Is 10W-30 an Obsolete Viscosity Grade?

[bruce381]

"""Depending on the properties of the Group I oil used, the final blend might require 10-50% of a correction fluid, such as 5R (Group II+). If a Group III correction fluid is used, less will be required.""

I got

You are correct using the Oronite blend calculator tool I see that up to 50% GPI can be used I do not know about the quality of the final blend if it will fully pass the API testing I do not use GPI much so I was surprised at how much can still be used.

BUT at that level the CCS is not to very good borderline at best and noack is also close to being over and GPIII/PAO would have to be used as the balance of base stock.

Still I guess up to 50% could be used I would think 20-30% would be safer and to me that is not a majority but I will agree I was wrong on this one.

bruce

 

[Bryanccfshr]

Thanks for demonstrating credibility Bruce. Your knowledge is the cake and your intelectual honesty is the icing.

 

[Blue99]

But, Let's slow down here...

This was 427Z06's original statement:

Quote:

---

It's also the only grade that allows Group I as the majority basestock in SM/GF-4 formulations. You can bet Group I producers are more than happy letting the public continue to believe there's some sort of advantage to using dino 10w30.

---

And Bruce is coming back and saying "Yes, technically it is possible to blend a GF-4 10W-30 with a significant % of Grp I."

My point is that from a practical/economic basis, who, out of the major brands is doing this? (besides Citgo!)

The major Grp I producers are Citgo, Calumet, Valero & ExxonMobil.

What info does anyone have that a ConocoPhillips, Castrol, Valvoline, Pennzoil/Shell/QS is readily bypassing available Grp II stocks to transport in Grp I for blending 10W-30?

And what is the savings? Both Grp I & II 100 to 150 viscosity grades are all selling in the $2.95/3.15 per gallon range.

Lube Report Base Oil Prices

I really doubt that you will actually find Grp I in a 10W-30 until you start looking at the ILMA type blenders, such as Amalie or Warren-Unilube that package the lesser brands such as Coastal or Wolf's Head.

- And my apologies to the above companies, as I'm not implying that the quality of their formulations is less than first class!

 

[bruce381]

""I really doubt that you will actually find Grp I in a 10W-30 until you start looking at the ILMA type blenders, such as Amalie or Warren-Unilube that package the lesser brands such as Coastal or Wolf's Head."'

You have a point and I'm a ILMA blender but use GPII why?
cause it is better, correct, approved etc but also in my case GPII is same/less than GPI go figure, goes to show you never know.
bruce

 

[Drew99GT]

Valvoline 10w-30 All Climate is all group 1, or 1+, according to the MSDS. Maxlife is group 1 with PAO in all grades.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

"""Depending on the properties of the Group I oil used, the final blend might require 10-50% of a correction fluid, such as 5R (Group II+). If a Group III correction fluid is used, less will be required.""

You are correct using the Oronite blend calculator tool I see that up to 50% GPI can be used I do not know about the quality of the final blend if it will fully pass the API testing I do not use GPI much so I was surprised at how much can still be used.

BUT at that level the CCS is not to very good borderline at best and noack is also close to being over and GPIII/PAO would have to be used as the balance of base stock.

Still I guess up to 50% could be used I would think 20-30% would be safer and to me that is not a majority but I will agree I was wrong on this one.

bruce

---

Thanks for being honorable, Bruce.

You're obviously correct, 50/50 blend of Group I/Group II+ might be borderline, but it can be done even if a second correction fluid (possibly Group I/I+?) is needed.

In any event, given corporations current proclivity to penny pinch at every opportunity, this loophole available for this grade goes to show that 10w30 might not always automatically provide an advantage over 5w30. Who knows, if a large quantity of high quality Group I surplus becomes available at a discount, there's nothing preventing someone looking for a bonus/promotion to determine the cost savings are there and sell it to an unsuspecting consumer.

I guess it really comes down to the specs of the finished product, and if you don't see any great advantage in FP, NOACK, HTHS, etc, why choose the 10w30 over the 5w30?

 

[Gene K]

So this is the Cheapest way to make each of the following:

5W-30 = 100% Group II+
10W-30 = 100% Group II

With the close pricing of Group I and II would not this cost more:

5W-30 = 85% Group II / 15% Group III
10W-30 = 50% Group I / 35% Group II+ / 15% Group III

So where is all the Group I going? Name Brand 20, 30, 40, 10W-40, 20W-50 and
Store Brand 10W-30SL, 10W-40SL, 15W-40CH-4, 20W-50?

Some of you guys that know what you are talking about straighten me out.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

10W-30 = 50% Group I / 35% Group II+ / 15% Group III

---

This might be: 50% Group I(148-165)/ 35% Group II+(110-130)/ 15% Group II+(190)

or some combination thereof.

 

[stdwdh16]

Maybe someone could clear this up for me. I was under the impression that if the climate conditions were suitable, 10w30 would be a better choice because it would contain less VII's to cover the range than a 5w30. Ultimately, this should mean a 10w30 would be more shear stable than a 5w30. Looking at the UOA's, they seem to shear in similar ratios. Does this mean that my 10w30 shears to a 10w20 just as some 5w30's shear to 5w20's?

 

[MarkC]

So what?
Why worry so much? I use 10W30,because my Jeep's owner's manual said so, my UOA's are excellent. My engine is clean and at almost 130K it runs like it did when it was new. I don't care if it has warming massage oil in it, it's working for me.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

I hate to use the term Shear for static viscosity loss. Putting that aside the implication is that the minor loss of viscosity appears inconsiquential. And to meet GF4 standards"energy conserving" both 10w30's and 5w30's must lose viscosity. It is designed in so that the oils can pass the economy test. So if both oils are designed to lose viscosity at equal rates what is the advantage to 10w30 again???

enjoy the better VI of 5w30 then.
If Viscosity index improvers scare you then Actual synthetic 10w30 and 5w20's are your best shot to get oils with little or no polymers. Also with the new esterfied additives used in modern engine oils many of the fluids may have multiple purposes in the formulations and act as VI correction fluid reducing dependance on polymetric VII's.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

I hate to use the term Shear for static viscosity loss.

---

When I'm not in a hurry, I try to distinguish between the two by calling one temporary shear (like in the HTHS measurement) versus permanent shear (static viscosity loss). Are there more technically correct/accepted terms to use?

 

[Bryanccfshr]

I am not certain. It just seems like a confusing term.

For example.. Oil (A)starts whith an HTHS of 3.5 and a static Viscosity of 12 @100° Oil (B) has an HTHS of 2.6 and a Static Viscosity of 8@100°.
After 100 hours of use in the same equipment oil A Has a HTHS of 3.3 and a static viscosity of 12 @100°c whilst oil B has an HTHS of 2.6 and a static viscosity of 7.5@ 100°c

Using the BITOG common term "Shear stable".. Which oil is more shear stable? The one that maintained static viscosity or HTHS viscosity? I see it refered to both ways and there are performance differences in the two qualities.

 

[mitchcoyote]

Amsoil 10w30 full synthetic is the best oil in the world...........

 

[D Bone]

Quote:

---

Amsoil 10w30 full synthetic is the best oil in the world...........

---

Might as well shut down BITOG

 

[Bryanccfshr]

 

[Gene K]

Quote:

---

Amsoil 10w30 full synthetic is the best oil in the world...........

---

... and Amsoil told me both Series 2000 0W-30 (TSO) and Series 3000 (HDD) 5W-30 were better. Note: Have to call and tell the Amsoil they are mistaken.

For that matter I best remember to call the Ferrari Formula 1 team and tell them to get rid of that Shell Helix Ultra and replace it with the clearly superior Amsoil (ATM) 10W-30.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

I am not certain. It just seems like a confusing term.

For example.. Oil (A)starts whith an HTHS of 3.5 and a static Viscosity of 12 @100° Oil (B) has an HTHS of 2.6 and a Static Viscosity of 8@100°.
After 100 hours of use in the same equipment oil A Has a HTHS of 3.3 and a static viscosity of 12 @100°c whilst oil B has an HTHS of 2.6 and a static viscosity of 7.5@ 100°c

Using the BITOG common term "Shear stable".. Which oil is more shear stable? The one that maintained static viscosity or HTHS viscosity? I see it refered to both ways and there are performance differences in the two qualities.

---

Excellent points. We need to refine our terminology.

I'm going to theorize that in the majority of cases, the loss of static (kinematic cSt@100°) viscosity doesn't neccessarily lead to a proportional loss in HTHS if the static (kinematic cSt@100°) viscosity is achieved to a high degree by VII. I'll have to see if there's any research to support this conjecture.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

Of course the examples are completely hypothetical but it does illustrate our failing in nailing down good terminology to describe the difference between kinematic viscosity loss, HTHS, and loss of HTHS. If we are talking about plain HTHS shear stable is simply the higher number. If we are describing losses of kinematic viscosity(much better term than static I was using) or a reduction of HTHS with use what do we call it? Viscosity loss? Thinning? Counter-oxidative thickening engineeering?

The term Shear stable gets used alot on this forum but it is often refering to diferent characteristics.
I believe that with a low vloume of polymetric VII's kinematic and HTHS viscosities may stay proportian with "mechanical shearing resulting in permannet viscosity loss"

While having more polymetric VII's could result in a loss of kinematic viscosity but a stable HTHS since the VII's had little influence on the new oils HTHS while the base oil is actually doing the lions share for the HTHS. But again I too have no references and I am theororizing.

 

[bruce381]

"""I'm going to theorize that in the majority of cases, the loss of static (kinematic cSt@100°) viscosity doesn't neccessarily lead to a proportional loss in HTHS if the static (kinematic cSt@100°) viscosity is achieved to a high degree by VII. I'll have to see if there's any research to support this conjecture.""

I think you are correct in that VII's are what shears the most in the HTHS test.

"""And to meet GF4 standards"energy conserving" both 10w30's and 5w30's must lose viscosity. It is designed in so that the oils can pass the economy test.""

Not to my knowledge EC is normally met by running vis to low end and using good FM's. There is no shear down to a percent or certain number to qualify as a EC oil. If so i'd love to see this since I have heard this ststed before BUT know of NO such verbage in the API testing. That is why a FULL syn with little to NO vis/shear reduction can qualify as a EC oil.
bruce