PAO blends and cold cranking

[novadude]

Do the syn blends using 10% PAO have better cold cranking specs than plain old dino?

 

[haley10]

Just looked over my spec. sheets. Most major synthetic blends have CCS number similar to their dino regardless. Only the products sold as full synthetics (even GPIII) have the great coldcrank performance. There may be some exceptions, but from what I see, unless a product is sold a "full" syn the cold crank numbers are not significant over dino.

 

[Neil Womack]

I know this is not part of your question. However, Schaeffer's uses 15 to 25% POA in their blends. So I gathered a few data points comparing Schaeffers and Pennzoil 5w-30 Stable pour point -42*c Schaeffers -35*c Penn cP at -30*c 5073 Schaeffers 6600 Penn I don't think any of the over the counter syn blends will offer you any significant cold temp performance when compared to dino. If you want a blend the Schaeffer's or perhaps the Amsoil 15w-40 blend may be the only way to go.

 

[RichR]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Womack: cP at -30*nnc 5073 Schaeffers 6600 Penn

---

To our oil gurus, When I read these spec on cold performance which is the better indicator? The Higher or Lower number? Thanks RichR

 

[Patman]

The lower number is better Rich.

 

[Motorbike]

When reading these data sheets you'll find some of these makers show cP across the board as the same . Pennzoil shows both their 5w-30 and 10w-30 Multigrade as 6600 to the untrained eye The thing here is it is 6600 MAX and to read as Less Than 6600cP . I'm quite sure the 5w-30 Pennzoil outcranks the 10-w-30 and in these low cost oils they vary little it seems . An example of a very good cold weather performer is the Phillips 5w-30 with it's 4650cP . I would think the Pennzoil 5w-30 to be very close to this instead of the assumed or misread 6600 cP . Take a look at this Pennzoil product data sheet . clickey me

 

[RichR]

Patman and Motorbike, THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP!! RichR

 

[y_p_w]

quote:

---

Originally posted by reyjay1: Buster i think you are right , PAO's can reduce pour point, certain esters as we have learned besides (or due to) being polar can be AW/EP adds themselves for increased film strength. This can be the 'secret' in certain high end blends it seems.

---

You probably don't want to overdo it. There's a delicate balance of seal swell and additive "affinity" for metal surfaces. I've heard one oil chemist assert that too much ester could prevent the proper bonding of detergent or antiwear additives on the surface, especially if fairly standard additive packages are used. Red Line seems to load up on certain additives. Maybe this prevents the additives from being "crowded" by the esters.

 

[buster]

If Esters are very polar and "cling" to metal better, wouldn't an oil with Esters (GC/M1 etc) outperform a conventional blend/dino with less esters at cold start up regardless of the cP specs? I guess what I'm asking is the chemical makeup (having esters etc) more important then focusing on the cold specs of an oil? Oil A might flow better when cold, but if a thin film is left on the metal from having a good amount of Esters, does it really matter?

 

[reyjay1]

Buster i think you are right , PAO's can reduce pour point, certain esters as we have learned besides (or due to) being polar can be AW/EP adds themselves for increased film strength. This can be the 'secret' in certain high end blends it seems.