J300 standard question

[OilUzer]

Why is it not allowed to label a 5Wx30 oil as 10Wx30?

For example from what I understand, a synthetic 0Wx30 has a good (or better) base stock to meet the 0W part. Theoretically 30 is 30 ... and you get a better W rating with 0W than a 5W or 10W and according to many posts on bitog, 0Wx30 is a better oil than 10Wx30 ... so why not allow 0Wx30 be labeled as 5Wx30 or 10Wx30?

Assuming the oil companies want to that to begin with since my guess is its cheaper (not in stores however) to make 10Wx30 than 0W or 5Wx30 but putting that aside for now ...

Are we compromising using 5Wx30 where we can use 10Wx30?
Based on bitog posts that doesn't seem to be the case!

Why doesn't J300 drop the "must pass 10W and fail 5W" to be a 10W? if it passes 0W (ccs, mrv, etc.) then it can obviously pass 5W or 10W! The more I read bitog the more I come to this conclusion ...

Was J300 written in old days and not updated?

 

[vq35de_touring]

Wait, does 0w even exist?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: OilUzer
Was J300 written in old days and not updated?


J300 was written in 1911 and obviously it's updated many times.

 

[OilUzer]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: OilUzer
Was J300 written in old days and not updated?


J300 was written in 1911 and obviously it's updated many times.


Sounds like it may need another update

I can see for higher up W's (15, 25, etc.) That cSt gap gets wider and needs separation ... However for typical auto (0, 5, 10w range) according to what I read on bitog, it's kind of not very significant!

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: OilUzer
Are we compromising using 5Wx30 where we can use 10Wx30?
Based on bitog posts that doesn't seem to be the case!

Think of the horror that would arise here if BITOGers found out their 10w-30 options which they chose for nominal reasons of shear stability actually turned out to be a 5w-30. As it stands, the rule makes sense to me. Otherwise, why not just label everything as a "30 grade" and have labeling akin to some of the PQIA Wall of Shame entries?

 

[OilUzer]

I recently compared M1 EP 5Wx30 and 10Wx30 and KV100 of 5Wx30 is 10.6 and it is 0.4 higher than that of 10Wx30.
HTHS is almost the same 3.0 vs. 3.1
VI of 5Wx30 is also obviously better 169 vs. 147

Edit:
5Wx30 also listed few more passing or exceeding standards!

 

[OilUzer]

Originally Posted By: vq35de_touring
Wait, does 0w even exist?

I remember one of my math teachers talked about 0 and infinity for a long time! Everyone fell asleep

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: OilUzer
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: OilUzer
Was J300 written in old days and not updated?


J300 was written in 1911 and obviously it's updated many times.


Sounds like it may need another update

I can see for higher up W's (15, 25, etc.) That cSt gap gets wider and needs separation ... However for typical auto (0, 5, 10w range) according to what I read on bitog, it's kind of not very significant!


No, there's reasons for them to do what they do...

A Newtonian straight grade (eg SAE30), with no viscosity index improvers can be labelled as either a monograde, multigrade, or both.


An oil WITH VII must be labelled to the lowest "W" rating that the oil achieves...and cannot be labelled as an SAE30 (typically HDMO).

The wider spreads have some disadvatages including shear, deposits, volatility etc. So there's no good reason to allow a 0W30 to be labelled all the way through to 25W30 because it better all of those tests. Same as being "over 6' tall" by definition means that you also meet the requirements for being 5', 4', 3', 2', and 1'...you are never between 4' and 5' (a range) when you are outside it.

 

[OilUzer]

I see your point, however I keep reading in many threads that people recommend use of 0Wx30 or 5Wx30 over 10Wx30 or recommend 0Wx30 over 5Wx30.
Typical logic is that 0W or 5W has a better base oil and it is still a 30 weight and you get better cold temperature performance ...

I also checked a few oils and see noack, vt100 and hths very similar between all (I listed some numbers above). Also for example 5wx30 lists few more passing/exceeding standards over 10Wx30!

It's getting to a point that I may give a 0Wx30 a try mainly due to its better base oil!

I was thinking if the trend continues, the consumer may no longer care about the minor? differences between 0W, 5W and 10W and J300 may have to adopt in this (0 thru 10W) area!

Not long ago, I wanted 7.5W but let's not talk about that! I've since been brainwashed!

 

[Shannow]

If you need to start at -30, or -40C, then you get the better "cold temperature performance" of a 0W or 5W.

If you start here in Oz, you don't get any difference in "Cold Temperature performance" than with a 10W or 15W.

You'll have more standards with a 5W, as things like Dexos don't even include 10W anything to start with.

As to "Better VI"...to me, a higher VI is only "better" if it doesn't come full of VII plastics.

 

[Cressida]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
As to "Better VI"...to me, a higher VI is only "better" if it doesn't come full of VII plastics.


What does one watch for, or how do you know, if it has the high VII that you mention. Don't they usually just list the VI for a given oil?

 

[kschachn]

The other aspect to this is that there is a specification and you need to report how the material performed in regards to that specification. You don't report an answer you'd "like" it to be, or one that you'd "prefer" it to be. You report the results as defined in the material specification.

Either that or you make up your own reporting designation.

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted By: OilUzer
I recently compared M1 EP 5Wx30 and 10Wx30 and KV100 of 5Wx30 is 10.6 and it is 0.4 higher than that of 10Wx30.
HTHS is almost the same 3.0 vs. 3.1
VI of 5Wx30 is also obviously better 169 vs. 147

Edit:
5Wx30 also listed few more passing or exceeding standards!



The VI of a finished oil is some what meaningless.

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: OilUzer
Are we compromising using 5Wx30 where we can use 10Wx30?
Based on bitog posts that doesn't seem to be the case!

Think of the horror that would arise here if BITOGers found out their 10w-30 options which they chose for nominal reasons of shear stability actually turned out to be a 5w-30. As it stands, the rule makes sense to me. Otherwise, why not just label everything as a "30 grade" and have labeling akin to some of the PQIA Wall of Shame entries?
I haven't looked at numbers for a while but the 10w numbers are different in the cold end as compared to the 5W

 

[ZeeOSix]

Here's a good article on SAE J300 - LINK

 

[CR94]

Originally Posted By: Cressida
Originally Posted By: Shannow
As to "Better VI"...to me, a higher VI is only "better" if it doesn't come full of VII plastics.
What does one watch for, or how do you know, if it has the high VII that you mention. Don't they usually just list the VI for a given oil?
You rely on hints and rumors in BITOG, since the manufacturer doesn't reveal that info (except somewhat in the MSDS).

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: Cressida
Originally Posted By: Shannow
As to "Better VI"...to me, a higher VI is only "better" if it doesn't come full of VII plastics.
What does one watch for, or how do you know, if it has the high VII that you mention. Don't they usually just list the VI for a given oil?
You rely on hints and rumors in BITOG, since the manufacturer doesn't reveal that info (except somewhat in the MSDS).


You can use A Harman's technique to see how far the oil varies from a Newtonian (VII free) oil.

But when you see 220VIs, you just know that they are heavily influenced.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
If you start here in Oz, you don't get any difference in "Cold Temperature performance" than with a 10W or 15W.

Not to mention you guys can probably find A3/B3 and A1/B1 and so forth in your neck of the woods in 10w-30. Here, if you want something that's beyond SN/GF-5 in a 30, one is likely going to be getting a 0w-30 or a 5w-30.

CT8: Absolutely. Yes, by the very definition, a 5w-XX will have better cold cranking and MRV numbers than a 10w-XX. A 5w-XX in ILSAC will leapfrog the requirements even more over a 5w-XX A3/B4, and the same would probably hold over an ILSAC 10w-30 versus a 10w-30 HDEO, for that matter.

Basically, things like dexos1, dexos2, and most European OEM specs end up making it pretty essential that an oil be a 0w-XX or a 5w-XX in the first place, whether or not it's a low or high HTHS product in the end. The oil companies' marketing position in North America makes it even worse, where I can't think of any 10w-XX Euro OEM approved oils other than that BMW 10w-60 product.

 

[OilUzer]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: Cressida
Originally Posted By: Shannow
As to "Better VI"...to me, a higher VI is only "better" if it doesn't come full of VII plastics.
What does one watch for, or how do you know, if it has the high VII that you mention. Don't they usually just list the VI for a given oil?
You rely on hints and rumors in BITOG, since the manufacturer doesn't reveal that info (except somewhat in the MSDS).


You can use A Harman's technique to see how far the oil varies from a Newtonian (VII free) oil.

But when you see 220VIs, you just know that they are heavily influenced.


I agree that high vi thing is overrated! If you are comparing for example synthetic vs. conventional and since synthetics have a higher natural vi then I can see the higher is better theory ...

correct me if I am wrong, but in general and mathematically speaking, in the same oil familly, a 5Wx30 will (should) have a higher vi (flatter cSt curve) than a 10Wx30. So what? The higher is better is irrelevant in this case. Because we are not comparing the same weight oil and for the given xW application, lower vi also means lower vm(vii) and that would be a good thing!

The part that I am somewhat confused is that some say 0Wx30 has a better base oil (pao, higher group, etc.) and is naturally better to use over 10Wx30 (or even 5Wx30) and 0Wx30 vi in this case is higher and better in a sense that it is more of a "natural" high and not enhanced as much by vm and that there are no other compromises (hths, kv100, noack, etc.)
Don't 10Wx30's typically have the worst base oil!? idk

That was the root of my J300 question that seems like 0Wx30 (or 5Wx30) can substitute for 10Wx30 and 0Wx30 can even substitute 5Wx30 without much compromise and you gain a better base oil.
idk, maybe there are more factors involved besides that. I am still researching 0Wx30 or 0Wx40...

Having said that, I can see that the standard is the standard. If there is eventually no demand for a product, they (product and standard/spec) will eventually be obsolete.

Edit:
KV100 and not VT100

 

[Garak]

Remember what happens, too, with other, non-ILSAC regimes. Similar to the A3/B4 thing, if you look at HDEOs, you can get a 10w-30 which is nominally conventional and called for in many owners' manuals. The 5w-30 HDEOs are a little more rare, and wind up being synthetic, generally speaking, like the one I'm using. People are grade sensitive at times, and follow the manuals. Some people certainly are uncomfortable using a 5w-30 HDEO, despite the number of builder approvals.