edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
They do, but VW504.00/507.00 is confined to 0/5W30.
Is Mobil 1 0w-40 too thin?
- Thread starter John9721
- Start date
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
See my follow-up.
It is probably valid for the same spec for instance 5w30 504 vs 502, not for a different thickness.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
It specifically says to not compare it.
you're going in a circle. you've already seen the evidence OVERKILL posted showing that they are simply different requirements, not stricter. camshaft wear tests instead of piston/cylinder wear. zero reason to assume that 504 is somehow better for wear just because of that stupid spider chart.
The way I read their site is that the spider charts show areas of emphasis for the particular iteration of the approval. So for example, 504 00 might have a particular emphasis in some area as compared to a previous approval, but it doesn’t mean that 502 00 is inferior if the chart doesn’t encompass as much area. It may mean that in absolute terms 502 00 is, and has always been equal or better. Or worse. That’s where the actual limits in the Afton publication come in that Overkill has posted.
It is why they say the charts are relative not absolute. If you compare the different iterations of 502 00 you can see the areas of relative emphasis.
It is why they say the charts are relative not absolute. If you compare the different iterations of 502 00 you can see the areas of relative emphasis.
Some added info and viewpoints. Oiling systems (if designed right of course) are able to adequately operate using a larger range of viscosity - ie, Ford for instance will specify xW-20 to xW-50 for the Coyote depending on intended use. If engines couldn't operate as intended over that kind of viscosity range we would never see OMs with a huge range of recommended viscosities depending on what the expected ambient operating temperature. Of course as pointed out earlier, engines recommending xW-16 and lower have special design features to go that low. Oil bottles call-out a specific ILSAC designation on those oils for a reason because they don't want people putting it in engines not specifying a xW-16 or xW-8 grade.
As most know here, OMs these days (except vehicles in other non-CAFE countries) basically "recommend" the lowest viscosity the engine can "safely" use - CAFE driven for max fuel economy. A few OMs that are tied down by CAFE may stipulate one grade higher if the recommended grade isn't obtainable, or say that using a higher viscosity is advantageous for more strenuous driving conditions (Toyota's way of thumbing their nose at CAFE).
Lots of people get hung up on stuff like "thinner oil flow better and therefore cools better" but what they don't realize it that it's a small factor (if it even exists) and doesn't really matter. If that was such an over-driving factor to use thinner oil, then why would Ford and many other makers of high HP cars focused for track use specify thicker oil, not thinner. What matters is getting enough oil volume of adequate viscosity for the operating conditions of the engine. A well designed engine and oiling system can do that over a large range of oil viscosity.
Obviously all PD pumps are a bit different in exact operation depending on design, and then throw in the slew of variable volume, even ECU controlled oil pumps used in engines now and it becomes a bit more complicated. I know that the Melling PD oil pumps for GM LS engines with a spring loaded relief valve (ie, the "old fashioned" PD pump these days) certainly do still increase the volume output quite a bit as RPM increases after they start hitting relief pressure.
This performance graph shows how much the oil pressure still increases after the pump starts getting into pressure relief on two different pump models (one puts out more volume per rev) with different relief springs installed. You can see when the pump hits pressure relief when the pressure curve goes from exponential to rolling over. The increasing pressure after start of relief means the associated output volume is also increasing. The pump design and relief spring are designed into the system to obtain this kind of output performance - that's all that can be done with a simple spring loaded PRV. PD pump swept area is way over designed so the pump will put out plenty of flow at low RPM, and then the pressure relief system is designed to obtain an adequate volume output over the entire engine RPM range.
All of that shouldn't really matter if the oiling system and pump as a system is designed well. Back to the fact that a well designed system will be able to use a wide range of oil viscosity and keep the engine happy under all conditions in terms of delivered oil flow volume. A good oiling system is way more versatile than most people realize. Just the fact that it can keep an engine from being damaged with below zero cold starts using the right W grade shows that with viscosity still magnitudes thicker than any grade at 200F. The other side of the formula for lubrication success is to use the right W grade for anticipated low temp cold starts, and use a KV100/HTHS viscosity that will give some MOFT headroom between moving parts for added wear protection in all anticipated use conditions.
On a side note - some people get hung up on "pump slip". If a PD pump is going into pressure relief at relatively low RPM then pump slip disappears out of the equation. Once the pump is in pressure relief, no level of pump slip matters. If a PD has too much pump slip when not in pressure relief, then it's an ill designed, badly manufactured or very worn out pump.
Last edited:
Yeah, that pesky physical fact of Tribology ever since two moving surfaces were separated by a film of oil.
Last edited:
did you mean Tribology?
I just try to understand how we use the cart properly. Probably comparing API SM SN SP SQ is valid, but not 502 vs 504. We can compare 502 (2005) vs 502 (2014) or 508 (2017) vs 508 (2023).
I wonder if we can compare between ACEA C3, C5, and C7, probably not.
We learn as we discuss, debate, or agitate
I just try to understand how we use the cart properly. Probably comparing API SM SN SP SQ is valid, but not 502 vs 504. We can compare 502 (2005) vs 502 (2014) or 508 (2017) vs 508 (2023).
I wonder if we can compare between ACEA C3, C5, and C7, probably not.
We learn as we discuss, debate, or agitate
You should only use it to see where the focus is in a certain specification. In the chart you posted above, the 508 is focused on sludge prevention, and the other 2 don't have any lspi testing.
But it doesn't mean they all have the same aftertreatment compatibilty, like the overlay seems to suggest. IE don't compare between specs, only within a spec.
Those Melling pumps have inadequately sized bypasses unless they were specifically engineered to allow so much pressure creep.
You can see quite clearly that the relief is just switching from one exponential orifice curve to another.
I've drawn the "amputated" parts of the open and closed curves suggested by the yellow curve:
We use a two-stage air bleed check valve in our fuel systems that has identically shaped curves (with the "knee) for the same reason-- there's one curve with the valve closed, another with it open.
The point here is not so much that oil pressure is constant with RPM, but rather that an increase in viscosity produces little to no increase in oil pressure in most cases, which the rise in pressure depending on just how "undersized" the oil pressure relief/bypass is.
It has to be by design - Mellng is pretty much the gurus of high performance aftermarket oil pumps. If the PRV started opening much later the oil volume output and associated pressure would be crazy high at pretty low RPM (ie, your drawn in orange line which is zero pressure relief). The hand drawn blue line couldn't be possible without pressure control way down to idle RPM on a pump with even more output volume per rev. There is only so much you can do on a fixed swept volume PD pump with a spring loaded PRV.Those Melling pumps have inadequately sized bypasses unless they were specifically engineered to allow so much pressure creep.
You can see quite clearly that the relief is just switching from one exponential orifice curve to another.
I've drawn the "amputated" parts of the open and closed curves suggested by the yellow curve:
The pump swept volume is pretty large, and the engine doesn't need that much flow volume after a certain RPM - therefore kick in the PRV at the right RPM depending on pump's swept volume of course. With a spring loaded PRV it's pretty much impossible to control the output volume and pressure to a real constant value even if the relief port is sized well. Can only do so much with a spring with a fixed spring constant. in order to flow more volume through the PRV to control the pressure, the valve needs to open more, which takes more pressure on a fixed spring ... that's what also contributes to the pressure creep even if the valve flows well.
If the PRV was computer controlled it could be proportionally controlled and opened accordingly as RPM increased to better control pump volume output to a constant value, which is basically the main goal of newer variable PD pumps to save a sliver of pumping loss power. In a control system like that, the output volume curve could essentially be a straight line throughout the RPM range, or make it linear from idle up to a certain RPM and then keep it perfectly constant past a certain RPM. The shape and magnitude of those Melling performance curves can be changed by changing the swept volume of the pump rotor and the relief spring. And it works just fine ... has for decades.
Here's the volume output vs RPM curve of a couple Melling pumps. If the pump was computer controlled, the output volume could be made linear say up to 13-14 GPM and then just stay constant up to redline - or even made linear between idle and redline - many choices if the control system is sophisticated enough. But even the Melling curve isn't really bad, and most importantly it works just fine to feed the oiling system. Old fashioned spring loaded PRV PD oil pumps have worked just fine for decades. All my vehicles have "old fashioned" PD pumps, and I'm glad they do - no DI engines either, old school has it's advantages too. Why re-invent something that has worked well for decades and make it more complicated? Oh yeah, that pesky CAFE monster so save a sliver in pumping loss, lol.
Yes, an undersized PRV could not allow the PRV to control to its best possible ability - the size of the valve and the short path after the valve needs to be optimal. Melling is aware of that, and makes the PRV work as well as possible with a simple spring loaded PRV. The performance of the PRV is built into the overall pump design to provide the volume output performance curves show above. They also strive to reduce oil cavitation at high RPM ... another pump consideration. Melling has been in the oil pump business since 1946, so I'd expect they've figured out how to tweak a PD oil pump by now.
A well designed pump is going to provide more than adequate oil volume to the engine, regardless if it's pumping xW-8 or xW-60. Oil pressure is just an artifact of forcing oil volume at a specific viscosity through the oiling system. As most here already know, more oil pressure at the same RPM and same oil viscosity means more flow volume. Even if a pump cuts back some flow volume because the oil is thicker and the relief kicks in sooner, if the pump is matched right to the engine it's still going to provide more than adequate oil flow. Any good oiling system and pump designer/integrator should consider all operating aspects and ensure the system still performs adequately under all possible factors.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Right, but the text states relative performances within the same specification, so like ACEA 2012 vs ACEA 2016 with A3/B4 for example, or the 2008 version of 229.5 vs the 2018 version of 229.5. So it gets a bit dubious once you start trying to compare different specifications, even from the same OEM.
That makes sense now. I thought I only cannot compare between different standard like API vs ACEA. It's not explicit enough. For API, I believe SQ is better than SL, SM, or SN. and ILSAC 6 is better than 4 or 3.
For OEM or ACEA standard are tricky because they do not go through the whole viscosity and SAPS range. 508 is specific to 0w20, not comparable to 504 or 502.
For OEM or ACEA standard are tricky because they do not go through the whole viscosity and SAPS range. 508 is specific to 0w20, not comparable to 504 or 502.
this applies to the original case as well--504 only allows 5w30/0w30.
I like Lubrizol spider charts but I have never purchased any oil based on that. I think the charts are good for the upper management to take a very quick look and move on to the next subject.
Lots of great info in this thread. I have it marked to read more carefully after my stupid summer chores are done. One of which was to resolve an upper management complaint to lube squeaky door hinges. I always use a BBQ wood skewer dipped into my cheapest and thinnest oil (Kirkland 5W-30 this time). It does a great job!
Thanks everyone for sharing your knowledge!
Lots of great info in this thread. I have it marked to read more carefully after my stupid summer chores are done. One of which was to resolve an upper management complaint to lube squeaky door hinges. I always use a BBQ wood skewer dipped into my cheapest and thinnest oil (Kirkland 5W-30 this time). It does a great job!
Thanks everyone for sharing your knowledge!
Last edited:
I bought Oil based on certification, price, and MSDS alone, not brands. Warren distribution Oil like Kirkland, Supertech, or Valvoline NAPA are great value. It maybe not the best but within spec and on some cases perform better than more expensive brands.
In Europe, we have SCT distribution sell Fanfarro/Mannol 10L 504 Oil 7715 5w30 and 7730 0w30 for €35, or about $18 for 5 Quarts, labeled as fully synthetic with PAO <=35%, but mainly group III.
Many DIYer use it because of affordable price and fast shipping availability with recent manufacturing date. (<3 months).
In Europe, we have SCT distribution sell Fanfarro/Mannol 10L 504 Oil 7715 5w30 and 7730 0w30 for €35, or about $18 for 5 Quarts, labeled as fully synthetic with PAO <=35%, but mainly group III.
Many DIYer use it because of affordable price and fast shipping availability with recent manufacturing date. (<3 months).
Last edited:
This page intrigued me and make me wonder if we can compare accross different standard.
Lubrizol compares ILSAC 6 vs Dexos1
on the same chart. Probably valid within the same viscosity? or it is valid because of Dexos standard is higher tham ILSAC 6.
https://360.lubrizol.com/Specifications/GM/GM-dexos1
Lubrizol compares ILSAC 6 vs Dexos1
on the same chart. Probably valid within the same viscosity? or it is valid because of Dexos standard is higher tham ILSAC 6.https://360.lubrizol.com/Specifications/GM/GM-dexos1
Last edited:
Similar threads
