Mainstream 5w30 Synthetic Specification Comparison

[Ron AKA]

Thought I would do a comparison of the readily available synthetics in this common grade. More accurately the ones selected were based on what I can buy at Walmart, including their house brand TECH2000 (which most seem to think is PetroCan Synthetic). Sorry to the Havoline fans. It is available at Walmart but I could find no specs on the oil. My thoughts on those in the table:

PetroCan Synthetic (TECH2000?)- Very good all around oil which seems to excel in cold cranking viscosity (CCV) and borderline pumping viscosity (MRV) despite not having a great pour point.

Castrol Syntec - Not SM/GF-4 according to posted specs. Flash point not great. Who knows what the rest of it means as they seem to be just posting standard grade specs and not their oil performance. No good reason to select this one.

Quaker State - Seems generally ok, except for the poor CCS and MRV. Would avoid at least in Canadian winters.

Mobil 1 - Would seem to be the best all around choice in the group, except for the unknown CCS and MRV. Based on the heavier than average viscosity for this grade and the average VI, I would expect CCS and MRV to be poorer than the PetroCan. But, unless they test and give you the numbers, who knows?

Pennzoil Platinum - Who knows what is going on with this oil? Their specs make no sense. However based on what is there it is a very average oil. I would rate it no better than the middle of the pack. Poor CCS and MRV.

Best Choice? Perhaps it is TECH2000 in winter and Mobil 1 in summer? Or, if cost is an important factor, just TECH2000?

 

[dave1251]

Ron you went to some trouble setting this up and posting this info thanks. It will be intresting to see how this oils hold up to real world operations. But based on this I like PetroCan. Too bad I don't live farther north.

 

[Nebraskan]

Hi Ron, Excellent!

This is a sniplet from Amsoil 5w30 for comparisons also. I know it is not at Wal-Mart, but seems around here I find more Amsoil dealers than Wal-Marts!!

API SERVICE: SM/CF (actually they say exceeds)
ILSAC: (unknown)
FLASH POINT C° (ASTM D-92) 228
POUR POINT C° (ASTM D-97) -50
Viscosity @40°C,cSt (ASTM D-445) 57.3
Viscosity @100°C,cSt (ASTM D-445) 10.6
Viscosity Index (ASTM D-2270) 178
CCS Viscosity @ -30°C, cP (ASTM D2602) 5154
HT/HS Viscosity (ASTM D-4683 @ 150°C) 3.2
Total Base Number 12.2*

*This is not on Ron's above specs of other oils.

 

[Pablo]

Thanks for posting the data.

Two things spring out:

as mentioned by dave, real life performance is so different from numbers

and I am really starting to doubt Petrocan's CCS numbers. What is the NOACK Volatility on this oil?

 

[Ron AKA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pablo:
and I am really starting to doubt Petrocan's CCS numbers. What is the NOACK Volatility on this oil?

---

Petrocan claim to use a two stage hydrocrack process, which uses HydroIsomerization dewaxing instead of conventional refrigeration dewaxing. Here are the benefits they claim for it. Possibly the reason for the the good low temperature performance. Unfortunately they don't publish the NOACK.

"Petro-Canada employs HydroIsomerization dewaxing in conjunction with HT Severe Hydrocracking and as a result its base oils have the following attractive features:

• Very High Viscosity Index (100 to 130)
• Low Volatility
• Superior Oxidation Resistance
• High Thermal Stability
• Excellent Low Temperature Fluidity
• Low Toxicity

These features give performance characteristics very similar to lubricants based on poly-alpha-olefin (PAO), a type of synthetic."

 

[Pablo]

I'm pretty sure Amsoil uses Petro-Canada Grp III base oils for the XL line and while cold temp properties are pretty good, those are amazing.

 

[Blue99]

Petro-Canada uses the Chevron licensed hydro-cracking & hydrofinishing process for Grp III's and makes a high quality Grp III base oil.

Grp III's will exhibit very good low temp performance when mixed with additives.

I believe that the .845 specific gravity of the Petro-Canada 5w30, lowest of any major brands, is a tip-off that this product is blended for good low temp performance.

Petro-Canada Synthetic PDS Sheet

 

[pmt]

What is most surprising to me about the data in this charts is how high CCS @ -30 C is on so many 5w30 SM synthetic oils - typically 5000 - 6000. Mobil 1 5w30 SL oil back a couple years ago, as listed in Mobil data sheets, showed CCS @ -30 C to be 3600. I have used that number as a bench mark to compare other 5w30 oils against for use in Minnesota winters.
But the latest Mobil M1 and Mobil 1 Extended Performance data sheets do not list CCS performance - possibly because their latest versions (SM) have higher CCS?
Strangely, Mobil data sheets for their current SM rated "non-synthetic" oils do list CCS numbers.

 

[TooSlick]

It's a matter of tradeoffs....

If you optimize the low temp pumping capability, by using lower molecular basestocks, then thermal stability at high temps tends to suffer. This results in increased oil consumption and deposit formation and generally increased wear.

The spec limit for 0w-xx grades is 6200 Cp @ -35C/-31F. If you really need stellar cold temp performance and switch to a thicker oil for summer, I'd go that route....

TS

 

[pmt]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
It's a matter of tradeoffs....

If you optimize the low temp pumping capability, by using lower molecular basestocks, then thermal stability at high temps tends to suffer. This results in increased oil consumption and deposit formation and generally increased wear.

The spec limit for 0w-xx grades is 6200 Cp @ -35C/-31F. If you really need stellar cold temp performance and switch to a thicker oil for summer, I'd go that route....

TS

---

Thanks TS - as I've watched the CCS on SM 5w30 synthetic oils creep up, I have come to pretty much the same conclusion - for really reliable cranking at extreme low temperatures I probably should start buying 0w30 or 0W-20 oil for mid winter. And if the oil consumption goes up a little, just live with it.
pmt

 

[GMZ]

Wow that alot of info to collate. Good on you for doing that. Syntec really seems to be a black sheep of the syns. I love the stuff, have great used oil analysis. I am really tempted to try out M1 to see what all the hooplah is about. I have a new 4 Runner (since 30mi) so I want to pick one syn and stick with it once I hit 10K. M1 is tempting me! Seems there are alot of folks with consumtion issues with M1, while I and my father both ahve had none what so ever with Syntec in several cars (2 350Z's among them)

 

[Rodbuckler]

I wouldn't discount the Castrol Syntec 5w30 so quickly. It apparently is a group III/V blend with a highly effective full dose of Lubrizol additive package. The lowest recent wear numbers in the used oil analysis section are with this oil. The Syntec will also keep the engine spotlessly clean, gives a nice smooth feel to the engine, and stands up well to street performance driving.

A few used oil analysis:
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=003709
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=003645
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=003534

 

[Ron AKA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
It's a matter of tradeoffs....

If you optimize the low temp pumping capability, by using lower molecular basestocks, then thermal stability at high temps tends to suffer. This results in increased oil consumption and deposit formation and generally increased wear.

The spec limit for 0w-xx grades is 6200 Cp @ -35C/-31F. If you really need stellar cold temp performance and switch to a thicker oil for summer, I'd go that route....

TS

---

If find it interesting to compare the properties of the base oil that PetroCan uses to the final oil. See base oil detail below. Obviously they are still using signifcant VI improvment additives, and pour point depressants. That perhaps is where the differences come in.

 

[GMZ]

quote:

---

I wouldn't discount the Castrol Syntec 5w30 so quickly. It apparently is a group III/V blend with a highly effective full dose of Lubrizol additive package. The lowest recent wear numbers in the used oil analysis section are with this oil. The Syntec will also keep the engine spotlessly clean, gives a nice smooth feel to the engine, and stands up well to street performance driving.

---

Haha! Yea I know! That last one of the 350Z is mine

Those werent Sunday drives either if you catch my drift! I had a run in with a very nice and very fast 911 Turbo, I got a good look at the back @ 140mph

Its hard to argue with Toyota 1GR-FE + M1 though isnt it?

 

[georgiablue]

fyi, only PP calculates flash point with ASTM D-92. the others use ASTM D-93. different test methods, although i don't know what the differences are. verify that the methods used for all the specs you listed are consistent across products. flash point definitely is not in the case of PP.

 

[Ron AKA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by georgiablue:
fyi, only PP calculates flash point with ASTM D-92. the others use ASTM D-93. different test methods, although i don't know what the differences are. verify that the methods used for all the specs you listed are consistent across products. flash point definitely is not in the case of PP.

---

I checked all the data sheets I have handy and all list ASTM 92 as the standard for flash point, except for one by Pennzoil which says 93. I have others from Pennzoil that say 92. Unfortunately I copied the one that says 93 when starting my spreadsheet for the 0w30 oils and corrected that for the 5w30. I actually think Pennzoil may have made a mistake quoting the 93, and that is not the correct standard. Also that whole data sheet for Pennzoil dated July 06 is very suspicious. Perhaps it is a new standard and everyone else is behind..... or Pennzoil are just mixed up these days.

 

[georgiablue]

you're right, i got it backwards. but still, a flash point that low for PP would be unheard of for a synthetic oil, so we must not be comparing apples to apples.

 

[Tom NJ]

Just FYI, The ASTM D92 method, also known as the Cleveland Open Cup method, is the one most commonly used for lubricating oils. The oil is heated in a standardized open brass cup at a prescribed rate and a small flame is passed over the top of the cup every five degrees F. The temperature at which a flash is observed on the oil surface is the "flash point". If you continue the test until the oil sustains a continuous flame for five seconds, then you have the 'fire point".

ASTM D93 is the Pensky-Martens Closed Cup method. It is similar to the D92 COC method but the cup is closed and the oil stirred. D93 is generally used for products having lower flash points such as solvents and fuel, and tends to give lower results than D92 when the same product is run on both.

Bear in mind when comparing flash point data that the test has a wide reproducibility, +- 15F. In other words, if an oil gives a flash point of 400F in one lab, and the same oil reads 430F in another lab, this is considered a good check. Judging oils by their flash point is not very meaningful as the test is not very accurate, and some companies report the average FP on their data sheets while others may report the highest results. If you are trying to compare volatility, NOACK is a better method.

 

[Ron AKA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom NJ:
If you are trying to compare volatility, NOACK is a better method.

---

Good information, and I would agree. Issue is however, that not many give the NOACK, but most do quote a flash point.

 

[Tom NJ]

One other point -- volatility, whether measured by flash point or NOACK, is mainly an issue for the catalytic converter. It has little effect on oil consumption which is mostly a function of engine design, oil burning and leaks. Very little oil is lost to evaporation under normal driving conditions.