HTHS/ Viscosity knowledge confusion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 12, 2003
Messages
45
Location
CA
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003874

Ok, I was checking out the above thread. I'm confused about what would be a good oil viscosity to use.

I know that the lower the HTHS to kinematic viscosity ratio is, the more shear stable the oil is. Ok and?!

I've got an Acura RSX and she requires a 30 wt. oil. Which, below choice, is the better choice?

A. Mobil 1 0w-30
kinematic viscosity at 100C = 10.3cSt
HTHS = 2.99 Cp
Ratio = 3.4

B. Redline 5w-20
kinematic viscosity at 100C = 9.1cSt
HT/HS = 3.3 Cp
Ratio = 2.76
 
If your car calls for a 30wt oil, Mobil 1 EP 10w-30 is the way to go. If it calls for a 20wt oil, Redline 5w-20 a great choice.
 
quote:

Originally posted by buster:
If your car calls for a 30wt oil, Mobil 1 EP 10w-30 is the way to go. If it calls for a 20wt oil, Redline 5w-20 a great choice.

Thanks, but I don't think you understood my question.

I just want to know that if those two oils above are the only choices you have, which would be the better choice?
 
They are very different oils. Mobil 1 is available everywere and is a good oil. Red Line is supposted to be made from a better (more expensive?) basestock. RL is a very small company and there market is people that are willing to spend a little bit more for the oil they pour into their engines.

There are a lot of threads about Xw-20 oil, Mobil 1 oil and Red Line oil. You have some work to do using the search function. After all that you are supposed to pick one. You too can become an oil expert any day now. Just don't be bothered by the extreme remarks one way or the other. Somewhere in the middle is your answer.

My pick, well, Mobil 1 is from a very big company and they have lots of different labels and a lot of marketing. Mobil 1 is good oil, but I use Red Line. I like Red Line's simple message and I think their product is not a gimick or an advertising campaign, just oil. Now it's your turn. What's your pick?
 
I'm definitely no oil expert, but I'd look more at the HT/HS rating itself, than at the ratio of HT/HS to kinematic viscosity. Unless I am wrong, HT/HS by itself tells you something about an oil's shear stability.
 
The RL 5w-20 is almost completely shear stable and would be my choice here....It will also provide significantly better valve train protection in this specific application.

TS
 
I agree with TS, your going to get much better shear stability and somewhat better wear protection with the RL 5w-20.
 
I posted this eariler in another thread but I thought it might help you so here it goes.

HTHS in law mans terms is the oil ability to resist shearing. SO the higher the number the harder it is to cut the oil into smaller dysfunctional pices. I am over simplyify here. An HTHS of 2.6 is the minimum for long term valvetrain wear and rod bearings. Some new lead matrix's are makeing this less of a problem for bearings but longterm valve train wear is still an issue. Your valvetrain wear and bearing wear in most applications drops significantly as you pass an HTHS of 2.9. It continues to fall of very sharply until you hit about 3.6 then it contines to drop off at a slower rate until you hit about 4. Once you pass an HTHS of 4 the only people that are going to see a reduceing in wear are those people severly pushing the limits of their engine. You really can not have too much HTHS as it is not an issue their is no down side to high HTHS numbers in terms of wear.

Now while HTHS is not linear to SAE viscosity it does track with viscosity for the most part. The big thing is that it tracks with the viscosity of the base stock. So if we have two identical base stock the one with more viscosity is going to have a higher HTHS. Different base stocks have different levels of shear resistance and the viscoity improvers also play a role. FOr example esters have better shear resistance then a PAO so an ester based 5W20 can have an HTHS of 3.3 while a PAO/AN based oil might be an SAE 0W30 and have an HTHS of 2.9. So we always have to compare apples to apples. If two oils of close to the same base stock make up have simalar HTHS numbers but vary different viscosity's generaly the oil with the lower SAE viscosity spread is going to be more shear resistant. A good example of this is GC 0W30 HTHS of 3.6 V.S. M1 0W40 HTHS of 3.6. Both of these oils due a good job in terms of generaly produceing low wear numbers. THe GC has never sheared while the M1 0W40 often shears and in some cases has exsaberated oil consuption issues.

The reason some people are leary of higher HTHS oils is that generaly HTHS does track with viscosity. So in order to get an HTHS above 4 you usualy have to go with a 10W40,15W40,15W50,20W50,25W70 oil in order to get above 4. You usualy give up more in HP, flow,pumpability then what you gain in wear reduction due to the law of deminishing returns. You might also consider it as a function of marginal return. Their is always going to be a sweet spot in almost any thing were you get the most bang for your buck. In general in most light duty passenger cars and trucks that sweet spot is between 3-4 with 3.6 seeming to be the most freq. and general sweet spot encountered! You can find oils from 5W20-10W40 that fall between 3.2-4 with no problem at all. So it truly is not an issue for someone to be able to find an oil that works best in their car. Most will tell you to use the lightest oil that turns in good UOA numbers for your car. This maximizes fuel saveings and will keep wear at a mangeable level.

Audi has been haveing oil related failures and is really specific about what they want. I would not use an oil in an Audi that did not havwe an HTHS of at least 3.5 personely. I belive Audi wants an HTHS of 3.6 min. but again ask some audi owners.
 
quote:

Originally posted by JohnBrowning:
I posted this eariler in another thread but I thought it might help you so here it goes.

HTHS in law mans terms is the oil ability to resist shearing. SO the higher the number the harder it is to cut the oil into smaller dysfunctional pices.


Brother John Browning, what you say here is not correct by any means. The HTHS is not a shear stability test. I will repeat that. THE HTHS TEST IS NOT A SHEAR STABILITY TEST.

What it is is a test to determine the effective viscosity of the fluid at high shear rates. If oil were truly a Newtonian fluid, the viscosity would be independent of the shear rate and there would be no need for a HTHS test....it would not make sense!!! But this is unfortunately not so and therefore the effective resistance to shear. There is a difference between shear and shear stability (you refer to shear stability above). The lubricant must undergo shear deformaton or the bearing would seize so the lubricant is always being sheared in a bearing. Shear stability refers to the rupturing of some of the some larger molecules into smaller ones. This may not happen much or at all in the short term HTHS test and the the test is not designed to measure this durability property as you suggest it does.

Anyway, the HTHS is a viscosity test, not a shear stability test.

Now, let's get to the bottom line. Adding tons of VI improvers will still bring the HTHS up but not as effectively as it it brings up the regular kinematic viscosity and thus Brother Too Slick has shown some true genius here. Oils with more VII should theoretically have lower ratios of kinematic to HTHS viscosities with all other things equal. Too Slick, you're a genius but it is clear that folks don't understand your point or even the basic meanings of these tests.

1911
 
quote:

Originally posted by JohnBrowning:
I posted this eariler in another thread but I thought it might help you so here it goes.

HTHS in law mans terms is the oil ability to resist shearing. SO the higher the number the harder it is to cut the oil into smaller dysfunctional pices. I am over simplyify here. An HTHS of 2.6 is the minimum for long term valvetrain wear and rod bearings. Some new lead matrix's are makeing this less of a problem for bearings but longterm valve train wear is still an issue. Your valvetrain wear and bearing wear in most applications drops significantly as you pass an HTHS of 2.9. It continues to fall of very sharply until you hit about 3.6 then it contines to drop off at a slower rate until you hit about 4. Once you pass an HTHS of 4 the only people that are going to see a reduceing in wear are those people severly pushing the limits of their engine. You really can not have too much HTHS as it is not an issue their is no down side to high HTHS numbers in terms of wear.

Now while HTHS is not linear to SAE viscosity it does track with viscosity for the most part. The big thing is that it tracks with the viscosity of the base stock. So if we have two identical base stock the one with more viscosity is going to have a higher HTHS. Different base stocks have different levels of shear resistance and the viscoity improvers also play a role. FOr example esters have better shear resistance then a PAO so an ester based 5W20 can have an HTHS of 3.3 while a PAO/AN based oil might be an SAE 0W30 and have an HTHS of 2.9. So we always have to compare apples to apples. If two oils of close to the same base stock make up have simalar HTHS numbers but vary different viscosity's generaly the oil with the lower SAE viscosity spread is going to be more shear resistant. A good example of this is GC 0W30 HTHS of 3.6 V.S. M1 0W40 HTHS of 3.6. Both of these oils due a good job in terms of generaly produceing low wear numbers. THe GC has never sheared while the M1 0W40 often shears and in some cases has exsaberated oil consuption issues.

The reason some people are leary of higher HTHS oils is that generaly HTHS does track with viscosity. So in order to get an HTHS above 4 you usualy have to go with a 10W40,15W40,15W50,20W50,25W70 oil in order to get above 4. You usualy give up more in HP, flow,pumpability then what you gain in wear reduction due to the law of deminishing returns. You might also consider it as a function of marginal return. Their is always going to be a sweet spot in almost any thing were you get the most bang for your buck. In general in most light duty passenger cars and trucks that sweet spot is between 3-4 with 3.6 seeming to be the most freq. and general sweet spot encountered! You can find oils from 5W20-10W40 that fall between 3.2-4 with no problem at all. So it truly is not an issue for someone to be able to find an oil that works best in their car. Most will tell you to use the lightest oil that turns in good UOA numbers for your car. This maximizes fuel saveings and will keep wear at a mangeable level.

Audi has been haveing oil related failures and is really specific about what they want. I would not use an oil in an Audi that did not havwe an HTHS of at least 3.5 personely. I belive Audi wants an HTHS of 3.6 min. but again ask some audi owners.


Thanx for the info.

So basically, it sounds like the best oil would be that of a lower viscosity weight and with a high hths.

With that, you get a very stable oil with great pumpability.
 
Man with the collective oil knoledge in this forum, you would think everybody is brewing their own synthetic oils out of common household chemicals.
gr_eek2.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by jtantare:
Man with the collective oil knoledge in this forum, you would think everybody is brewing their own synthetic oils out of common household chemicals.
gr_eek2.gif


A little Murphy's Oil Soap goes a long way in the detergency department--and smells great!
freak2.gif
lol.gif
 
1911, For crying out loud! I did state that I was over simplifying and that it was not technicly correct by state that I was trying to put it in "lay mans" terms!!! The fact that some one understands that an oil of any given viscosity with the highest HTHS in it's class is going to offer more protection is a step in the right direction!

HTHS is a hard concept to explain to someone with out regurgatateing the specifications set out in the various testing protocals. I think often this just confuses people! I freely admit my explanation is not the best! It did though demonstrate the practical application of compareing HTHS against SAE viscosity!
 
quote:

Originally posted by JohnBrowning:
1911, For crying out loud! I did state that I was over simplifying and that it was not technicly correct by state that I was trying to put it in "lay mans" terms!!! The fact that some one understands that an oil of any given viscosity with the highest HTHS in it's class is going to offer more protection is a step in the right direction!

HTHS is a hard concept to explain to someone with out regurgatateing the specifications set out in the various testing protocals. I think often this just confuses people! I freely admit my explanation is not the best! It did though demonstrate the practical application of compareing HTHS against SAE viscosity!


John Browning, no disrespect but what you said was not an oversimplification and not laymans terminology, it was simply incorrect and misleading. On the internet, this type of misinformation is believed by many and now you're helping others to mistakenly believe the HTHS test is some type of shear stability test and that the number represents shear stability. You said that the higher the HTHS, the harder it is to cut the oil into smaller pieces. As you add VII, the HTHS will go up (although perhaps not as much as the kinematic (gravity) viscosity at low shear rate). Does this necesarilly imply a higher shear stability........No way.

Understanding Newtonian behaviour versus non Newtonian behavior is the key to understanding the purpose and interpretation of the results of the HTHS test. Unfortunately, I continue to see posts which refer to this viscosity test as a shear stability test. I think we'd all be better off knowing the truth.

1911....the brainchild of John Browning
 
The HTHS is not a shear stability test,


SHEAR STABILITY
The Standard Test Method for Shear Stability of Polymer-Containing Fluids Using a Diesel Injector Nozzle, ASTM D3945 or CEC L-14-A-93, measures the percent viscosity loss at 100 degrees C of polymer containing fluids when evaluated with a Bosch PE 2 A 90C300/3S2266 double plunger injection pump connected to an atomization chamber
equipped with a Bosch DN 8 S2 pintle nozzle injector.
The engine oil is passed through the diesel injector nozzle at a shear rate that causes
the less shear stable polymer molecules to degrade. The resultant degradation reduces the kinematic viscosity of the test oil. The specification requires that the oil remain within the designated SAE viscosity grade after 30 test cycles.


HIGH TEMPERATURE / HIGH SHEAR RATE VISCOSITY
Three test methods are listed for measurement of this property, consistent with the SAE J300 viscosity classification. Each method evaluates engine oil viscosity by subjecting it to conditions of high shear rate (1 x 106 s –1) and high temperature (150 degrees C). ASTM D4683 and CEC L-36-A-90 utilizes a motor driven tapered rotor that is closely fitted in a matched stator. The rotor exhibits a reactive torque response when it encounters a viscous resistance from an oil filling the gap between the rotor and stator.
The unit is calibrated with reference oils.
ASTM D4624 utilizes a capillary viscometer which responds to the apparent shear rate at the walls of the capillary as determined by the pressure drop and flow rate through the capillary under desired conditions. This unit is also calibrated using reference oil.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Sam3:
The HTHS is not a shear stability test,


SHEAR STABILITY
The Standard Test Method for Shear Stability of Polymer-Containing Fluids Using a Diesel Injector Nozzle, ASTM D3945 or CEC L-14-A-93, measures the percent viscosity loss at 100 degrees C of polymer containing fluids when evaluated with a Bosch PE 2 A 90C300/3S2266 double plunger injection pump connected to an atomization chamber
equipped with a Bosch DN 8 S2 pintle nozzle injector.
The engine oil is passed through the diesel injector nozzle at a shear rate that causes
the less shear stable polymer molecules to degrade. The resultant degradation reduces the kinematic viscosity of the test oil. The specification requires that the oil remain within the designated SAE viscosity grade after 30 test cycles.


HIGH TEMPERATURE / HIGH SHEAR RATE VISCOSITY
Three test methods are listed for measurement of this property, consistent with the SAE J300 viscosity classification. Each method evaluates engine oil viscosity by subjecting it to conditions of high shear rate (1 x 106 s –1) and high temperature (150 degrees C). ASTM D4683 and CEC L-36-A-90 utilizes a motor driven tapered rotor that is closely fitted in a matched stator. The rotor exhibits a reactive torque response when it encounters a viscous resistance from an oil filling the gap between the rotor and stator.
The unit is calibrated with reference oils.
ASTM D4624 utilizes a capillary viscometer which responds to the apparent shear rate at the walls of the capillary as determined by the pressure drop and flow rate through the capillary under desired conditions. This unit is also calibrated using reference oil.


Thank you Sam. Now I can only hope that others here have taken the time to read your post so the presentation and acceptance of misinformation can cease. Avoiding test details and in layman's terms, the apparent viscosity for motor oils (especially those containing large polymers) is shear rate dependent. This concept is the basis for the test.

Why is the test done at high temperatures? ....... because it is at high temperatures where this phenomena can help lead to unacceptibly thin and unstable lubricant films in high speed bearings (where the shear rates are high). The phenomena of shear rate sensitive viscosity may be a good thing when the lubricant is cold and helps to give you better mileage.

Overall, this is one area where synthetic lubricants generally exhibit an advantage with less VII but there is still a shear rate dependency. However, at highly loaded contacts like ball bearings, the pressure-viscosity coefficient of PAO based lubricants may be viewed by some as disadvantageous.

1911..........The brainchild of John Moses Browning
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom