MPT Thirty-K / true synthetic ester/pao motor oils

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
12,968
Location
Northern Kentucky
I think this has been talked about here before but can't find any threads with the Google machine. I think this stuff is overkill for most everything, but it looks amazing.

http://www.mptindustries.com/mpt_products/automotive.htm



Here are some specs for the lazy clickers.

TYPICAL PROPERTIES: MPT Thirty-K 0W30 Full Synthetic Motor Oil
Zinc – 1107 ppm
Molybdenum – 1198 ppm
Phosphorous – 1640 ppm
Calcium – 2370 ppm
ASTM D874 – Sulfated Ash 1.05
ASTM D445 – V @ 40C, 62.0cSt
ASTM D445 – V @100C, 10.19 cSt
ASTM D2270 – VI, 151 ASTM D92 – Flash Point, 220ºC
ASTM D97 – Pour Point, -54ºF
ASTM D2896 – TBN, 11.8
ASTM D5800 – NOACK Volatility, % weight loss, 1 hour @ 250ºC, 5.6%
ASTM D5481 – High Temperature/High Shear Viscosity @150ºC, cP, 3.50




-------------------------------------------




TYPICAL PROPERTIES: MPT Thirty-K 0W20 Full Synthetic Motor Oil
Zinc – 1120 ppm
Molybdenum – 1499 ppm
Phosphorous –1630 ppm
Calcium – 2445 ppm
ASTMD874 – Sulfated Ash, 1.08
ASTM D445 -- V @ 40C, 42.5
ASTM D445 – V @100C, 8.1
ASTM D2270 – VI, 164
ASTM D92 – Flash Point, 220ºC
ASTM D97 – Pour Point, -69ºF
ASTM D2896 – TBN, 11.8




---------------------------------------------





TYPICAL PROPERTIES: MPT Thirty-K 0W40 Full Synthetic Motor Oil
Zinc – 1107 ppm
Molybdenum – 1228 ppm
Phosphorous – 1609 ppm
Calcium – 2298 ppm
ASTM D874 – Sulfated Ash 1.06
ASTM D445 – V @ 40C, 83.5 cSt
ASTM D445 – V @100C, 13.3 cSt
ASTM D2270 – VI, 161
ASTM D92 – Flash Point, 239ºC
ASTM D97 – Pour Point, -40ºF
ASTM D2896 – TBN, 12.2
ASTM D5800 – NOACK Volatility, % weight loss, 1 hour @ 250ºC, 6.5%
ASTM D5481 – High Temperature/High Shear Viscosity @150ºC, cP, 4.05







Of course they have tons of stuff and even a motor oil treatment. I would love to have a VOA run on the motor oil treatment to see what its all about.

The oil is $14.95 a quart though, yikes!
 
Why did they go so overboard on the moly? What's with a 0w-30 having a VI of 151? How can an oil with HTHS of 3.5 be recommended for Mercedes Benz 229.3 and 229.5 along with ACEA A5/B5? They throw whatever specifications they can at the bottle and see what sticks?
 
Quote:
Molybdenum – 1499 ppm

shocked2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Why did they go so overboard on the moly? What's with a 0w-30 having a VI of 151? How can an oil with HTHS of 3.5 be recommended for Mercedes Benz 229.3 and 229.5 along with ACEA A5/B5? They throw whatever specifications they can at the bottle and see what sticks?



I wonder if the VI is incorrect or different testing equipment was used.




Originally Posted By: Gabe
I wouldn't run this stuff.




Why not?
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Why did they go so overboard on the moly? What's with a 0w-30 having a VI of 151? How can an oil with HTHS of 3.5 be recommended for Mercedes Benz 229.3 and 229.5 along with ACEA A5/B5?


ACEA A5/B5-10 requires 2.9 - 3.5 cP, so its at the upperlimit.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: john_pifer
I've read on here that zinc & phosphorus can be corrosive in excessive amounts.

ZDDP can be, but this oil doesn't have excessive ZDDP. I wouldn't run anything with more than around 1500 to 1600 ppm.

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
ACEA A5/B5-10 requires 2.9 - 3.5 cP, so its at the upperlimit.

Okay, I'll give them that.
wink.gif
They could have as easily claimed A3/B4 or something like that, unless they want to push the 0w-30 as a fuel economy oil (while not even being close to GF-5 standards, of course) and the 0w-40 as the high performance European type oil.

They do have a nice NOACK spec, but surely that level of moly is serious overkill. I can't think of any other oil with that much in there. Even LM doesn't put it in their oil.
wink.gif


I suppose they have a rationale for doing so, but I'd love to hear it.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
And that's perhaps another reason why some companies have switched to Group III/III+, aside from cost saving. Some of those oils have very high inherent VIs.


Most Group III+ base stocks are in the 130-150 VI range. None of the super high VI oils out there achieve those numbers without added VII.
 
Originally Posted By: BerndV
Most Group III+ base stocks are in the 130-150 VI range. None of the super high VI oils out there achieve those numbers without added VII.

True, but a primarily PAO based oil without VIIs isn't a guarantee against shear either, unfortunately. And the absolute rejection of VIIs altogether is a tad outdated.
 
Yes it has been posted before, dailydriver is quite familiar with them.
Very similar formulation to RL being POE/PAO with tons of Moly and ZDDP. They also make a point of not using polymer VI improvers.
They are trying to out-due RL in that regard.

I'm not all that interested in their oils due to their philosophy on not using VIIs, excessively high AW add's and ultimately the price.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: BerndV
Most Group III+ base stocks are in the 130-150 VI range. None of the super high VI oils out there achieve those numbers without added VII.

True, but a primarily PAO based oil without VIIs isn't a guarantee against shear either, unfortunately. And the absolute rejection of VIIs altogether is a tad outdated.


Actually, oils that are PAO/POE based with no VII exhibit virtually zero shear. Amsoil and Motul 300V motorcycle oils used in shared transmission applications are subjected to higher shear forces than any other IC application I'm aware of and they reliably demonstrate essentially zero shear. VII's would get chewed up quite rapidly and are generally avoided in MC applications for that reason. If I were designing an oil, I would start with base oils that possess very high inherent VI such as Mobil Spectrasyn Ultra 150 with a VI of 218. You would still end up well under 200 after blending with other base oils and additives if no polymer VII were used.
 
Originally Posted By: BerndV
Amsoil and Motul 300V motorcycle oils used in shared transmission applications are subjected to higher shear forces than any other IC application I'm aware of and they reliably demonstrate essentially zero shear.

I certainly cannot dispute that point. Perhaps a higher VI base stock would have been more prudent, as you suggested.
 
Originally Posted By: BerndV
Originally Posted By: Garak
BerndV said:
If I were designing an oil, I would start with base oils that possess very high inherent VI such as Mobil Spectrasyn Ultra 150 with a VI of 218. You would still end up well under 200 after blending with other base oils and additives if no polymer VII were used.

You cannot start with an oil like SpectraSyn Ultra 150 since it has a KV100 of 150cSt, at best you can use it as a high VI VM in very small doses.
The highest VI of a light 4cSt base oil is about 140 and about 150 for a 8cSt oil.
Joe Gibbs Driven (or Lubrizol their formulator) does use very thick PAO 200 VI VM's instead of polymer VIs, to produce some of their oils such as their DT40 5W-40 with a final VI of 172.
Keep in mind that even formulators that claim to use no polymer VIs still likely use polymer based dispersants as part of the DI package which is how you can get finished VIs in the 160 and 170 range; the base oils alone can't do it.

As Garak alluded, not using some quality high VI polymer VIs really limits a formulators options in designing a high VI finished oil. Even Mobil, the maker of many high VI heavy PAOs chooses to use some polymer VIs in the formulation of it's 0W-30 and 0W-50 race oils.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top