M1 FS 0W-40, M1 FS 5W-40, D1 ESP 5W-40 Volatility Results - March 2025

[RDY4WAR]

NOACK (volatility in general) isn't directly correlative with oil consumption. In some cases, particularly those where ring seal is subpar, a higher viscosity base oil, (which would be less volatile) boasting a higher HTHS as well, can lead to more oil transport past the rings into the chamber.

 

[paulri]

Would the converse be true also--that if a higher grade oil results in less oil consumption, that the issue isn't the ring seal?

I'm asking, because I've found that all 3 cars in my sig have reduced oil consumption when I switched to thicker oil.

NOACK (volatility in general) isn't directly correlative with oil consumption. In some cases, particularly those where ring seal is subpar, a higher viscosity base oil, (which would be less volatile) boasting a higher HTHS as well, can lead to more oil transport past the rings into the chamber.

 

[TiGeo]

How would Rotella 5W40 do in this vs. the Euro oils texted here?

 

[Glenda W.]

How would Rotella 5W40 do in this vs. the Euro oils texted here?

 

[TiGeo]

View attachment 271120

Yeah I know it's foamy like a good cappuccino

 

[4WD]

Delvac 15W40

 

[RDY4WAR]

We have to keep in mind that this isn't representative of oil evaporation in an engine. There's many factors that affect evaporation other than just temperature. In the engine's crankcase, you have windage/churning, constant flow of air through the crankcase via PCV (removing vapors that makes room for more vapors), greater surface area, "misting" of the oil as it splashes, etc... An oil that foams easier is expected to give a worse result in the actual engine than it will in Noack alone as that foam affects surface area and tension as well as spiking the oil temperature. This increase in solutocapillary flow (see: marangoni principle) will increase the rate of evaporation. Noack attempts to recreate this with a constant flow of air, but it can't replicate it entirely. TGA can replicate it better than Noack can. (which is why HPL uses TGA) Just heating a sample in an oven with blocked air flow is only testing one variable out of a dozen variables of evaporation.

 

[OilUzer]

NOACK (volatility in general) isn't directly correlative with oil consumption. In some cases, particularly those where ring seal is subpar, a higher viscosity base oil, (which would be less volatile) boasting a higher HTHS as well, can lead to more oil transport past the rings into the chamber.

Also seems like some engines do better with certain brands even if same viscosity grades and spec/approvals ... but as far as OP test, you would think it should correlate with the Noack numbers! No?

 

[JAG]

Also seems like some engines do better with certain brands even if same viscosity grades and spec/approvals ... but as far as OP test, you would think it should correlate with the Noack numbers! No?

In some of my other threads of volatility tests, I discuss calculating the Noack value, based on one of the oils having known Noack, and multiplying that by the ratio of another oil’s weight loss to the weight loss of the oil with known Noack. It has usually been quite accurate. I was able to evaluate accuracy by doing it with two oils with known Noack.

By the way, QS’s PDS for the extinct QS UD 10W-30 says Noack is 5%. My jug is many years old and the oil has consistently shown volatility well below that. I suspect that either some of the more volatile ingredients have already evaporated and/or some oxidation has occurred, which enlarges molecules. Both would decrease the volatility.

 

[tired]

I'd just like to understand.

Does M1 FS mean this:

Or this:

Then, what is the BITOG abbreviation for this:

 

[4WD]

I'd just like to understand.

Does M1 FS mean this:

View attachment 271256

Or this:

View attachment 271257


Then, what is the BITOG abbreviation for this:

View attachment 271258

Full SAPS?

 

[4WD]

https://www.thebestoil.com/product/european-car-formula-0w-40-full-saps-synthetic-motor-oil/

 

[JAG]

UPDATE. I heated the hours for an additional 8 hours, rotating their position every hour. So they have been heated for a total of 12 hours. The last 8 hours are for testing the resistance to forming deposit precursors. Deposit precursors in these types of tests are agglomerations of relatively high molecular weight molecules. They look like blobs. The first pictures shows an extreme example of deposit precursors from a different test.

Best to worst in terms of deposit precursors: QS UD, M1 FS 5W-40 ~= D1 5W-40 ESP, M1 FS 0W-40. Let me know if you can’t see the blobs, so I can add arrows to them in the pictures.

M1 FS 0W-40 has round deposit precursors as well as a very large one with a curve shape that can be seen in the upper left part of the picture.

At room temperature, after the oils were tilted for the photographing, I leveled the oils and observed how long each took to cover the entire bottom of the cup. QS UD did it fastest, D1 was second fastest, M1 0W-40 was well behind D1, and M1 5W-40 was slowest. There was a portion that it didn’t cover even after 30 seconds. That tends to happen when polar molecules (deposit precursors or deposits) there repel the less polar oil that wants to flow there.

The oils are in the freezer now to see if the cold temperatures will cause additional deposit precursors to form, due to decreased solubility.

Notice the darkness of the steel disks and copper in the M1 and D1 oils, compared to in QS UD.

 

[tired]

What in the Project Farm are we looking at here?

Just kidding, this is interesting.

I can't see the blobs though.

 

[JAG]

The deposit precursors are easier to see with a decent sized monitor than a phone. I circled them.

Exposing the oils to the freezer for around 10 hours did not cause a noticeable growth of the blobs, in size or quantity. Exposure to the cold garage in the winter for several weeks did cause blob growth with some oils from past similar tests, including the gnarly first picture in this thread.

 

[tired]

Thank you. I was looking in the wrong spot (the collection of the oil in the bottom of the cup).

 

[JAG]

Compared to the last set of pictures, those in those post differ by the oils being heated 1 more hour. So this is after 13 hours. The degradation appears to have accelerated, which is a known phenomenon. As the antioxidants get too depleted, the reaction rates spike. QS UD now has some blobs. D1 has lost so much oil that it is becoming grease-like in viscosity, so I’m removing it from further testing. All of the oils have significant deposits on the sides of the cups, especially the two M1 oils. The three remaining oils are now headed toward 14 hours of heating.

 

[JAG]

Going another hour, to 14, had dramatically bad effects on the two M1 oils, especially 0W-40. It has lost so much base oil that it has a wrinkled surface. M1 5W-40 has lost less base oil than M1 0W-40, but it does appear to be in worse shape than, in terms of consistency than D1 was at Hour 13. The two M1 oils have similar amounts of deposits on sides of the cups, though it is more evenly distributed with the 0W-40. Meanwhile, QS UD still looks like motor oil, it flows like oil, the deposit precursors (blobs) are moderate in quantity/size, and there deposits on the sides of the cup are much less than with the M1 oils.

Some points to summarize:
1. QS UD lasted significantly longer than the other three oils before deposit precursors formed.
2. QS UD formed less deposits on the cup side walls than the other oils.
3. Past tests of QS UD, which is API SN+, alongside QS UP API SP showed that the latter were significantly better in terms of oxidizing and resistance to forming deposits. This makes the results of M1 and D1 especially not impressive in a relative sense, since they were soundly beat by QS UD. A more accurate interpretation might be that M1 and D1 performed ok but not great and that these QS oils (QS UD and UP) are just very impressive. I think that is the more accurate statement, based on all of the past oxidation/deposit tests I’ve done. QS Euro 5W-40 API SP has also performed very well in this regard.
4. Rankings in terms of resistance to turning into grease-like consistency: QS UD >> M1 5W-40 > M1 0W-40 > D1 5W-40 ESP. This is also the same ranking in terms of lowest volatility, not surprisingly. However, the volatility is not the only factor. Chemical reactions occurred, some of which enlarged molecules, and others that split molecules. Those individually increased and decreased viscosity, but the net effect is generally a viscosity increase from heat-induced chemical reactions at these temperatures.

 

[tired]

Is QS Ultimate Protection the same formulation as UD?

Edit: nevermind. Answered here.

 

[JAG]

After ending the test, I poured virgin oil into each cup and they sat until this morning. I stirred the mixtures, then drained the oils. The two M1 oils have a lot of insolubles left behind, while QS Ultimate Durability 10W-30 has almost none. The pictures are not as revealing as my eyes are. M1 0W-40 FS has roughly twice as much insolubles volume as M1 5W-40 FS does. The difference in amount of insolubles between the two M1 oils and QS UD is huge. I did not include a picture of D1 5W-40 ESP because it was not tested as long as the others, but the amount of insolubles is similar to what QS UD’s cup has.