NEW Eneos Sustina

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

We can pretty much infer that the HTHSV spec's will be low for all three Sustina grades; 2.6cP for the 0W-20, 3.0-3.1cP for the 5W-30 and 4.1-4.3cP for the 0W-50.



If the 0w50 really is just 4.1, the calculated shear resistance would be very poor (about 0.73). Even if it's 4.3, it would still be fairly mediocre at only 0.77.

With Redline 0w40 having HTHS of 4.0 and VI of 197 I can't see any reason to run the Sustina, unless the UOAs come back as phenomenal. Redline is easy to get and costs about the same as Sustina, too.

Then again, it does have a fairly wide viscosity spread.


That calculation is more of a indication of VII content and
therefore you are making the assumption that high VII oils will shear. With the advancements that have been made in the quality of VI improvers today that assumption no longer applies to todays premium oils.
For example, take a look at M1 R 0W-50 racing oil. It has a HTHSV of 4.1cP and a 189 VI. There is no doubt this oil uses a lot of VIIs in it's formulation. Does it shear excessively in the extreme high oil temperature environment to which it's being used (it's the oil used by Corvette at Le Mans 24 hour endurance race)? My guess is no.

 

[dparm]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM


That calculation is more of a indication of VII content and
therefore you are making the assumption that high VII oils will shear. With the advancements that have been made in the quality of VI improvers today that assumption no longer applies to todays premium oils.

For example, take a look at M1 R 0W-50 racing oil. It has a HTHSV of 4.1cP and a 189 VI. There is no doubt this oil uses a lot of VIIs in it's formulation. Does it shear excessively in the extreme high oil temperature environment to which it's being used (it's the oil used by Corvette at Le Mans 24 hour endurance race)? My guess is no.



Using the same formula, M1R 0w50 has an even lower shear resistance (0.69). BTW, the HTHS is 3.8, not 4.1.

A_Harman's speculation is likely true: the ester-rich oils, especially those with almost no VIIs, may not work well with this calculation.

 

[CATERHAM]

dparm, thanks for pointing out the new lower HTHSV of only 3.8cP for M1 R 0W-50.
http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLUSENPVLMOMobil_1_Racing_Oils.aspx
It indeed was posted previously by Mobil the last time I checked at 4.1cP.
If this oil was not a dedicated race oil from company like Mobil most would conclude it's a cr*p formulation with it's KV100 of 17.2cSt. Even compared to M1 SN 0W-40 (KV100 13.5cSt, HTHSV 3.8cP, VI 185) the 0W-40 appears to use much superior base oils.
It would be interesting to know the NOACK of the Mobil race oils.
Conclusion, I would take the PDS info with a grain of salt. It wouldn't surprise me if HTHSV and/or the KV spec's are incorrect. Also we don't know what base oils Mobil uses and I believe if they saw an advantage in a high ester content they'd be using it in their race oils.

 

[dparm]

My opinion: its value lies more in the very high ZDDP levels.

The 0w30 is not very impressive either -- RLI 0w30 or even Motul X-Lite 0w30 can match or beat it across the board without being dangerous to cat converters.

 

[cp3]

Originally Posted By: dparm
Agree, I would want to mix it 75/25 or so. Should give HTHS just above 3.6 with a VI of 210. Haven't done the exact math yet, but that's even better than RLI's 0w30 (VI of 193 and HTHS 3.6-3.8).


I would likely be on the other end at 2.9 and 222. Some pretty wild possibilities.

 

[dparm]

Originally Posted By: cp3
Originally Posted By: dparm
Agree, I would want to mix it 75/25 or so. Should give HTHS just above 3.6 with a VI of 210. Haven't done the exact math yet, but that's even better than RLI's 0w30 (VI of 193 and HTHS 3.6-3.8).


I would likely be on the other end at 2.9 and 222. Some pretty wild possibilities.


Meant 25/75. My car wants HTHS >= 3.5.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: dparm
My opinion: its value lies more in the very high ZDDP levels.

The 0w30 is not very impressive either -- RLI 0w30 or even Motul X-Lite 0w30 can match or beat it across the board without being dangerous to cat converters.

The reference to Mobil race oils was purely to comment on their viscosity characteristics not in any way to recommend their suitability as a street oil. BTW the moly level is also massive at 1600 ppm.
My point is that metric you're using to judge the quality of an oil, namely "calculated shear resistance" doesn't take VII quality into account and therefore is of limited value.

 

[dparm]

Agreed, only useful for oils of similar chemistry (i.e. RLI to Motul 300V to Redline).

 

[dparm]

Just did the math for a 1:3 mix of 0w20 and 0w50 for my motor:

VI: 210
KV @ 40: 79.75
KV @ 100: 14.95
HTHS: 3.73

Puts it really close to Royal Purple 0w40 and Liqui-Moly Synthoil Energy 0w40 but with a 15% higher VI and HTHS about 0.13 higher. KV @ 100 values are a tad on the high side compared to many other 0w40/5w40s, though.

This is very tempting.

 

[CATERHAM]

Just checked the VIs of all three Sustina grades and the 0W-50 is incorrect. Based on the 95.43cSt KV40 and 17.29cSt KV100 the VI works out to "only" 199 so one of the 3 viscosity spec's is not right.

 

[CATERHAM]

Here's the Sustina 0W-20 VOA:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2702905&#Post2702905

 

[Koki]

5 weeks ago I changed oil on my 2015 Mazda 6 with Eneos Sustina 0w-20. Was expecting to see a little MPG increase but instead it decreased from 29.5 MPG to 29.3 MPG.

I think I will use Mazda 0W-20 oil with Moly for my next oil change.

That is all.

 

[Garak]

Your fuel mileage change is within the error bars. It didn't really "decrease" any more than a change of 0.2 mpg in the other direction could be called in increase. An OEM lab will be able to detect the difference in fuel economy. You and I will not.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: Koki
5 weeks ago I changed oil on my 2015 Mazda 6 with Eneos Sustina 0w-20. Was expecting to see a little MPG increase but instead it decreased from 29.5 MPG to 29.3 MPG.

I think I will use Mazda 0W-20 oil with Moly for my next oil change.

That is all.


Like Garak has stated, the mileage is a wash at best, but you could save some coin, and effort in procuring your oil by using the MGMO stuff.

I would have said that the Sustina would last longer, as it's spec sheet (or Eneo's tech people have told me), starting TBN was up around the 12.xx range, but sadly, the VOA which CATERHAM has referred to showed it as MUCH MUCH lower (about the same as the MGMO), IF that VOA was accurate.