Climate change/global warming. Minus 42C is the old -60C.
M1 0W40 FS (updated formula) vs PPE 5W40 (API SP)
- Thread starter elansprint
- Start date
API SP version. But the pour point have nothing to do with the performance of the oil.
Maybe, but it speaks to a correlation of PAO content in the base.
And? An oil either meets certain approvals/certifications or it doesn't and for two oils that both meet stringent approvals/certs, regardless of their constituent components, you can expect no meaningful difference in their performance.
Understood. The question asked was what changed in the lower pour point now, not if the oil performed better/worse.
Maybe? Flash and pour point are only important when you transporting the product. Rest i agree with you
I think so as well, they have a range on the safety data sheet, so with the decrease there has to be less of it.
about 20% less
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
The current SDS shows 30-40% PAO, that's an increase, the previous SDS was 10-20% PAO. I assume they are just using heavier GTL for the other half.
Probably HTHS went up, around 3.8. Good for me
So that could/would account for the higher pour point? Sounds like a non-issue when related to PAO content. I'm with edy, if the heavier cut of PAO results in an increase in HTHS, it's good for me too. I'm not too worried about pour point for strictly temperature reasons, won't ever be living anywhere near were temps get that cold. Even remotely that cold
.Plus it still has the same winter rating for cranking and pumpability which is what's important.So that could/would account for the higher pour point? Sounds like a non-issue when related to PAO content. I'm with edy, if the heavier cut of PAO results in an increase in HTHS, it's good for me too. I'm not too worried about pour point for strictly temperature reasons, won't ever be living anywhere near were temps get that cold. Even remotely that cold
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yeah, if it's using a heavier base oil blend, that's going to bring up the pour point. As @kschachn noted, because it still has to pass the same CCS and MRV requirements, it's a non-issue.So that could/would account for the higher pour point? Sounds like a non-issue when related to PAO content. I'm with edy, if the heavier cut of PAO results in an increase in HTHS, it's good for me too. I'm not too worried about pour point for strictly temperature reasons, won't ever be living anywhere near were temps get that cold. Even remotely that cold
It's not possible that PAO is the same and there was some other change to one of the other base oils to account for the change in pour point? That's my point, they could've changed other components besides PAO content and unless you have some evidence you can't definitively say a higher pour point means less PAO. In the end, as long as it meets certs/approvals/winter rating, there's little value in guessing what was or wasn't changed because it doens't really matter.
https://www.mobil.com/en/sap/our-products/products/mobil-1-0w-40Probably HTHS went up, around 3.8. Good for me
same HTHS
No kidding? There is ZERO argument here. But it has been traditionally noted a decrease in PAO has raised pour point. Nowadays, manufacturers and blenders are varying different constituents to make an oil that economically meets it's performance/cert/approval goals, but results in different specs like pour point against traditional reasoning as to why.
But your last sentence was the most profound
.
Hmm, that is poor result for KV100.
What would be a respectable one? Just curious to which 0w/40 or 5w/40 you’d go for!
Generally, 13.5 gives HTHS around 3.7-3.9. Motul X-Cess I have in BMW now has KV100 of 13.5 and HTHS of 3.8.
Castrol Edge 0W40 has KV100 13.1 and HTHS of 3.7.
Of 0W40, I would go with Castrol 0W40, although my favorite is still Castrol Edge 0W30.
Of 5W40 oils? Motul or Pennzoil. Pennzoil is 13.1 and HTHS is around 3.88.
I used Mobil1 0W40 extensively, but this HTHS is really poor.
Similar threads
