could just be mostly ester thickened with a tiny bit of mPAO.

But the relatively lower virgin oxidation of these heavier PCMOs suggests the ester content is fairly modest (mid 20s oxidation) and inline with the rest of the PCMO line, hence my suspicion of a small dose of really heavy mPAO as the required treat rate would be very low.

 

[cheesepuffs2]

Precisely. This says nothing about any OTHER 40 grade monograde. I’ve specifically cautioned against extrapolating; if you’ve paid attention, you know that.


Well, “fine” from a cold crank perspective in my area or warmer. Superior in almost every other tradeoff. Cleaner, slicker, longer lasting.

This where we see you haven’t been following along. Since you’ve missed the rationale, I’ll repeat it for you:

This oil is:
1) high hths
2) no VII
3) leveraging the proven superb results of the 15w-40 sibling.


Now, if you think Castro Edge Euro can keep wear iron under 1ppm/1k miles for 5200 miles while keeping 8+ TBN, having zero change in viscosity, and plenty of oxidation margin to go 10K plus miles while being used in a brutal duty cycle of short trips in starts down to the teens, well then you aren’t familiar with the performance of that Castrol.

The reason this seems like a fool’s errand is because you either haven’t bothered to read or haven’t understood what you read. Hint: search my username and “Sae 40.”

The only real fool’s errand I’m indulging is explaining the same points repeatedly to those who prefer to lodge ignorant criticisms rather than read and levy intelligent criticism.

I’ve explained my rationale completely and precisely on multiple occasions in both this thread and the civic Type R thread.

If a member doesn’t understand still, that’s on them and no one else.

This level of pomp and snark around merely trying a motor oil on a daily driver is hilarious.

You’re right that I haven’t followed this on a granular level, and I’m glad that I haven’t, because talking about the superiority of one oil over another due in part to it being “slicker” than other options does nothing for me.

Regarding PPM of iron in used oil analysis, it’s already been discussed on this forum and by professionals outside of it that typical UOA results for iron are so close that it’s within the margin of error and that a couple PPM difference should be treated as being the “same” result. It’s been proven here for many years that even Supertech provides excellent wear numbers, so I’m not sure why this is a focal point for this HPL.

“plenty of oxidation margin to go 10K plus miles while being used in a brutal duty cycle of short trips in starts down to the teens”

Good luck with that over the lifetime of an engine. HPL 40 won’t stop the accumulation of moisture in a sump that’s solely short-tripped during cold weather.

Do what you like, of course. But please, this isn’t that serious. It’s a motor oil in a daily driver engine. Take a moment to think about all the cars on the road around you and how the vast majority of them are getting oil changes at dealerships or quick-lube shops and getting a diet of bulk multi-grade synthetics and doing just fine. When a car hits the junkyard someday due to rust, or an accident, or transmission failure, or whatever - seeing values of under 1 PPM of iron per thousand miles will have been irrelevant.

 

[Overfill]

I was under the impression that the additive packages are thick, and HPL has their supplier use a group III as the diluent. Still, together as a blend component, I thought this was pretty thick

The monograde PCMOs are similar but rely primarily on GTL base. I don’t know how they are thickened because the heaviest GTL bases generally top out at 8 cSt KV100. So there’s definitely some co-bases doing thickening. Perhaps mPAO, perhaps esters, perhaps AN.

 

[jeff78]

Don’t be surprised if it’s barely pourable. Straight grade VR1 uses inexpensive base oils.

So I left some VR1 SAE40 and Valvoline 10W-40 synthetic in the freezer for about 20 hours and tried the pour test (I didn't take a video).

The 10W-40 flowed about the same as the oils in your video, and the VR1 SAE40 was noticeably slower, about like blackstrap molasses at room temp. Viscosity calculator says the VR1 at 0F should be around 16000cSt.

I'd never run the VR1 SAE40 at these temps in an engine unless you put a gun to my head - but it's good to know the HPL SAE40 is a viable option.

 

[cheesepuffs2]

So I left some VR1 SAE40 and Valvoline 10W-40 synthetic in the freezer for about 20 hours and tried the pour test (I didn't take a video).

The 10W-40 flowed about the same as the oils in your video, and the VR1 SAE40 was noticeably slower, about like blackstrap molasses at room temp. Viscosity calculator says the VR1 at 0F should be around 16000cSt.

I'd never run the VR1 SAE40 at these temps in an engine unless you put a gun to my head - but it's good to know the HPL SAE40 is a viable option.

It’s almost as if HPL SAE 40 actually meets the requirements of and would more accurately be labeled as a multi-grade, but is labeled SAE 40 to appeal to the most obsessive among us.

 

[PontiacHO]

View attachment 320093


I was tempted to say “don’t try this at home” but I actually want to show you can try at home and it will work brilliantly.

I ran mono grade (40) in my last inboard marine engine as per the manufacturer. I assume a more stable weight oil in a hot high performance marine engine pumping cool lake-river-ocean water through the cooling system seems reasonable.

 

[Revving2Redline]

I’m sure it would be superb hot weather generator oil. I doubt it can impact an SAE 16 grade much at all as an additive.

No faith? Those were Brian's famous words to Toretto when he brought the Supra to the garage.

 

[Hohn]

I was under the impression that the additive packages are thick, and HPL has their supplier use a group III as the diluent. Still, together as a blend component, I thought this was pretty thick

They’re fairly thick, but will end up around 10% of the final blend.

Afton Hitec 11184 is about 100 as a KV100, so you are correct that it’s quite thick. (Not saying this is used, just taking as an example).

Here’s what a theoretical SAE 40 monograde could look like that would end up about hitting the density, VI, and viscosity published for the SAE 40, ignoring top treat:

Nexbase 8: 52%
Synnestic 12: 28%
Priolube 3986 (ester): 6%
SpectraSyn Elite 65: 2%
Afton 11184: 12%


One really nice thing about the monogrades and the lack of a winter rating requirement is that it allows the blend to be really heavy on ANs, which are magic for oxidation resistance. Also, the huge slug of AN means you don’t need as much ester to hit the solubility target, so the issue of moisture on short trip duty cycles with very high ester content is

Also, an oil blended like this will have absurdly low volatility. Nexbase 8 is only 3% on NOACK. Synnestic 1s is 4.5% NOACK.


Obvious I have no idea what HPL is blending here and it’s frankly none of my business. But I think it illustrates how the monograde is somewhat liberating in blending flexiblity in terms of what you can use that extra “budget” for in terms of solubility, top treat, and oxidation resistance.

 

[kschachn]

It’s almost as if HPL SAE 40 actually meets the requirements of and would more accurately be labeled as a multi-grade, but is labeled SAE 40 to appeal to the most obsessive among us.

Which without VII is acceptable by SAE labeling rules.

 

[Japanese]

Our 40 grades are still built in synthetic base stocks, which have good low temperature properties. We do not run CCS and MRV on these but it may reach a 20 or 25W without VI improver in the formula. If I were in 100° temp consistently and needed a generator oil would I use this absolutely. We can make it in a PCMO or heavy duty motor oil formula.

I think if you want to sell more of that oil (SAE30 and 40), it would be better to make it part of some racing, motorcycle/ATV, boat and/or farm/outdoor equipment (either one or more than one of these) oil groups, not just bury it under PCMO. If needed package the same oil with different labels for its specific use (racing, motorcycle, boat, OPE, etc.) and mention that on the front label.
Castrol (for example) markets its R40 straight SAE40 as a car racing 4T, motorcycle racing 4T, and also 2-stroke oil all together. I know that their oil has completely different castor based formula than HPL SAE40 oil, but just giving an example how another company markets their single-grade oil.

I don't think it will sell well under PCMO. A separate more distinctive category will be better for it. People shop by grade and are not open to experiment with single-grade oils, especially if it's far off their manufacturer recommendation, especially in new cars and especially if living on the north. Also 20W-40/25W-40 is a classic motorboat grade. Or if you want to sell more as PCMO - include its CCS and MRV rating.

 

[Plumb Bob]

I think if you want to sell more of that oil (SAE30 and 40), it would be better to make it part of some racing, motorcycle/ATV, boat and/or farm/outdoor equipment (either one or more than one of these) oil groups, not just bury it under PCMO. If needed package the same oil with different labels for its specific use (racing, motorcycle, boat, OPE, etc.) and mention that on the front label.
Castrol (for example) markets its R40 straight SAE40 as a racing 4T, motorcycle 4T, and also 2-stroke oil all together. I know that their oil has completely different castor based formula than HPL SAE40 oil, but just giving an example how another company markets their single-grade oil.

I don't think it will sell well under PCMO. A separate more distinctive category will be better for it. People shop by grade and are not open to experiment with single-grade oils, especially if it's far off their manufacturer recommendation, especially in new cars and especially if living on the north. Also 20W-40/25W-40 is a classic motorboat grade. Or if you want to sell more as PCMO - include its CCS and MRV rating.

I think you'd be better off opening yourself to learning what qualified members have been explaining to you about SAE labels.

Especially, after so many tries.

 

[Japanese]

I think you'd be better off opening yourself to learning what qualified members have been explaining to you about SAE labels.

Especially, after so many tries.

I don't see many people on here running this oil (especially in cars in the northern states) and I would never run it in the state that I'm currently living. Also, I didn't know this is the best all-year-round oil. The thing I see - it's not marketed properly.

 

[Hohn]

They’re fairly thick, but will end up around 10% of the final blend.

Afton Hitec 11184 is about 100 as a KV100, so you are correct that it’s quite thick. (Not saying this is used, just taking as an example).

Here’s what a theoretical SAE 40 monograde could look like that would end up about hitting the density, VI, and viscosity published for the SAE 40, ignoring top treat:

Nexbase 8: 52%
Synnestic 12: 28%
Priolube 3986 (ester): 6%
SpectraSyn Elite 65: 2%
Afton 11184: 12%


One really nice thing about the monogrades and the lack of a winter rating requirement is that it allows the blend to be really heavy on ANs, which are magic for oxidation resistance. Also, the huge slug of AN means you don’t need as much ester to hit the solubility target, so the issue of moisture on short trip duty cycles with very high ester content is

Also, an oil blended like this will have absurdly low volatility. Nexbase 8 is only 3% on NOACK. Synnestic 1s is 4.5% NOACK.


Obvious I have no idea what HPL is blending here and it’s frankly none of my business. But I think it illustrates how the monograde is somewhat liberating in blending flexiblity in terms of what you can use that extra “budget” for in terms of solubility, top treat, and oxidation resistance.

I wanted to expand for a moment on what 30% AN can do for you. Let’s assume just for now that the monograde has almost 30% Synnestic 12 as a co-base. But even if it’s still “only” 20% or 25%, it’s still hugely consequential to the formulation.

Synnestic 12 has a NOACK of 4.5%. But more importantly, it has an RPVOT (with zero additives) of over 180 minutes. That is sky high oxidation resistance.

But if you add the typical antioxidants, the Synnestic 12 can hit an RPVOT of over 1400 minutes. That is frankly stunning.

For reference, when Lake ran the Mobil 1 0w-40s at HPLs lab, the best of them was under 80 min, if I recall correctly.


Being able to load the oil with gobs of AN means the oil has extraordinary oxidation resistance and crushes RPVOT. So the monograde eliminates the VII whose oxidation are a major contributor of deposit precursors and replaces that with AN which is exceedingly resistant to oxidation.

So with the monograde, you not only get the super stout additive pack and the strong 13+ TBN. But you also get an oil that just sips TBN because it is so resistant to oxidation. As a result, you could see 30k or more miles on this oil in an application with mostly highway miles, perhaps even more.

Even in my wife’s short-trips-and-nothing-but usage, the SAE 40 is probably a 15k mile oil. That would be over 1000 gallons of fuel burn without an oil change.

Incredible what a predominantly GTL+ AN base can do when liberated from the shackles of a cold crank requirement. AN has pretty poor viscosity index, so you can’t use much of it when you need to blend an oil to hit 150s or 160s for VI in the final blend.

But when the final oil blend only has to have a VI barely more than the AN itself has and less even than the Nexbase 3080, the sky is the limit for AN content.

I can’t wait to give this SAE 40 a go and get some sample data.

 

[Nessism1]

Maybe change the thread title to "HPL 40 weight pcmo?" That would be more descriptive to this discussion.

 

[Hohn]

Maybe change the thread title to "HPL 40 weight pcmo?" That would be more descriptive to this discussion.

Good idea for the mods.

 

[facility1]

HPListheoilguy,,though its good oil,just remember there are also other decent comparable brands. & Chemistry dictates application.

 

[tired]

I wanted to expand for a moment on what 30% AN can do for you. Let’s assume just for now that the monograde has almost 30% Synnestic 12 as a co-base. But even if it’s still “only” 20% or 25%, it’s still hugely consequential to the formulation.

Synnestic 12 has a NOACK of 4.5%. But more importantly, it has an RPVOT (with zero additives) of over 180 minutes. That is sky high oxidation resistance.

But if you add the typical antioxidants, the Synnestic 12 can hit an RPVOT of over 1400 minutes. That is frankly stunning.

For reference, when Lake ran the Mobil 1 0w-40s at HPLs lab, the best of them was under 80 min, if I recall correctly.


Being able to load the oil with gobs of AN means the oil has extraordinary oxidation resistance and crushes RPVOT. So the monograde eliminates the VII whose oxidation are a major contributor of deposit precursors and replaces that with AN which is exceedingly resistant to oxidation.

So with the monograde, you not only get the super stout additive pack and the strong 13+ TBN. But you also get an oil that just sips TBN because it is so resistant to oxidation. As a result, you could see 30k or more miles on this oil in an application with mostly highway miles, perhaps even more.

Even in my wife’s short-trips-and-nothing-but usage, the SAE 40 is probably a 15k mile oil. That would be over 1000 gallons of fuel burn without an oil change.

Incredible what a predominantly GTL+ AN base can do when liberated from the shackles of a cold crank requirement. AN has pretty poor viscosity index, so you can’t use much of it when you need to blend an oil to hit 150s or 160s for VI in the final blend.

But when the final oil blend only has to have a VI barely more than the AN itself has and less even than the Nexbase 3080, the sky is the limit for AN content.

I can’t wait to give this SAE 40 a go and get some sample data.

Fascinating reading. Really respect you for not being afraid to go back to first principles and truly evaluate what makes a suitable engine oil. Very interested to see your continued results! I hope that the, at times, tepid reception here does not deter you.

Do you have more 15W-40? Or are you going to give this SAE 40 a shot for your next OCI? Seems like based on your UOA, that fill in your GX has a lot of life left.

HTHS over 4.2

Is this your personal target for HTHS for oil for your vehicles? I seem to recall from your LLM thread that this is where the real threshold is for preventing from Dr. Rudnick's writing? Mobil 1 Full Synthetic 0W-40 which I recall is your favored off the shelf option has an HTHS of 3.6 I believe (last I checked...XOM may not publish it any more but I believe this is where it is thought to lie).

 

[Hohn]

HPListheoilguy,,though it’s good oil,just remember there are also other decent comparable brands. & Chemistry dictates application.

Many of HPLs blends have no comparable product. Who else offers a 10w-20? A synthetic 15w-40 focused on gasoline only? A 10w-30 with a mb 229.5 add pack but no VII?

There’s are other good brands, but HPL is offering the consumer products that don’t exist anywhere else.

 

[Hohn]

Fascinating reading. Really respect you for not being afraid to go back to first principles and truly evaluate what makes a suitable engine oil. Very interested to see your continued results! I hope that the, at times, tepid reception here does not deter you.

Do you have more 15W-40? Or are you going to give this SAE 40 a shot for your next OCI? Seems like based on your UOA, that fill in your GX has a lot of life left.

Unfortunately, lol. My vehicles get more time than distance, so that slows the data acquisition.

I have I think 4 gallons of 15w-40 left.

Is this your personal target for HTHS for oil for your vehicles? I seem to recall from your LLM thread that this is where the real threshold is for preventing from Dr. Rudnick's writing? Mobil 1 Full Synthetic 0W-40 which I recall is your favored off the shelf option has an HTHS of 3.6 I believe (last I checked...XOM may not publish it any more but I believe this is where it is thought to lie).

4.2 HTHS was stated to be a knee in the wear curve above which wear asymptotically approaches zero. So I figure, 3.5 is a bare minimum and 4.2 is a practical maximum. If you want to maintain 4.2 through the OCI, then you might need some extra on the front end—4.5 or so.

That said, I believe cleanliness, not wear is the strongest argument for heavy base oils and minimum VII. I believe cleanliness is the factor more likely to abbreviate engine life in a modern gasoline ICE.

That’s why I’m a vocal proponent of Valvoline Restore and Protect despite the lackluster HTHS in the heaviest grade 5w-30 at around 3.2. Do I want more HTHS? Yes. Is it worth giving up Valvoline Restore and Protect cleanliness in the real world? Not in my view.

It’s only because HPL can maintain similar cleanliness that I have the luxury of pursuing elevated HTHS and longer drain. The essential of cleanliness is no longer a discriminator, so wear protection and OCI are back on the table.

Valvoline Restore and Protect is proven in my Accord to provide superb cleanliness, and wear protection for 5k miles but had no margin.

The HPL experimentation is me indulging some curiosity and greedily pursuing extended drains.

 

[altaylar]

I am sure this is usable for pcmo purposes, but given that Any HPL product would be fine with an OCI so much longer than I would be comfortable with, with a cleaning capability and VII that doesn't leave anything to be desired, I am still unsure what is the appeal of a straight grade?

even for track purposes, would not we want an oil that looses less viscosity once it heats up, meaning a higher VI?