Interesting look at Mazda OE 0w20 SN/GF5

Not the point. Knowledge regarding the characteristics of VM in combination with whatever is a basis of the calculations. Scientifically you could take the obtained and go back to approach whatever better and better as you learn and learn.... All day long.

But it's also a dumb calculator presented to the public that can be used to put in four values and get your 1.71 or my 2.55 out of it for an oil of a certain name like Mazda Original Oil Supra 0W-20. We just demonstrated that. Why is it? Partly because of your best guesses in your tables I'd guess.
Let's have our break and maybe tomorrow I can produce a 1.62 and you can produce a 2.68 in revenge. Then the truth without true HTHS can be in the middle or so. One possible practice of course. Science has to be aware of more than a remote possibility of people randomly attacking. Don't care so much about my focus. Train yours.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by blingo
You learned so much today

I learn a little more everyday and every minute, but sadly you haven't learned anything, as you've been parroting the same things since you joined the forum.
wink.gif
 
The formulation of Mazda Original Oil Supra 0W-20 SN in buster's original post is entirely different than in the Germany PDS.

While the VII is similar, see how vastly KV40 and KV100 differ in the two formulations. This is because the old formulation used a comb PMA VII and the new formulation uses a non-PMA VII according to my calculator.

Germany PDS (old, comb-PMA-VII formulation by Total): density = 0.845 g/cm³, KV40 = 20.82 cSt, KV100 = 7.41 cSt, VI = 221
Spain PDS (new, non-PMA-VII formulation by Total): density = 0.846 g/cm³, KV40 = 35.9 cSt, KV100 = 8.30 cSt, VI = 218

The Germany VOA and Spain VOA nicely verify the values in the two PDS's, respectively.

So much for the craziness this morning about the calculator not giving meaningful results. Sure, if someone compares the data for two entirely different oils and demands the results to be the same, nothing will make sense.
lol.gif


I am glad Total seems to have got rid of the PMA VII in the new formulation. It will be interesting to see if they also get rid of (or have got rid of) the PMA VII in Mazda Supra-X Original Oil 0W-20, which seems to have failed to obtain even the API SN and ILSAC GF-5 certifications because of its high PMA-VII content.
 
That they're different was always meant to be understood from my pics. But new? At least four years old if you don't mind to compare. And if you do that's still four years: https://oil-club.de/index.php?thread/519-mazda-original-oil-supra-0w-20/
vastly different - like quite the opposite of the two TGMOs. Like rather thick in the base and highly profiting from temperature in the fiction of VII-content. I had written about one and not the other of course.
 
Last edited:
The conclusions of the Marx papers about fuel efficient VM strategies by the way revolve partly around just the difference in the kinematic viscosities. But you preferred to ask me to blame somebody over Mazda pursuing HTHSV above 2.6 instead of accepting an obviously purpose built oil that just doesn't work in your discriminator ;-)
Sad trials of sealing buildings against those flooding oils ;-)
 
Last edited:
blingo, you came here to question things, but you refuse to try to understand and learn things. You revert to your emotions instead.

  • All the oils studied in the Nigel Marx, Hugh Spikes, et al. papers are designed to have HTHS = 3.70 ± 0.06 cP (see page 3 of the first paper) so that the effect of the HTHS is eliminated. Therefore, the only effects on the fuel economy and engine wear arise from the VI, VII shear, etc. The HTHS is the primary factor in the fuel economy otherwise, as it relates to the hydrodynamic friction in the bearings.
  • No, the Mazda Supra 0W-20 SN in the German PDS does not have a thick base oil, which wouldn't even pass the 0W CCS and MRV tests. This claim is simply false. First, if you read toward the end of my original HTFS thread in the white-papers section, you will see that ASTM D341 fails when a comb-PMA VII is used. KV150 is greatly underestimated. This disclaimer was previously made in that thread. If you accounted for that, you would get a much thinner base oil in the calculator. Second, the HTHS provided in the German VOA is dubious. The HTHS won't be accurate unless the temperature is calibrated to 0.1 °C, and I doubt that the German oil-analysis lab has that kind of temperature accuracy, not to mention other calibration issues in the instrument as well.


The main take is that one formulation version of the Mazda Supra 0W-20 SN uses a comb-PMA VII, and the other formulation version uses a regular VII, possibly OCP. They both use thin base oils, even though I have no means of accurately estimating the HTFS (base-oil viscosity) for the comb-PMA-VII formulation.
 
Said conclusion: The model indicates that VMs can contribute to reducing
friction in two separate ways: One is via shear thinning. This
Friction reduction due to VI increase
occurs especially at high engine speeds when shear rates are
high and can result in a 50% friction reduction at low temperatures
for the blends studied. The second is via their impact on
viscosity index, which means that for a set viscosity at high
temperature (HTHS), the viscosity of a high-VI oil and thus its
hydrodynamic friction will be lower at low temperatures than
that of a low-VI one. This insight should assist in the development
of fuel-efficient VM additives and their informed use.


Obviously interested in both per their lines. Why wouldn't their whole reasoning have applied to Mazdas finding the next oil? Why wouldn't Mazda look at different shapes of viscosity curves and look for lower KVs and higher HTFSV at the same time? Maybe they read about HTFSV too :)


But if I made a false claim I regret, no worries. I was and remain greatly interested in your view on this lower KV based calculations and a fitting interpretation (and have no own buildings to defend by any and all means ;-)

I happened to find versions "looking thicker" when "having them calculated" to BO DV150 of 2.55 or 2.30 as depicted in my posting. I wrote about the real world looking at your tablework and making their use of it after download. And the list of problems with that....
So let me put parts of it another way, although your best guessing when routinely operating with separate densities or common discrete 2.6es and 3.5es must be much better than using any values between 2.6 and 2.8 (or between 3.5 and 3.7 for that matter) from some measuring labs of course:

These Mazda Supras remain suspicious to me, three of them all over the place plus an additional X with even higher VI that's just not yet been put through all this. But I find the alternative of the ENEOS with just the option of using its HTHSV 2.7 or ignoring it and plumbing it in with the usual 2.6. And I do both betweeen the Mazdas:

[Linked Image from s1.bild.me]

Options are great. Now I have the choice of an ENEOS having fallen on the thicker side and a second one having fallen on the thinner side (of e.g. the new Supra X with its VI up to 244). Getting BO DV150 higher or lower by 0.31 is sweet tuning of thickness in my books. With just ENEOS' HTHS 2.7 and not even a 2.76 from some measuring around.
Now I just have to find me someone selling the right one with the right kind and amount of VII etc. That's my real world. 0W-20 tuned on demand by just deciding on the acceptance of a value or two.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the 0W-20 Supras are getting killed anyway except the new Supra X of course. Really don't know, but read it somewhere, with the russians perhaps.
Would be okay with me. Now that I can get along with the ENEOS. The ENEOS could even be sporting i-plaited VM I'd speculate.

Just one more question: What emotions of mine? I might start writing them in bold lines to help me become better aware of my emotions. You might get back and start reading from the beginning by now to learn as much as possible about my emotions and help me making them bold.
 
Last edited:
Don't worry about what I said about emotions. I get emotional, too. I know professors in my department who got into fist fights over science at conferences. At least we are not that bad.
wink.gif


What the second Nigel Marx, Hugh Spikes, et al. paper says about increasing the temporary shear (temporary shear thinning) to improve the fuel economy in your excerpt above, is summarized in one variable in my table: A_Harman index. 1 - A_Harman index is the temporary shear (thinning). So, when the A_Harman index decreases, the temporary shear increases, and the fuel economy improves. Of course, VII (effective content, not actual content) = (1 - A_Harman index)/2; so, the VII variable also gives you the temporary shear, divided by a factor of 2.

Increasing the viscosity index VI of the finished oil also improves the fuel economy because the oil runs thinner over a wider temperature range. For example the HTHS is specified at 150 °C, but the oil temperature is usually much lower, and a higher-VI oil with the same HTHS will run thinner than a lower-VI oil at most operating temperatures.

Other than the 1 - A_Harman index (temporary shear) and viscosity index VI, the HTHS plays a major role in fuel economy because it is related to the hydrodynamic friction in the bearings.

This all comes at a cost. Decreasing the A_Harman index decreases the base-oil viscosity HTFS, which potentially increases engine wear. Moreover, the VII content increases, which potentially increases engine deposits. The permanent shear will increase, too, which may be a concern in viscosity-critical applications.

By the way I prefer a higher A_Harman index, which gives a higher base-oil viscosity HTFS, to be on the safe side with regard to engine wear. Higher fuel economy is good, too, especially in a car like mine that averages around 65 mpg (3.6 L / 100 km) with regular gasoline in mixed driving and you want to hit the 100 mpg etc. mark in certain driving conditions, like in slow traffic. At the end of the day, I am stuck with TGMO 0W-16 at the dealer, and when the free maintenance expires, I may go with Mobil 1 AFE 0W-16.

On a different subject, I noticed something very unusual in Table 2 of the first paper yesterday. Look at oil #'s 11-13. For a fixed finished-oil HTHS, a fixed base-oil KV100, and a fixed DDI package, the actual VII content (not the VII variable equal to the temporary shear thinning divided by 2 in my calculator) is higher for a Group III base oil than for a Group II base oil and higher for a Group IV base oil than for a Group III base oil. This goes entirely against the intuition of everyone on BITOG including me about synthetic oils having less VII than conventional oils! It has to do with the variation of the thickening power with temperature for different base-oil types, which is given in Figure 4. The higher the viscosity index VI of the base oil, the flatter the curve is. It is very interesting. However, other VII's may not behave in this fashion, and this particular star VII may be exceptional with its increasing thickening power with temperature. Since the comb PMA VII has a curve similar the curve of this particular star VII, it may also have a similar dependence on the base-oil type or viscosity, which wasn't studied in the paper.

 
Polarities, geometries, sizes,.. I got no clue for table two, I regret. That's just touching my realities and is why I didn't bother yet to fill in the two Biosynthetc PCMOs, a 5W-30 and a 5W-20. What could I even expect with their interesting content of BT4 and in addition all their complements? I'd say their focus would not be on special VM. Additivation slightly adjusted but also nothing like Delo's Omnimax. If turned around with these assumptions - any deviations were to be attributed to the synergies and whatever among the main components - I'd still not imagine computing VM responses in this setting when playing around with it. And without so much imagination I can just leave it uncomputed as well. Just tell myself BT4 I'd like to have with other complements (most preferably PIB in my patent). But actually this more unusual BT4 product needn't necessarily be more unusual in resulting viscometrics than the "most boring" species of fully formulated oils.
 
Last edited:
Eneos Racing Street 0W-20 SN is certainly using a (comb) PMA VII. BO VI = 221, which is indicative of a VII with a thickening power strongly increasing with temperature. Group III+ base oils using regular VII's result in BO VI ~ 140-160, including the thickening by the DDI package, and this is a check that the calculator is working as intended. (Comb) PMA VII's are artificially resulting in BO VI ~ 200 because the calculator assumes a flat temperature dependence of the thickening power, and ASTM D341 also fails with a (comb) PMA VII as well.

You should have some nice ACEA C5/C6 Euro-OEM 0W-20 oils over there, and they use a minimal amount of VII.
 
Of course it works! The higher and truer the HTHS I fill in, the tinier the VII contents it puts out and therefore I know they don't work together, because too modern an oil or whatever. More than you of course I'm also always talking about your resulting tables (with their intransparencies etc. - we named a few problems). But so be and remain it. Again grazie mille, Gokhan. It's surely been fun. Best regards
 
Last edited:
I guess Mazda isn't too concerned about LSPI with the Ca level they use. LSPI isn't that common.
 
Originally Posted by buster
I guess Mazda isn't too concerned about LSPI with the Ca level they use. LSPI isn't that common.


Agreed
High dose Moly helps with LSPI also.
Combo fuel delivery systems PFi/DI (D-4S) is the answer.
I don't worry about LSPI in my Lexus, because the engine is in PFI mode at low speed,
and there is no turbocharger.
Nor am I concerned about the other big SP focused issue, timing chain wear.
The culprit is dense, small particle soot.
GDI/TGDI engines turn oil dark very soon after changing the oil.
My oil stays clean in appearance, and smells just right,out to 7-8k, even 11k miles.
In my circumstances, there is no soot...there is no fuel dilution.
This is not particularly scientific, admittedly, but it is my basis.
A daily (360 days per year) run of ~200 freeway miles reinforces my confidence that all is well.
 
This focus on whatever miniscule friction reduction of base oils is disturbing. Seems to me like too much effort spent for too little return. I know - sour grapes, but brought back un-fond memories of EPA finding ever-more miniscule pollutants to regulate for very high costs.

Sure would be nice to have an insider tell us the truth what they're doing. The whole discussion on calculated %VII increasing with VI is bizarre - kind of like quantum physics or something....we are all in infinite realities.
shocked2.gif
 
Originally Posted by Gokhan
On a different subject, I noticed something very unusual in Table 2 of the first paper yesterday. Look at oil #'s 11-13. For a fixed finished-oil HTHS, a fixed base-oil KV100, and a fixed DDI package, the actual VII content (not the VII variable equal to the temporary shear thinning divided by 2 in my calculator) is higher for a Group III base oil than for a Group II base oil and higher for a Group IV base oil than for a Group III base oil. This goes entirely against the intuition of everyone on BITOG including me about synthetic oils having less VII than conventional oils! It has to do with the variation of the thickening power with temperature for different base-oil types, which is given in Figure 4. The higher the viscosity index VI of the base oil, the flatter the curve is. It is very interesting. However, other VII's may not behave in this fashion, and this particular star VII may be exceptional with its increasing thickening power with temperature. Since the comb PMA VII has a curve similar the curve of this particular star VII, it may also have a similar dependence on the base-oil type or viscosity, which wasn't studied in the paper.



The very same day I answered how I hadn't got a clue it seems the BT4-people put up a video that you might like ( https://www.biosynthetic.com/biosynthetic-technologies-webinar-2/ )

From minute 25: https://youtu.be/jQ1hLoenVrY?t=1515

Relative density I only found in an older msds given as 0,95 (temperature not mentioned). They even twittered some oxidative stability for the BTs: https://twitter.com/BiosyntheticT/status/1265274589896007680
 
Last edited:
Back
Top