Liqui Moly Viscoplus

[Snowy]

What magical qualities do you think semi synthetic possesses that would cause this? Synthetics do not “cause” leaks. They may, however, clean off the accumulated junk on a seal that was already damaged that non-synthetics do not… are you saying that you prefer to leave accumulated deposits from subpar oils in your engine to “seal” leaks, but where they can also cause other problems?

It likely has to do with the inconsistent molecule size of the semi synthetic base oil that "clots" the seals. I never said synthetics "cause" leaks, that is definitely a myth. However, they can let oil leak past worn seals that conventional oil doesnt leak through as readily. This is a phenomenon that others on this forum have discussed. The difference in leaks on my vehicle between synthetic and semi symthetic is night and day. I have tried to switch to synthetic 3 times now and each time I have majorly regretted it.

Also, there are very few accumulated deposits in my engine. The nemco 0w40 is diesel grade and has a very significant detergent package. I have had the oil pan off and there was no sludge, just the tiniest film of oily residue, despite being 30 years/ 270,000km . It is extremely clean under the valve covers, almost spotless. I know the entire oil change history for this vehicle, it ran on mobil1 5w30 from 1993 to 2021 and was always changed on time. So acumulated deposits is not the issue with this engine. The rear main seal stops leaking on conventional or semi symthetic, it isn't "magical", it's just a side effect of the lower quality base oil. I know that my single example doesn't prove anything however I can assure you that switching over to synthetic oil directly correlates with my rear main seal leaking pretty badly, and after switching over to semi synthetic there is only a small drop every couple days.

 

[Snowy]

Not the world’s most ringing endorsement to say something works better than STP or Lucas oil stabilizers, which are proven to be the automotive equivalent of elephant snot. They simply dilute the additive package and use low quality bright stock to achieve their thickening.

Also, it’s highly doubtful that after adding a different mixture to a 0w oil that it would actually retain a 0w rating, especially considering that after use even a straight 0w oil does not stay a 0w when tested (thanks, @kschachn!)… so, do you have some testing from LM or a third party that shows this to be true?

I've done several different used oil analyses for viscosity on the nemco semi synthetic 0w40 comparing the new oil to oil that was ran for 4000km (sheered down to a heavy 0w30 range), 100km after adding the viscoplus (back up to approximately in the range of 0w40) and finally after an additional 4000km (sheered back down to a light 0w40 or thick 0w30). I am not sure if it would still be certifiable as a 0w40 after adding the viscoplus to the sheered oil, because the viscosity tests i received do not test for pour point, however it turns over just as easily on -35 degree mornings as it does before the additive is added, so I'm assuming it doesn't modify the cold flow rating drastically.

 

[kschachn]

I use this additive to replenish the viscosity index improvers in the semi-synthetic 0w40 oil I use which is prone to sheering down long before it has depleted the rest of its additives. It seems to work very well and unlike STP or Lucas stabilizer it uses high quality VII additives to increase the viscosity at operating temps while still retaining cold cranking benefits of the 0W, rather than just thickening up your oil's overall viscosity

This makes no sense, that's not how it works.

And where is your indication that you have a problem with mechanical shear?

 

[Snowy]

This makes no sense, that's not how it works.

If you explain what specifically doesn't make sense maybe I can clarify what you're confused about? Or if I am wrong about something perhaps you could explain? I've confirmed through used oil analysis that this additive restores viscosity loss from sheer, and confirmed through extreme cold start conditons and observation of my oil pressure gauge that it retains its cold performance after adding the additive (it also is very thin when poured out of the bottle at room temperature) so my initial post was what I assumed to be the most logical explanation for how it achieves that. The liqui moly website states that viscoplus contains viscosity index improvers.

And where is your indication that you have a problem with mechanical shear?

Nemco 0W40 Semi-Synthetic

Here's an oil I haven't seen discussed at all on here so thought I'd post my tribology analysis performed by AGAT Labs (Green row is the new oil sample, blue row is my most recent analysis after 4250km). The white row is an analysis where I had experienced fuel dilution and had also added a can...

bobistheoilguy.com

My inidication that I have a problem with mechanical sheer is the oil losing ~20% of its initial viscosity (at 40 celcius and 100 celcius) after 4000 kilometers, with no H20, fuel or glycol present in the oil while still retaining 85% of its intial ZDDP and 80% of its initial TBN. This is the reason no other companies except Nemco manufature a semi-synthetic with such a high viscosity index. Too many VII's needed for it to be anywhere near sheer-stable.

 

[kschachn]

First off, it is "shear" not sheer. And here I believe you are conflating a viscosity deviation from dilution with mechanical shear of the VII despite saying that there is no contamination. What proof do you have of this? Please post the UOA showing conclusively that it is mechanical shear and not dilution.

There is just too much that is inconsistent in your post to even address. If the additive is very thin, how does it restore the viscosity? This makes no sense either.

Your posts sound much more like a half understood advertisement for the product rather than a sound technical analysis.

 

[kschachn]

It likely has to do with the inconsistent molecule size of the semi synthetic base oil that "clots" the seals. I never said synthetics "cause" leaks, that is definitely a myth. However, they can let oil leak past worn seals that conventional oil doesnt leak through as readily. This is a phenomenon that others on this forum have discussed. The difference in leaks on my vehicle between synthetic and semi symthetic is night and day. I have tried to switch to synthetic 3 times now and each time I have majorly regretted it.

Also, there are very few accumulated deposits in my engine. The nemco 0w40 is diesel grade and has a very significant detergent package. I have had the oil pan off and there was no sludge, just the tiniest film of oily residue, despite being 30 years/ 270,000km . It is extremely clean under the valve covers, almost spotless. I know the entire oil change history for this vehicle, it ran on mobil1 5w30 from 1993 to 2021 and was always changed on time. So acumulated deposits is not the issue with this engine. The rear main seal stops leaking on conventional or semi symthetic, it isn't "magical", it's just a side effect of the lower quality base oil. I know that my single example doesn't prove anything however I can assure you that switching over to synthetic oil directly correlates with my rear main seal leaking pretty badly, and after switching over to semi synthetic there is only a small drop every couple days.

This is another indication you don't understand things here, but are posting snippets you've read on the Internet or elsewhere. That's not how oil molecules work.

And the whole worry over "synthetic" vs. "semi-synthetic" is very much blurred since the widespread use of Group III base stocks. Your whole argument is based on stating that two different formulated products using base stocks of the same chemical structure are causing the issue. This isn't how it works. The old days where a predominantly Group IV base stock oil caused leaks is no longer applicable. Synthetic and semi-synthetic oils for the most part have chemically identical base stock molecules. The difference is a higher VI and less saturates.

 

[Snowy]

First off, it is "shear" not sheer. And here I believe you are conflating a viscosity deviation from dilution with mechanical shear of the VII despite saying that there is no contamination. What proof do you have of this? Please post the UOA showing conclusively that it is mechanical shear and not dilution.

There is just too much that is inconsistent in your post to even address. If the additive is very thin, how does it restore the viscosity? This makes no sense either.

Your posts sound much more like a half understood advertisement for the product rather than a sound technical analysis.

I literally linked the UOA in the post you're replying that shows no dilution, so if you can't even bother to look what I'm posting it's obvious that you're just here to be argumentative. Seems like you just want to stay focused on semantics like my spelling rather than what I'm actually saying.

Also, you clearly don't know how viscosity index improvers work if you're saying something like this:

If the additive is very thin, how does it restore the viscosity?

Im not going to bother arguing with you since you've demonstrated your lack of understanding on this topic. Try googling the basics before acting like you're an expert

 

[Snowy]

This is another indication you don't understand things here, but are posting snippets you've read on the Internet or elsewhere. That's not how oil molecules work.

And the whole worry over "synthetic" vs. "semi-synthetic" is very much blurred since the widespread use of Group III base stocks. Your whole argument is based on stating that two different formulated products using base stocks of the same chemical structure are causing the issue. This isn't how it works. The old days where a predominantly Group IV base stock oil caused leaks is no longer applicable. Synthetic and semi-synthetic oils for the most part have chemically identical base stock molecules. The difference is a higher VI and less saturates.

Once again thats not at all what I'm saying. You clearly don't have an explanation for why the leaks are significantly less on semi synthetic and just want to be negative so I'm going to disregard your claims and continue to go off of the explanation that actually has science to back it up. Nice job completely derailing this thread btw, we've been off topic for almost a full page at this point

 

[kschachn]

I literally linked the UOA in the post you're replying that shows no dilution, so if you can't even bother to look what I'm posting it's obvious that you're just here to be argumentative. Seems like you just want to stay focused on semantics like my spelling rather than what I'm actually saying.

Also, you clearly don't know how viscosity index improvers work if you're saying something like this:

Im not going to bother arguing with you since you've demonstrated your lack of understanding on this topic. Try googling the basics before acting like you're an expert

What method of determining fuel dilution is being used in that UOA you linked? That was the basis for my question.

You can quit this discussion if you wish but I'd rather continue it on a technical basis.

 

[kschachn]

Once again thats not at all what I'm saying. You clearly don't have an explanation for why the leaks are significantly less on semi synthetic and just want to be negative so I'm going to disregard your claims and continue to go off of the explanation that actually has science to back it up. Nice job completely derailing this thread btw, we've been off topic for almost a full page at this point

The problem I have is with what is the difference between a semi-synthetic and a synthetic. You can disregard what I asked or noted if you wish.

 

[OVERKILL]

I literally linked the UOA in the post you're replying that shows no dilution, so if you can't even bother to look what I'm posting it's obvious that you're just here to be argumentative. Seems like you just want to stay focused on semantics like my spelling rather than what I'm actually saying.

There are typically two methods used to determine fuel dilution:
1. Inference from flashpoint
2. Gas chromatography

Blackstone, the most common lab used on this board uses the former, and their fuel figures are wildly incorrect. Do you know what method this lab used? Because your two samples show rather significant differences in fuel percentage.

Also, you clearly don't know how viscosity index improvers work if you're saying something like this:

VII polymers look like a solid block of plastic at room temperature. They have to be shredded to be blended, I highly recommend the video shown here:

High Speed Dissolving of Viscosity Index Improvers in Luboils - US

Products with a large volume of VII polymer in them (Lucas Oil Stabilizer and STP for example) are extremely thick.

Im not going to bother arguing with you since you've demonstrated your lack of understanding on this topic. Try googling the basics before acting like you're an expert

He's quite knowledgeable, though comes off a bit abrasive. He's trying to make you explain things to get a read on how much you understand.

 

[OVERKILL]

Once again thats not at all what I'm saying. You clearly don't have an explanation for why the leaks are significantly less on semi synthetic and just want to be negative so I'm going to disregard your claims and continue to go off of the explanation that actually has science to back it up. Nice job completely derailing this thread btw, we've been off topic for almost a full page at this point

The term "synthetic" when referring to the discussion of modern base oils is, with most generally available oils, just speaking to the level of hydrocracking the feed stock is subjected too. A group II (conventional) base is derived from the same process as a group III (synthetic) base, it's just the severity of the treatment, which in turn dictates the VI of the finished product that then slots it into one or the other group.

For example, Mobil's EHC Group II+ bases are just ever so slightly below the VI threshold to be classified as Group III, so they are "conventional" bases. Solvent refined Group I and II bases are no longer commonly used because they simply cannot meet the performance requirements.

PAO, which is the "man made" base oil constructed from building blocks derived from an ethylene feed stock, which has the "perfectly uniform" molecular structure (what you are referring to) is not used by most manufacturers due to its cost. Mobil uses it in some of their 0W-40's, in limited quantities, as does Castrol. Shell doesn't use it, Petro-Canada doesn't use it, can't remember off the top of my head if Valvoline does anymore, but it is generally avoided if possible due to the added cost of not only the base itself but the supporting chemistry to offset its seal-shrink tendency, which involves other expensive bases like AN's and esters, which add to the overall blending cost and complexity of the blend/formula.

I didn't see it mentioned, but what "full synthetic" did you try that you had leaks with? I actually had M1 FS 0W-40 stop some seepage I had on my M5, this was likely due to the AN or ester content, which has a seal conditioning effect.

 

[FMC]

I emailed Liqui Moly and asked them how much of a viscosity increase would occur with adding Viscoplus to 5 quarts of 0W20 oil, this is their response...

"Our Viscoplus for Oil does not increase the viscosity of motor oil, it stabilizes the viscosity at hot temperatures and helps to keep the oil consumption at the lowest level."


What are your thoughts on this ?

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

I emailed Liqui Moly and asked them how much of a viscosity increase would occur with adding Viscoplus to 5 quarts of 0W20 oil, this is their response...

"Our Viscoplus for Oil does not increase the viscosity of motor oil, it stabilizes the viscosity at hot temperatures and helps to keep the oil consumption at the lowest level."


What are your thoughts on this ?

@MolaKule may have an idea.