Interesting look at Mazda OE 0w20 SN/GF5
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
It has to have some benefit, though, given as they bother putting it there in the first place. It's not necessary and most people have absolutely no idea what it even is, so Idemitsu wouldn't put it in oil if it had no benefit.
Given as it is a VII with some other benefits, and the Zepro is an extremely high VI oil, it only makes sense that they'd do it to increase VI, as outlined in the patent.
Oh, no, you can make a ultra-high-VI oil using any kind of VII, such as the OCP VII most commonly used in engine oil. All you have to do is to start from a thinner base oil and add more VII, and there you have it. The only reason you would use a PMA VII instead of an OCP VII is probably because you don't have access to high-quality, low-Noack low-viscosity base oil, and you need to start from a thicker base oil so that you don't exceed the maximum Noack allowed by the oil spec.
I think this solves our little mystery. Methacrylate and vinyl acetate, both listed in the MSDS, are used as pour-point depressants. This is probably the reason for having such a small concentration of methacrylate and vinyl acetate in a finished oil, as they would hardly improve the VI at such low concentrations.
Dodecyl methacrylate and vinyl acetate copolymers as viscosity modifier and pour-point depressant
Pour-point depressant market is expected to reach $1,902.3 million by 2023: P&S Market Research
All this said I think the Mazda Original Oil Supra 0W-20 SN by Total and Mazda Supra-X Original Oil 0W-20 by Total probably use a comb PMA VII.
It has to have some benefit, though, given as they bother putting it there in the first place. It's not necessary and most people have absolutely no idea what it even is, so Idemitsu wouldn't put it in oil if it had no benefit.
Given as it is a VII with some other benefits, and the Zepro is an extremely high VI oil, it only makes sense that they'd do it to increase VI, as outlined in the patent.
Oh, no, you can make a ultra-high-VI oil using any kind of VII, such as the OCP VII most commonly used in engine oil. All you have to do is to start from a thinner base oil and add more VII, and there you have it. The only reason you would use a PMA VII instead of an OCP VII is probably because you don't have access to high-quality, low-Noack low-viscosity base oil, and you need to start from a thicker base oil so that you don't exceed the maximum Noack allowed by the oil spec.
I think this solves our little mystery. Methacrylate and vinyl acetate, both listed in the MSDS, are used as pour-point depressants. This is probably the reason for having such a small concentration of methacrylate and vinyl acetate in a finished oil, as they would hardly improve the VI at such low concentrations.
Dodecyl methacrylate and vinyl acetate copolymers as viscosity modifier and pour-point depressant
Pour-point depressant market is expected to reach $1,902.3 million by 2023: P&S Market Research
All this said I think the Mazda Original Oil Supra 0W-20 SN by Total and Mazda Supra-X Original Oil 0W-20 by Total probably use a comb PMA VII.
Originally Posted by blingo
The PMA-chapter of Rudnicks book makes me think 0.1% would be a treat rate when used as a pour point depressant.
Ha, our posts crossed!
That Leslie R. Rudnick book is great by the way. If you are affiliated with a university, you may have full access to it.
Synthetics, mineral oils, and bio-based lubricants by Leslie R. Rudnick
The PMA-chapter of Rudnicks book makes me think 0.1% would be a treat rate when used as a pour point depressant.
Ha, our posts crossed!
That Leslie R. Rudnick book is great by the way. If you are affiliated with a university, you may have full access to it.
Synthetics, mineral oils, and bio-based lubricants by Leslie R. Rudnick
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
It has to have some benefit, though, given as they bother putting it there in the first place. It's not necessary and most people have absolutely no idea what it even is, so Idemitsu wouldn't put it in oil if it had no benefit.
Given as it is a VII with some other benefits, and the Zepro is an extremely high VI oil, it only makes sense that they'd do it to increase VI, as outlined in the patent.
Oh, no, you can make a ultra-high-VI oil using any kind of VII, such as the OCP VII most commonly used in engine oil. All you have to do is to start from a thinner base oil and add more VII, and there you have it. The only reason you would use a PMA VII instead of an OCP VII is probably because you don't have access to high-quality, low-Noack low-viscosity base oil, and you need to start from a thicker base oil so that you don't exceed the maximum Noack allowed by the oil spec.
I think this solves our little mystery. Methacrylate and vinyl acetate, both listed in the MSDS, are used as pour-point depressants. This is probably the reason for having such a small concentration of methacrylate and vinyl acetate in a finished oil, as they would hardly improve the VI at such low concentrations.
Dodecyl methacrylate and vinyl acetate copolymers as viscosity modifier and pour-point depressant
Pour-point depressant market is expected to reach $1,902.3 million by 2023: P&S Market Research
All this said I think the Mazda Original Oil Supra 0W-20 SN by Total and Mazda Supra-X Original Oil 0W-20 by Total probably use a comb PMA VII.
I think it's more likely they used MMA because it's a pour point depressant AND a VII AND protects against coking and copper release. One molecule that does all 3 things is better than 3 that do one.
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
It has to have some benefit, though, given as they bother putting it there in the first place. It's not necessary and most people have absolutely no idea what it even is, so Idemitsu wouldn't put it in oil if it had no benefit.
Given as it is a VII with some other benefits, and the Zepro is an extremely high VI oil, it only makes sense that they'd do it to increase VI, as outlined in the patent.
Oh, no, you can make a ultra-high-VI oil using any kind of VII, such as the OCP VII most commonly used in engine oil. All you have to do is to start from a thinner base oil and add more VII, and there you have it. The only reason you would use a PMA VII instead of an OCP VII is probably because you don't have access to high-quality, low-Noack low-viscosity base oil, and you need to start from a thicker base oil so that you don't exceed the maximum Noack allowed by the oil spec.
I think this solves our little mystery. Methacrylate and vinyl acetate, both listed in the MSDS, are used as pour-point depressants. This is probably the reason for having such a small concentration of methacrylate and vinyl acetate in a finished oil, as they would hardly improve the VI at such low concentrations.
Dodecyl methacrylate and vinyl acetate copolymers as viscosity modifier and pour-point depressant
Pour-point depressant market is expected to reach $1,902.3 million by 2023: P&S Market Research
All this said I think the Mazda Original Oil Supra 0W-20 SN by Total and Mazda Supra-X Original Oil 0W-20 by Total probably use a comb PMA VII.
I think it's more likely they used MMA because it's a pour point depressant AND a VII AND protects against coking and copper release. One molecule that does all 3 things is better than 3 that do one.
This could be done with PMA but would look different. The book I meant was "Lubricant Additives, Chemistry and Applications, Second Edition", both can be found as a whole epdf.
Also https://books.google.de/books?id=yd...fect+of+PMA+on+the+Pour+Point+Depression could be had as epdf. Although very helpful the kind of literature often looks much like advertising brochures anyway.
Isn't the protection more of a modification to avoid otherwise own detrimental effects? From the patent:
[0044]
In the present invention, the component (C) is contained in addition to the above-mentioned component (B) and therefore the lubricating oil composition can be protected from copper release and coking occurrence in a well-balanced manner. Though not clear, the principle could be presumed as follows. It is presumed that a part of poly(meth)acrylate (hereinafter this may also be referred to as "PMA") may form a complex with copper through decomposition or the like, to thereby often cause copper release from alloys of members such as engine bearing parts, etc. When PMA has a structure capable of being entangled with each other, the amount of PMA to adhere to the metal surface of an engine and, as a result, copper release can be thereby prevented. In addition, when PMA is decomposed, its reactivity increases and owing to this, coking and copper release would be promoted. In the present invention, due to the effect of the above-mentioned component (B), entanglement of PMA is promoted while PMA decomposition is prevented, and accordingly, copper release and coking occurrence in the lubricating oil composition can be prevented in a well-balanced manner.
Also https://books.google.de/books?id=yd...fect+of+PMA+on+the+Pour+Point+Depression could be had as epdf. Although very helpful the kind of literature often looks much like advertising brochures anyway.
Isn't the protection more of a modification to avoid otherwise own detrimental effects? From the patent:
[0044]
In the present invention, the component (C) is contained in addition to the above-mentioned component (B) and therefore the lubricating oil composition can be protected from copper release and coking occurrence in a well-balanced manner. Though not clear, the principle could be presumed as follows. It is presumed that a part of poly(meth)acrylate (hereinafter this may also be referred to as "PMA") may form a complex with copper through decomposition or the like, to thereby often cause copper release from alloys of members such as engine bearing parts, etc. When PMA has a structure capable of being entangled with each other, the amount of PMA to adhere to the metal surface of an engine and, as a result, copper release can be thereby prevented. In addition, when PMA is decomposed, its reactivity increases and owing to this, coking and copper release would be promoted. In the present invention, due to the effect of the above-mentioned component (B), entanglement of PMA is promoted while PMA decomposition is prevented, and accordingly, copper release and coking occurrence in the lubricating oil composition can be prevented in a well-balanced manner.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by blingo
Isn't the protection more of a modification to avoid otherwise own detrimental effects?
Exactly. PMA is an awful VII for engine-oil applications because of its poor thermal stability, and that's why it's seldom used. I didn't know it was bad for the copper, too, and I know now.
I doubt Japanese OEM's still use PMA as a VII, and I am very surprised Total seems to use it in its newest Supra-X oil.
I think the reason Japanese OEM's used PMA in the past was because low-viscosity Group III+ base oils with low Noack values were not available, and they needed some VII to make ultra-high-VI oils using thicker Group III (without +) base oils with sufficiently low Noack values. These days you can make these ultra-high-VI oils using Group III+ base oils and a standard OCP VII.
I probably wouldn't use any 0W-20 that doesn't have GM dexos1 Gen 2/Gen 3 or ACEA C5/C6 unless it's coming from the dealer in a free oil change.
Isn't the protection more of a modification to avoid otherwise own detrimental effects?
Exactly. PMA is an awful VII for engine-oil applications because of its poor thermal stability, and that's why it's seldom used. I didn't know it was bad for the copper, too, and I know now.
I doubt Japanese OEM's still use PMA as a VII, and I am very surprised Total seems to use it in its newest Supra-X oil.
I think the reason Japanese OEM's used PMA in the past was because low-viscosity Group III+ base oils with low Noack values were not available, and they needed some VII to make ultra-high-VI oils using thicker Group III (without +) base oils with sufficiently low Noack values. These days you can make these ultra-high-VI oils using Group III+ base oils and a standard OCP VII.
I probably wouldn't use any 0W-20 that doesn't have GM dexos1 Gen 2/Gen 3 or ACEA C5/C6 unless it's coming from the dealer in a free oil change.
Well, we might see where TGMOs and Mazda Originals meet in your table. The ENEOS doesn't exactly come from a little rat-shop either. And with Lubrizol "Asteric PMA" sound well established for a decade or more now. Just don't expect so many all other oils to be what the calculator expects them to be ;-)
Last edited:
Not? They might only have taken their time to take over over these ~230 VIs and we our time to take full notice https://www.lubrizol.com/-/media/Lu...ocuments/Advanced-Polymer-Technology.pdf
I'd be all after straight Estolides and PIB and HR-PIB and GTL without VM, whatever the resulting VI, but mine is just the old oil infusing rotary and there don't seem to be any news regarding a range extender oil yet :-(
I'd be all after straight Estolides and PIB and HR-PIB and GTL without VM, whatever the resulting VI, but mine is just the old oil infusing rotary and there don't seem to be any news regarding a range extender oil yet :-(
What would one make of the ENEOS' SDS? https://www.eneos.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/A4181_-ENEOS-RACING-STREET-0W-20_E71EEN.pdf
Very similar "Group III+ with Moly" and the SDS says under 20% for all additives, 80 to 90 for base oils. Dirty mPAO excess?
Very similar "Group III+ with Moly" and the SDS says under 20% for all additives, 80 to 90 for base oils. Dirty mPAO excess?
Originally Posted by blingo
Not? They might only have taken their time to take over over these ~230 VIs and we our time to take full notice https://www.lubrizol.com/-/media/Lu...ocuments/Advanced-Polymer-Technology.pdf
I'd be all after straight Estolides and PIB and HR-PIB and GTL without VM, whatever the resulting VI, but mine is just the old oil infusing rotary and there don't seem to be any news regarding a range extender oil yet :-(
Not? They might only have taken their time to take over over these ~230 VIs and we our time to take full notice https://www.lubrizol.com/-/media/Lu...ocuments/Advanced-Polymer-Technology.pdf
I'd be all after straight Estolides and PIB and HR-PIB and GTL without VM, whatever the resulting VI, but mine is just the old oil infusing rotary and there don't seem to be any news regarding a range extender oil yet :-(
- Asterisk (* symbol) VII is the same as star VII, and it is not PMA as far as I know. It is hydrogenated styrene. It is more permanent-shear-stable but less thermally stable.
- You don't want PIB in your engine oil.
- HDEO's tend to use the star = asterisk VII because of permanent shear stability, as viscosity is critical in these applications.
- PCMO's use OCP VII because of thermal stability. They are mid-shear stable.
- Some Japanese OEM's used D-PMA in the past to boost the VI substantially, but they tend to be very dirty. If you want serious certifications (GM dexos, ACEA, or even the ILSAC TEOST 33C required for non-0W-20 grades, etc.), you probably cannot use them.
- TGMO 0W-20 used OCP VII with ExxonMobil Visom Group III+ base oil.
- Eneos Sustina probably uses OCP VII with the Nippon Energy W-base Group III+ oil.
- The calculator can't tell apart between star and OCP VII's, but you can easily tell from the calculator whether it is a D-PMA VII or not. Simply calculate the BO VI from the last columns. If it's above 5-15 of the expected base-oil VI, it is not D-PMA. A D-PMA will result in a base-oil VI that is very high, showing that the calculator is failing because of the highly nonlinear temperature behavior of the D-PMA.
This is the retired oil blender SonofJoe's take on PMA VII's—not to say all of his views are accurate.
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...0w-20-m1-0w-40-final-verdict#Post4396093
He mentions, "Now finding detailed engine oil blend data with PMA VII isn't easy because it's so rarely used but I did find one."
I still think TGMO and some other Japanese-OEM oils use an OCP VII to achieve an ultra-high VI, not a PMA VII. It is possible to make a ultra-high-VI oil without using a PMA VII and with an OCP VII if you start from a low-Noack low-viscosity base oil, such as Group III+ or GTL, and my calculator shows that this is easily accomplishable.
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...0w-20-m1-0w-40-final-verdict#Post4396093
He mentions, "Now finding detailed engine oil blend data with PMA VII isn't easy because it's so rarely used but I did find one."
I still think TGMO and some other Japanese-OEM oils use an OCP VII to achieve an ultra-high VI, not a PMA VII. It is possible to make a ultra-high-VI oil without using a PMA VII and with an OCP VII if you start from a low-Noack low-viscosity base oil, such as Group III+ or GTL, and my calculator shows that this is easily accomplishable.
"Asteric PMA Copper Corrosion" it says there above the pic (and in the pic itself).
I want HR-PIB 1000 or PIB 950 as in the 2T oils in mine, not to be confused with the much heavier PIB as in gear oils etc. For the rotary that is. It's different in several regards.
Please at least consider on the bare input side to differentiate somewhat between HTHS and HTHS. All calculations good and fine, that's why I threw it in, but in the end it becomes overwhelming fiction throughout instead of fact if more columns are just made look like factious instead of fictious.
May have read Lubrizol worse than I have read your table of course. But again...
I want HR-PIB 1000 or PIB 950 as in the 2T oils in mine, not to be confused with the much heavier PIB as in gear oils etc. For the rotary that is. It's different in several regards.
Please at least consider on the bare input side to differentiate somewhat between HTHS and HTHS. All calculations good and fine, that's why I threw it in, but in the end it becomes overwhelming fiction throughout instead of fact if more columns are just made look like factious instead of fictious.
May have read Lubrizol worse than I have read your table of course. But again...
Last edited:
Originally Posted by blingo
"Asteric PMA Copper Corrosion" it says there above the pic (and in the pic itself)
Ah, OK, so, it's probably similar to the "comb" PMA in the Nigel Marx, Hugh Spikes, et al. paper.
It then brings the usual concerns regarding thermal stability and deposit formation.
"Asteric PMA Copper Corrosion" it says there above the pic (and in the pic itself)
Ah, OK, so, it's probably similar to the "comb" PMA in the Nigel Marx, Hugh Spikes, et al. paper.
It then brings the usual concerns regarding thermal stability and deposit formation.
Originally Posted by blingo
Please at least consider on the bare input side to differentiate somewhat between HTHS and HTHS.
As I said regardless of the HTHS used, the calculator predicts a comb PMA for the Mazda Supra and Supra-X 0W-20 oils by Total. If the HTHS in the VOA is correct, it's great, even though it makes no sense to design an ultra-high-VI oil for fuel efficiency but throw in a high HTHS, the latter of which goes against the fuel efficiency. Blame the Total blenders, not Mazda, for both the PMA use and HTHS setpoint.
Please at least consider on the bare input side to differentiate somewhat between HTHS and HTHS.
As I said regardless of the HTHS used, the calculator predicts a comb PMA for the Mazda Supra and Supra-X 0W-20 oils by Total. If the HTHS in the VOA is correct, it's great, even though it makes no sense to design an ultra-high-VI oil for fuel efficiency but throw in a high HTHS, the latter of which goes against the fuel efficiency. Blame the Total blenders, not Mazda, for both the PMA use and HTHS setpoint.
Why blame anybody? Half the reason why I mentioned the ENEOS is the ENEOS' HTHS of 2,7 - nearer to the measured one of the VOA than to 2.6 routinely allover the place. I won't call it 2.6 or 2.7. It's just about acceptable practice, where the difference changes the output so much. What people don't necessarily respect who look at your tables and see BO DV 1,925975 calculated to take it with them.
Even on deposits I'd be more careful to not overstretch discriminations. And that's me with the rotary wanting PIB and wanting Delo-600 ADF 10W-30, wanting no POE, no PAO, not knowing if I want Ketjenlube Polymer Esters,...!
Come on, Gokhan... on page three you liked to talk about the dirty PMA, on page four you said you just learned about connections of copper and PMA and now you learned that "Asteric PMA" seems to exist. In your order.
Even on deposits I'd be more careful to not overstretch discriminations. And that's me with the rotary wanting PIB and wanting Delo-600 ADF 10W-30, wanting no POE, no PAO, not knowing if I want Ketjenlube Polymer Esters,...!
Come on, Gokhan... on page three you liked to talk about the dirty PMA, on page four you said you just learned about connections of copper and PMA and now you learned that "Asteric PMA" seems to exist. In your order.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by blingo
Why blame anybody? Half the reason why I mentioned the ENEOS is the ENEOS' HTHS of 2,7 - nearer to the measured one of the VOA than to 2.6 routinely allover the place. I won't call it 2.6 or 2.7. It's just about acceptable practice, where the difference changes the output so much. What people don't necessarily respect who look at your tables and see BO DV 1,925975 calculated to take it with them.
Even on deposits I'd be more careful to not overstretch discriminations. And that's me with the rotary wanting PIB and wanting Delo-600 ADF 10W-30, wanting no POE, no PAO, not knowing if I want Ketjenlube Polymer Esters,... Come on, Gokhan...
I'm not sure what the complaint is here.
Of course, the HTFS (BO DV 150) value estimated has only one-significant figure after the decimal point, like 2.0 cP, 2.1 cP, etc. However, it does not hurt to provide an additional insignificant figure, as when you compare, the roundoff error will unnecessarily get in your way otherwise. Example: 3.04 cP rounds off as 3.0 cP and 3.05 cP rounds of as 3.1 cP. While these two values are practically identical within 0.01 cP, if you don't provide the insignificant figure, you will be subject to the roundoff error, which will result in a 0.1 cP difference, which isn't there. Understood?
Regarding the input values, you use whatever is reported. If nothing is reported, your best guess for an ILSAC 0W-20 is 2.6 cP, and for an ILSAC 5W-30, it is 3.0 cP. If you want to try to push your luck further, you can try to actually adjust and estimate the HTHS by calculating the BO VI from the last columns, as I said before.
Why blame anybody? Half the reason why I mentioned the ENEOS is the ENEOS' HTHS of 2,7 - nearer to the measured one of the VOA than to 2.6 routinely allover the place. I won't call it 2.6 or 2.7. It's just about acceptable practice, where the difference changes the output so much. What people don't necessarily respect who look at your tables and see BO DV 1,925975 calculated to take it with them.
Even on deposits I'd be more careful to not overstretch discriminations. And that's me with the rotary wanting PIB and wanting Delo-600 ADF 10W-30, wanting no POE, no PAO, not knowing if I want Ketjenlube Polymer Esters,... Come on, Gokhan...
I'm not sure what the complaint is here.
Of course, the HTFS (BO DV 150) value estimated has only one-significant figure after the decimal point, like 2.0 cP, 2.1 cP, etc. However, it does not hurt to provide an additional insignificant figure, as when you compare, the roundoff error will unnecessarily get in your way otherwise. Example: 3.04 cP rounds off as 3.0 cP and 3.05 cP rounds of as 3.1 cP. While these two values are practically identical within 0.01 cP, if you don't provide the insignificant figure, you will be subject to the roundoff error, which will result in a 0.1 cP difference, which isn't there. Understood?
Regarding the input values, you use whatever is reported. If nothing is reported, your best guess for an ILSAC 0W-20 is 2.6 cP, and for an ILSAC 5W-30, it is 3.0 cP. If you want to try to push your luck further, you can try to actually adjust and estimate the HTHS by calculating the BO VI from the last columns, as I said before.
When such a Mazda Original Oil is put in with density (another problem by itself with mixing MSDS and TDS, partly not even from the same time and place when people use it, anything fits when you don't even recognise that recipes changed several times inbetween...), with KV40, KV100 and HTHS this suffices to have a BO DV150 calculated. Right? And this differs by something like 0.30cP between using 2.6 instead of 2.76 or the other way round. Still right? Why would your best guess be the "minimum"? Statistically assured? But not complaining, just begging for transparency, open mind, less deposits ;-) You learned so much today, I'm almost sorry I edited my last one so slowly. Keep up the good work, just including one more possible VM strategy, one more this and one less that....
Last edited:
Originally Posted by blingo
When such a Mazda Original Oil is put in with density (another problem by itself with mixing MSDS and TDS, partly not even from the same time and place when people use it, anything fits when you don't even recognise that recipes changed several times inbetween...), with KV40, KV100 and HTHS this suffices to have a BO DV150 calculated. Right? And this differs by something like 0.30cP between using 2.6 instead of 2.76 or the other way round. Still right? Why would your best guess be the "minimum"? Statistically assured?
I am a lot more aware than you of everything you said regarding obtaining quality data, MSDS's, TDS's, different formulations, whatever. I said many times that if your input data is not good, then you have a garbage-in, garbage-out situation. When you start randomly attacking rather than focusing on a particular data or analysis, the discussion stops being scientific.
When such a Mazda Original Oil is put in with density (another problem by itself with mixing MSDS and TDS, partly not even from the same time and place when people use it, anything fits when you don't even recognise that recipes changed several times inbetween...), with KV40, KV100 and HTHS this suffices to have a BO DV150 calculated. Right? And this differs by something like 0.30cP between using 2.6 instead of 2.76 or the other way round. Still right? Why would your best guess be the "minimum"? Statistically assured?
I am a lot more aware than you of everything you said regarding obtaining quality data, MSDS's, TDS's, different formulations, whatever. I said many times that if your input data is not good, then you have a garbage-in, garbage-out situation. When you start randomly attacking rather than focusing on a particular data or analysis, the discussion stops being scientific.
