Multi-viscosity engine oil.

Status
Not open for further replies.
And GC 0w-30 is probably a much better oil because it has not VII's.

And what about the new oil on this forum, ByoSyn. Anyone know if it uses any VII's?
 
Originally Posted By: BarkerMan
And GC 0w-30 is probably a much better oil because it has not VII's.

And what about the new oil on this forum, ByoSyn. Anyone know if it uses any VII's?


Yes, it does. But they do make straight grades without VIIs that have high enough VIs to meet multigrade specs.
 
Originally Posted By: Dr_No
Great.. now some "people" are convincing uneducated people that VII's are a big problem. WAY OVERBLOWN DUDE.



Finally, some logic on the subject...

I think I'm gonna go drain the 10w-30 out of my car and install SAE 30 since the VII are gumming up my motor and scraping down my cylinder bores. I'll do it after it warms up from the 5 degrees it was this morning...
thumbsup2.gif
 
Why would you run 30w oil at 5F? No one said VII's were a big problem, just that that they are not engine oil and engine oil is what lubricates the engine. And I think it's understood that you have to change the viscosity with the weather and if you live in cold conditions then you have a reason for running mutli-viscosity engine oil and pay attention to the intervals you use. Or, better yet run a synthetic oil that does not need VII's to be rated as multi-viscosity, maybe somthing like German Castrol 0w-30. VII's prop up a cheaper oil, that's all.

Amsoil has been an advocate of extended oil change intervals because they make very good oils that require few if any VII's and can stand long intervals. Mobil 1 did not ever push extended intervals until they came out with their EP product. And that oil may not be suitable for warranty purposes in new cars. Why the difference between EP and regular Mobil 1. Could it be that the chemistry of regular Mobil 1 is not up to the task. Could it be that they have added VII's to the mix get depleted enough for Mobil to recommend longer intervals?

Picking a superior engine oil what ever the viscosity could be reduced to one that need no VII's as a first requirement.
 
A modern engine with a hydraulic cam chain tensioner and variable valve timing, activated via pressurized oil? Don't think I'd want to try it, but then again, I keep vehicles well past 200K (using heavily VII laden oils!!).
 
Originally Posted By: teven7492
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Just how devastating would an SAE 30 be to an engine at +5F anyway?
Very devastating.


Probably not, unless you tried to run SAE 30 all winter and every morning's start was at 5F.
 
Originally Posted By: BarkerMan
Why would you run 30w oil at 5F? No one said VII's were a big problem, just that that they are not engine oil and engine oil is what lubricates the engine. And I think it's understood that you have to change the viscosity with the weather and if you live in cold conditions then you have a reason for running mutli-viscosity engine oil and pay attention to the intervals you use. Or, better yet run a synthetic oil that does not need VII's to be rated as multi-viscosity, maybe somthing like German Castrol 0w-30. VII's prop up a cheaper oil, that's all.

Amsoil has been an advocate of extended oil change intervals because they make very good oils that require few if any VII's and can stand long intervals. Mobil 1 did not ever push extended intervals until they came out with their EP product. And that oil may not be suitable for warranty purposes in new cars. Why the difference between EP and regular Mobil 1. Could it be that the chemistry of regular Mobil 1 is not up to the task. Could it be that they have added VII's to the mix get depleted enough for Mobil to recommend longer intervals?

Picking a superior engine oil what ever the viscosity could be reduced to one that need no VII's as a first requirement.


Not true about Mobil One never pushing extended OCI's before the advent of their EP formula. When Mobil One came out back in the mid 1970's, it was said to be good for 1 year or 25,000 mile OCI's. After awhile, they had complaints from people who tried this OCI and failed to regularly check their oil levels, and ruined their engines when they ran out of oil, and dropped this claim.

I began using Mobil One back then, and it was only initially available in 5W20 weight, and was said to be the equivalent of regular 10W40 oil. I used it until 2001, when I retired. I usually put 18,000 to 20,000 miles a year on my daily driver back then, and I made it a practice to change my oil every January. I added several quarts of oil per year as make-up oil, and never had an oil related problem.

In 2001, I retired and began driving only about 6000 miles a year. I then began using dino, changed every 6 months. I couldn't see wasting good synthetic on a 6000 mile OCI. I used up my remaining stock of M1 in my lawn mowers and other outdoor power equipment. By the way, I recently used up the last of my old stock M1, and have changed my OPE over to Mobil One High Mileage formula, which is still available in SL.
 
Originally Posted By: BearZDefect
Now if I may inject a question here, don't VIIs contribute to the energy conserving capabilities of an oil, by "shearing" under certain conditions? If so, in what parts of the engine is this shearing desired, and in what parts is it undesirable?
More Noira tidbits from same book:

"To qualify for energy conserving the oil must beat the fuel economy of the full synthetic reference oil."

"As oil is forced between a bearing and journal, many polymers have a tendency to align with each other, somewhat like nesting spoons. When this happens, viscosity drops." The oil returns to normal after passing through the bearing. "This phenomeno is referred to as temporary shear thinning. Because the Sequence VI-B test responds to reductions in viscosity, oil formulators rely on polymer sheer to pass the test [energy conserving]. A sheer stable ploymer makes passing the GF-3 fuel economy test much more challenging."

Originally Posted By: BearZDefect
I know some people are against "energy conserving" oils too.
Yes my signature despising starburst also applies to energy conserving as I believe the two go together hand-in-glove, so to speak.
 
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Originally Posted By: TallPaul
If they were better at lubricating, then I suppose we would want an oil that is essentially all VII and little or no oil.



Syntec 0w-30 is almost that.


If you're talking about the Syntec 0w30 that's made in Germany, the gas chromatograph test showed this oil had NO polymeric VI improvers.


Wasn't it some type of PAO copolymerized with something else?
 
Customers told me that the Mobil 1 help line said to definitely use the manufacturer's suggested intervals and not go beyond that.
 
When M1 came out in Oz, it was advertised as offering 40,000km (24,800mi) protection, with a rider of 1 year.

When I put M1 0W-40 in my 1990 4Runner, I rang mobil lube line. They agreed with my oil choice, and advised the OEM service life.


When I pointed out that the car had been out of warranty for a decade, and I was after advice rather than bum covering, the tech said "annual, whether that's 5,000 or 35,000km"

5,000km in a year and it's likely short trips. 35,000 more and longer trips.
 
Originally Posted By: 1999nick
Did anyone ever consider the possibility that "VII's" whatever they are, might be just as good or better at lubricating than the oil they are supposed to be treating?

Yes I've considered it and have found a lot of test data on the subject. I've posted many of them in some past threads. These results showed the shear thinning effects of VIIs. As usual with tribology, this subject is more complicated than we'd like it to be. There are many types of VIIs and they have very different properties. We rarely know what kind or kinds a given oil uses.

Here is an abstract for: "Friction and Wear Reduction By Boundary Film-Forming Viscosity Index Improvers"
http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/962037

"Abstract:
Recent work by the authors has indicated that some types of viscosity index improver polymers can form thick boundary films in lubricated contacts. These films appear to result from the adsorption of molecules of polymer on metal surfaces to produce layers, about 20 nm thick, having higher polymer concentration and thus higher viscosity than the bulk solution.

In the current paper it is shown that these VII boundary films are able to separate rubbing surfaces in both rolling and sliding contacts and that they make a significant contribution towards reducing friction and wear at temperatures up to at least 140\mDC. The mechanism by which these polymers reduce friction and wear is elucidated."

Can we conclude from this abstract that the certain types of VII polymers would decrease wear in some engine(s) compared to otherwise same motor oil (minus the polymers and adjusted base oils) that has same viscosity at 100C? No. Maybe someone will purchase this paper and spill the beans on the details!?
 
Quote:
Can we conclude from this abstract that the certain types of VII polymers would decrease wear in some engine(s) compared to otherwise same motor oil (minus the polymers and adjusted base oils) that has same viscosity at 100C? No. Maybe someone will purchase this paper and spill the beans on the details!?


coffee2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: bruce381
shellvis polymer or star polymer


I'm sure this is the answer to a question. Can you give us a clue?
wink.gif
 
above sorry

"certain types of VII polymers would decrease wear in some engine(s) compared to otherwise same motor oil (minus the polymers and adjusted base oils) that has same viscosity at 100C? No. Maybe someone will purchase this paper and spill the beans on the details!?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom