Oil weight and FM

Joined
Jan 30, 2018
Messages
541
Location
Northeast Texas
I think this has been asked before, but let this thread host the question since I cannot dig it back up. Lets talk about a blender blending a line of oils (eg. "GTX", "Daily Protection", "Super 5000", "Modern Engine", ect.) (n=1; talking about one of these lines) This blender offers this line of oil in different grades (0w20 vs 5w30 vs 10w40 vs 20w50, ect.) Would it be typical for all grades in that line of oil to have the same amount of friction modifier added? I'm not inquiring about the exact amount; I understand there is slight variability via batch processing and homogeneity. I am talking about intended amount; do they add more FM to the thinner weights? Going one step further, if (and it usually is, so I understand) the FM they purchase for blending in is just part of a performance package, then do they vary the amount of the package added to the weight it will be with/in?
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2004
Messages
12,886
Location
Cincinnati, OH, USA
The bigger the spread between the low and high numbers, the more friction modifier is required. Hopefully molakule will see this one, he's the blending expert.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,091
Location
Ontario, Canada
The DI package dose rate generally remains the same regardless of grade. The Viscosity Modifier (VII) package changes depending on what the grade you are shooting for is, as well as of course the base oil blend. If you look at this Mobil blending guide, you can see what I mean: [Linked Image]
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,091
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted by madeej11
OVERKILL, just out of curiosity which line of Mobil1 is this? Thanks
It's not, it's a guide for companies that might be buying base oils and additive packages from XOM as to how they might choose to blend a specific grade.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,091
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
0W40 with a NOACK of 10 lol Look at all that Base 4 Look at all the VM puke
And the 0w-30 is remarkably similar. And remember, this is using PAO and Esters. Just think about what's in a predominantly Group III one grin
 
Joined
Mar 6, 2016
Messages
1,714
Location
Toronto
Like the regular Mobil 1s for instance, even their own 0W40 isn't full PAO. Compare it to the 5W30, the universal workhorse grade for modern high output engines, it's built totally differently (better IMO). 5W30s of the past used to be built like the 0W40 and that horrible 10W60 of today, thank goodness 5W30 as a grade has escaped that kind of formulation, relying on base oil for viscosity rather than molecular plastic tumbleweed laugh That German fella that decided on 0W40 as "the light 40 option" a while back in his F20C, does he know he's chosing the oil thats built to the polar opposite of what Honda recommends- thinnest bases and most VII? Even a PAO 5W30 would be way better choice. That heavy plastic load in the ultra-wide spread oils.... HTHS achieved by plastic, and ready to degrade into plastic varnish? I'll continue to pass, no thank you! What's interesting with these purely theoretical, fully synthetic examples in this blend guide is that the Esters are there at 'additive levels', they all have the same 2% (probably strictly for solubility and seals) as well as the same PPD treat rate. And considering this guide represents fully PAO based versions of those grades, it's a real eye-opener. The OTC products are not that synthetic, and are surely more adulterated!
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
1,351
Location
montreal ,canada
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by madeej11
OVERKILL, just out of curiosity which line of Mobil1 is this? Thanks
It's not, it's a guide for companies that might be buying base oils and additive packages from XOM as to how they might choose to blend a specific grade.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. Was just wondering when I saw a noack of 6 for the 5w30
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2015
Messages
2,879
Location
Malaysia
Quote
This blender offers this line of oil in different grades (0w20 vs 5w30 vs 10w40 vs 20w50, ect.) Would it be typical for all grades in that line of oil to have the same amount of friction modifier added?
Logistically, it makes sense to use one DI package for all grades. Having said that organic FM aside , IMO inorganic FM comprising Moly/Boron/Titanium is generally a 'necessity' (not sure if it's compulsory) in thin oils like xW16 and xW20 for increased MOFT whereas thick oils like 1xW40/ xW50 lacks of it probably. I've no evidence though.
 
Last edited:

Brian553

Thread starter
Joined
Jan 30, 2018
Messages
541
Location
Northeast Texas
Zheng, that is kind of what drives the question for me; as a blender, I would think that the friction modifiers are still necessary for those engines specified to run 10w40 (older engines, more specifically.)
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
8,335
Location
Atlanta,GA
Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
0W40 with a NOACK of 10 lol Look at all that Base 4 Look at all the VM puke
Yep. It's why I'm going to try to stick with 5w30. I was looking at a 5w40 but.....
 
Joined
Jul 23, 2016
Messages
1,356
Location
Europe
Generally speaking, only the so-called US ILSAC grades (10W30 and under) need contain FM. Technically, there's no compelling reason to add it to anything heavier than 10W30. That said, a US blender will typically use just one DI pack at a specific treat rate for ALL grades of engine oil right up to 20W50. Whilst it make no technical sense, because volumes of 20W50 are so piddly, the logistic benefits outweigh the cost of wasting a bit of FM. Just to be clear, on this basis oils will contain the same type & same amount of FM regardless of viscosity grade.
 

MolaKule

Staff member
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
23,035
Location
Iowegia - USA
Originally Posted by Brian553
...Going one step further, if (and it usually is, so I understand) the FM they purchase for blending in is just part of a performance package, then do they vary the amount of the package added to the weight it will be with/in?
thumbsup What Overkill said with the Blending Chart. Blending in the additive package with the base oils is done on a % by weight or a % by volume. For example, one of my additive suppliers of a high performance passenger car oil additive "suggests" 7.8% by volume for a specific level of elemental showings which means I would add 78 mL of additive to each Liter of finished lubricant. So for 10,000 gallons of base oils the blending facility would consume about 14, 55 gallon drums of additive at this treat rate. As others have stated the FM, AW, etc. content remains the same. What changes for each grade is the amount of VII and the different viscosities of base oils used. We may use two to four different viscosities of base oils and groups to hit a specified grade target.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 1, 2015
Messages
2,879
Location
Malaysia
Originally Posted by SonofJoe
Generally speaking, only the so-called US ILSAC grades (10W30 and under) need contain FM. Technically, there's no compelling reason to add it to anything heavier than 10W30. That said, a US blender will typically use just one DI pack at a specific treat rate for ALL grades of engine oil right up to 20W50. Whilst it make no technical sense, because volumes of 20W50 are so piddly, the logistic benefits outweigh the cost of wasting a bit of FM. Just to be clear, on this basis oils will contain the same type & same amount of FM regardless of viscosity grade.
Thanks for the insight SoJ , on prevalent adoption of Moly/Boron/Titanium (which I classify as solid lubricants, whilst others as AW) in GF ILSAC oils. IMHO, addition of these oil soluble solid lubricants (in Moly/Boron/Titanium) having polar properties also improves corrosion wear reduction at cold start /warm up . Unfortunately (for me) the knowledgeables on Bitog often attribute these cold start/warm up (corrosion) wear reduction/control to thinnie xW20 oils (or xW16, in times to come) and 'easier' oil circulation ...... in the context where abrasion wear and adhesion wear phenomena is irrelevant and inapplicable in cold start/warm up phase . Btw vis-a-vis ILSAC oils, I do find UOA's of most ACEA xW30 do not demonstrate presence of meaningful Moly/Boron/Titanium, as in < 4 or 5 ppm.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Messages
29,011
Location
Dallas,Tx USA
What I've always wondered,will every weight of the same brand of oil (5W30,10W30,10W40,5W50,20W50,etc.) have the same exact add pack?
 
Joined
Jul 23, 2016
Messages
1,356
Location
Europe
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
What I've always wondered,will every weight of the same brand of oil (5W30,10W30,10W40,5W50,20W50,etc.) have the same exact add pack?
Yes. It's sort of how the system works. No one in their right mind formulates 'an oil' because the cost of doing so, relative to the volume sold, would be prohibitively high. Instead you simultaneously formulate 'a matrix' of oils such that one DI pack (at a fixed treat rate) & one VII (at a variable treat rate) passes to a given spec level, in a wide variety of base oils, for the maximum number of viscosity grades. It used to be the case in the US that running a core engine test program as a 5W30 would give you almost complete read-across to the viscosity grades you listed. I seem to recall that you're allowed to substitute in upto 30% Group III with no extra engine testing, so the core also covers most of your 'synthetic blends'. There's the odd caveat that you need to be cognisant of, like 20W50 Teost MHT-4 might need a small (and separately added) AO boost but other than that it's one, properly formulated DI & you're good to go.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,688
Location
'Stralia
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
What I've always wondered,will every weight of the same brand of oil (5W30,10W30,10W40,5W50,20W50,etc.) have the same exact add pack?
First off Happy Birthday. To help explain SoJ's post, here's where I linked to API's base oil interchange guidelines.... https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3660366/Re:_API_Base_oil_interchange_g So if you read the tables carefully, there are a lot of tests that if you are going thicker, you don't need to retest....so pick a starting point where you are only going thicker, and you can make many oils from one series of these. (Which raises an interesting point...if thinner ALWAYS confers all these benefits why does the API reflect the exact opposite ?)
 
Top