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

[rrounds]

That and Mobil 1 0-30 / 0-50 racing oils have a high amount(too much) of Zinc/Phosphorous with a good dose of Molybdenum. I can't think of another oil that has more Molybdenum than M1 race oil.

ROD

 

[Garak]

I'm still puzzled why this MPT stuff has that much moly in it. I'm sure there's a point of diminishing returns, or worse, where the content is counterproductive. This has what, well over quadruple the moly content of anything we regularly see? Is there some benefit to that high of a moly content, or is it just a way for them to say they have more than just about anyone else?

 

[dparm]

Spec sheets are only part of the story, but honestly there is nothing about these oils I find tempting.

 

[901Memphis]

I don't think I could ever afford it but I'd love to if I could and run a uoa on an extended drain.

I'd also be curious as to how the add pack would handle a non extended drain in relation to wear metals.

 

[DragRace]

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
I don't think I could ever afford it but I'd love to if I could and run a uoa on an extended drain.

I'd also be curious as to how the add pack would handle a non extended drain in relation to wear metals.


Buy some and find out !

 

[901Memphis]

Originally Posted By: DragRace
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
I don't think I could ever afford it but I'd love to if I could and run a uoa on an extended drain.

I'd also be curious as to how the add pack would handle a non extended drain in relation to wear metals.


Buy some and find out !

I'd love to but its $7 shipping on 5 quarts of the Thirty-K which comes out to $81.75 shipped which i find a bid ridiculous when i can still get jugs of Pennzoil Ultra at wally for under $30.

I don't know what kind of UOA this stuff would produce but if i was rich i'd be the guinea pig.

If anyone does use it please post up some extended drain UOAs.

 

[dparm]

For under $15/qt I can get Motul 300V or Red Line, both proven-quality streetable race oils.

 

[dailydriver]

They are going for an extended use, longer drain, high TBN, NO purposely added VIIs, 0 shear oil which could be used by Porsche open tracking/road racing enthusiasts (as well as many others), without having to dump it as often as weaker add pack, high VII, oils.

Yes, this is their philosophy (old/outdated school as that may be, or seem), despite CATERHAM's (and others') claims that the current latest and greatest polymer VIs do not shear at all, or leave ANY deposits behind in ANY conditions if/when they do shear, even in racing oils.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
They are going for an extended use, longer drain, high TBN, NO purposely added VIIs, 0 shear oil which could be used by Porsche open tracking/road racing enthusiasts (as well as many others), without having to dump it as often as weaker add pack, high VII, oils.

Yes, this is their philosophy (old/outdated school as that may be, or seem), despite CATERHAM's (and others') claims that the current latest and greatest polymer VIs do not shear at all, or leave ANY deposits behind in ANY conditions if/when they do shear, even in racing oils.

It sounds like you've bought into their old school hype.

 

[901Memphis]

Can we agree then that this is a specialty oil and has little use in pcmo applications?

 

[dparm]

Yes, this really belongs in the "race oil" forum I guess.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
They are going for an extended use, longer drain, high TBN, NO purposely added VIIs, 0 shear oil which could be used by Porsche open tracking/road racing enthusiasts (as well as many others), without having to dump it as often as weaker add pack, high VII, oils.

Yes, this is their philosophy (old/outdated school as that may be, or seem), despite CATERHAM's (and others') claims that the current latest and greatest polymer VIs do not shear at all, or leave ANY deposits behind under ANY conditions if/when they do shear, even in racing oils.

It sounds like you've bought into their old school hype.


Not really (hence the shrug emoticon), I was just trying to explain their philosophy/viewpoint which EVERYONE was questioning with much vehemence , and/or outright blasting, that's all.

Maybe the owner will come back on here and either correct my explanation, or offer new reasons for brewing his oils the way he did.

After all, I DID go with a slightly higher VI summer/racing oil than this product, albeit STILL not sky high enough to satisfy your wants/needs.

 

[CATERHAM]

I understand the philosophy behind MPT Thirty-K; it's the same for Millers.
Joe Gibbs Driven's approach is a bit more advanced in that they use very heavy high VI (200+) PAOs as a VM instead of polymer VIs but you can only use them in very small doses without raising the viscosity of the oil too much and the finished VI will still not be much above 170. Still a 170 VI in a race oil was unheard of not long ago.
RLs 30wt and 40wt race oils have VIs only in the 130-140 range, and there hasn't been development in the past 20 years.

Anyway I thought the main interest in Millers was the ND AW technology?

 

[BerndV]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: BerndV
Originally Posted By: Garak

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.


My point in stating that I would start with something like Spectrasyn Ultra 150 was precisely to avoid the use of polymer VII. Many other BLENDING options are available including Spectrasyn Elite 65. My point was simply that there is NO way to achieve VI over 200 without using VII's. Furthermore, IMO, VI is not the end-all be-all of PCMO specs that that ostensibly warrants constant overemphasis. Many end users have a preference for shear stability over ultra high VI, which is why many specialty blenders avoid VII's in their products. For example, Redline's apparent avoidance of VII in their revised 0W-30 makes it more appealing to me, not less. I would rather start with a 0W-30 that remains a 0W-30 than start with a 0W-40 that ends up being a 0W-30.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: BerndV
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: BerndV
Originally Posted By: Garak

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.


My point in stating that I would start with something like Spectrasyn Ultra 150 was precisely to avoid the use of polymer VII. Many other BLENDING options are available including Spectrasyn Elite 65. My point was simply that there is NO way to achieve VI over 200 without using VII's. Furthermore, IMO, VI is not the end-all be-all of PCMO specs that that ostensibly warrants constant overemphasis. Many end users have a preference for shear stability over ultra high VI, which is why many specialty blenders avoid VII's in their products. For example, Redline's apparent avoidance of VII in their revised 0W-30 makes it more appealing to me, not less. I would rather start with a 0W-30 that remains a 0W-30 than start with a 0W-40 that ends up being a 0W-30.

Actually their is no way to make a light finished oil with a VI of even 180 without using polymer VIs let alone 200.

Regarding Red Line oils, their original 183 VI 0W-30 was a shear stable oil as was their 197 VI 0W-40. All RL oil are shear stable. The Sustina 0W-20 with it's 229 VI is shear stable.
TGMO 0W-20 with it's 216 VI has proven to very shear stable.

The point is, you can formulate a very high VI oil today using the latest polymer technology that are shear stable. You can no longer generalize that high VI oils are automatically shear prone. Many still are, such as the GP III based 5W-50s, so you have to choose your oil carefully.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Anyway I thought the main interest in Millers was the ND AW technology?


ABSOLUTELY, and for me at least, it took FULL precedence even over a higher VI level for a summer OCI in this case.