Putting together a groups 3/4/5 synthetic list

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by burla
IMO any grading of base oils you need the third corner of that triangle, cSt, NOACK, and HTHS.

Or since the cSt determination has nothing to do with how an oil will operate long term, just use NOACK and HTHS. Wouldn't we want to test base oils as in what happens to them in real world applications over time, or just more of what the oil does in a virgin state?

It's CCS (cold-crank simulator) viscosity measured at very low temperatures in cP units, not KV100 in cSt units.

HTHSV is not a property of the base oil alone. It's the property of the finished oil that also has the viscosity-index improver (VII).

Being thicker (higher HTHSV) or thinner (lower HTHSV) doesn't make an oil superior or inferior. It's merely a spec that you need to follow according to the given recommendation.

If you're asking about the VII content, there is a separate index called A_Harman index, which correlates with the percentage VII content. Here is a table:

Code
Oil Density KV40 KV100 KV150 HTHSV VI DV150 A_Harman index



Delvac S1300 15w40 CK-4/SN 0.874 109.00 14.10 5.32 4.10 4.11 0.996

Mobil 1 Annual Protection 5W-20 0.850 48.88 8.20 3.53 2.60 141 2.66 0.979

Pennzoil Platinum PurePlus 10w30 0.841 60.50 10.10 4.29 3.10 151 3.19 0.971

Mobil 1 High Mileage 5w20 0.856 50.00 8.60 3.72 2.70 150 2.82 0.958

Shell Rotella T4 15w40 0.878 113.72 14.84 5.68 4.20 4.41 0.952

Mobil 1 T&S 5W-20 0.852 48.84 8.44 3.66 2.62 150 2.76 0.949

Mobil 1 Extended Performance 0w20 0.839 44.90 8.60 3.85 2.70 173 2.86 0.944

Pennzoil Platinum PurePlus 5w30 0.839 53.90 9.80 4.28 3.00 170 3.18 0.944

Pennzoil Platinum PurePlus 5w30 dexos1 Gen 2 0.839 53.90 9.80 4.28 3.00 170 3.18 0.944

Mobil 1 5W-20 0.852 49.80 8.90 3.89 2.75 160 2.93 0.938

Mobil 1 Extended Performance 5w20 0.850 49.60 8.90 3.90 2.75 161 2.93 0.937

AMSOIL Signature Series 5w30 0.855 59.70 10.30 4.41 3.11 3.34 0.932

Mobil 1 0W-20 0.841 44.80 8.70 3.91 2.70 177 2.91 0.928

Mobil 1 High Mileage 10w30 0.861 78.00 12.10 4.96 3.50 3.78 0.926

Amsoil XL 5w30 0.855 62.90 11.10 4.77 3.30 3.61 0.914

Mobil 1 Annual Protection 0W-20 0.840 45.69 8.70 3.89 2.60 172 2.89 0.899

Pennzoil Ultra Platinum PurePlus 5w30 0.841 56.30 10.30 4.50 3.00 173 3.35 0.896

Mobil 1 T&S 0W-20 0.842 46.34 8.85 3.96 2.61 175 2.95 0.884

Mobil 1 Extended Performance 5w30 0.851 59.80 10.60 4.57 3.00 169 3.44 0.872

Pennzoil High Mileage 10w30 0.871 78.80 11.80 4.79 3.20 144 3.69 0.867

Mobil 1 FS 0W-40 0.846 70.80 12.90 5.56 3.60 185 4.16 0.865

Shell Rotella T6 5W-40 CJ-4 0.858 86.94 14.09 5.80 3.80 4.40 0.863

Mobil 1 5w30 0.855 61.70 11.00 4.75 3.10 172 3.59 0.862

Mobil 1 ESP Formula 0W-40 0.841 69.00 12.90 5.61 3.53 191 4.18 0.845

TGMO 0W-20 SN MSDS 0.851 36.10 8.50 4.09 2.60 225 3.08 0.844

Mobil 1 Annual Protection 5w30 0.851 67.52 11.24 4.74 3.00 160 3.57 0.840

Mobil 1 T&S 5w30 0.852 66.60 11.50 4.90 3.00 169 3.69 0.812

TGMO 0W-20 SN VOA 0.851 36.16 8.79 4.27 2.60 236 3.22 0.808

Mobil 1 High Mileage 10w40 0.860 107.00 16.00 6.37 3.90 4.85 0.804

Mobil 1 High Mileage 5w30 0.856 72.00 12.10 5.09 3.10 151 3.86 0.804

Mobil 1 High Mileage 5w30 0.856 72.00 12.10 5.09 3.10 166 3.86 0.804

 

[burla]

I never say quality because that is depending on what someone values. Some people want metal protection more then fuel economy and visa versa. Thanks, my mistake and that makes more sense, it is CCT.

 

[burla]

good info, thanks again

 

[edhackett]

Originally Posted by Gokhan

HTHSV is not a property of the base oil alone. It's the property of the finished oil that also has the viscosity-index improver (VII).

Being thicker (higher HTHSV) or thinner (lower HTHSV) doesn't make an oil superior or inferior. It's merely a spec that you need to follow according to the given recommendation.

CCS and Noack are not properties of the base oil alone either. They are a property of the finished oil. Pour point depressants alter the CCS. Dispersants and other additives can raise Noack, others lower it. No fully formulated oil now days is a single type or viscosity of base oil. Like HTHSV, CCS and Noack are merely specifications that have to be met. There are many ways to do that using a wide variety of the base oil compositions.

How does your index deal with that room full of elephants?

Ed

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by edhackett
Originally Posted by Gokhan

HTHSV is not a property of the base oil alone. It's the property of the finished oil that also has the viscosity-index improver (VII).

Being thicker (higher HTHSV) or thinner (lower HTHSV) doesn't make an oil superior or inferior. It's merely a spec that you need to follow according to the given recommendation.

CCS and Noack are not properties of the base oil alone either. They are a property of the finished oil. Pour point depressants alter the CCS. Dispersants and other additives can raise Noack, others lower it. No fully formulated oil now days is a single type or viscosity of base oil. Like HTHSV, CCS and Noack are merely specifications that have to be met. There are many ways to do that using a wide variety of the base oil compositions.

How does your index deal with that room full of elephants?

Ed

Nope, CCS isn't affected by pour-point depressants (PPD). It's the MRV that is affected:

"Other low-temperature tests are often misinterpreted as being related to PPD performance. The Cold Cranking Simulator (CCS, ASTM D5293) is a low-temperature test designed to test engine oils to ensure low temperature engine cranking at startup. PPDs are relevant only in low-temperature, low-shear environments. However, CCS is run at low temperatures but at a high shear rate. The high shear aspect of the CCS breaks any wax structure and makes the test irrelevant to wax-crystallization phenomenon and thus PPD selection."

Evonik Industries pour-point depressants

The effect of additives on NOACK are very small, given the fact that they make up a very small percentage of the oil and they are usually not volatile. If they were volatile, they would evaporate away quickly and you would have no additives left in the oil.

Regarding the mix of base stocks, of course, virtually every base oil has more than one base stock and BOQI has no problem with that -- it measures the weighted-average quality.

This is not to say that BOQI is perfect. For example, I've worried that the VII content can affect the CCS. For such reasons, BOQI works best within the same SAE viscosity grade.

 

[burla]

from the atsm org

Significance and Use

5.1 The CCS apparent viscosity of automotive engine oils correlates with low temperature engine cranking. CCS apparent viscosity is not suitable for predicting low temperature flow to the engine oil pump and oil distribution system. Engine cranking data were measured by the Coordinating Research Council (CRC) L-495 test with reference oils that had viscosities between 600â€mPa·s and 8400 mPa·s (cP) at -17.8â€Â°C and between 2000 mPa·s and 20â€000 mPa·s (cP) at -28.9â€Â°C. The detailed relationship between this engine cranking data and CCS apparent viscosities is in Appendixes X1 and X2 of the 1967 T edition of Test Method D26026 and CRC Report 409.5 Because the CRC L-49 test is much less precise and standardized than the CCS procedures, CCS apparent viscosity need not accurately predict the engine cranking behavior of an oil in a specific engine. However, the correlation of CCS apparent viscosity with average CRC L-49 engine cranking results is satisfactory.

They recommend adding a average CRC L-49 along with CCS as a predictor, to achieve a "satisfactory" result. Does the CCS number only deal with virgin oils? thank you

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by burla
They recommend adding a average CRC L-49 along with CCS as a predictor, to achieve a "satisfactory" result. Does the CCS number only deal with virgin oils? thank you

Cold-crank simulator (CCS) is a precise test but it doesn't directly measure the cranking performance. All they are saying is that a satisfactory correlation can be established between CCS and the CRC L-49 cranking test, the latter of which is a true cranking test but lacks precision and standardization.

CCS is required and reported for virgin oils but you can do it for used oils if you have the equipment.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by burla
They recommend adding a average CRC L-49 along with CCS as a predictor, to achieve a "satisfactory" result. Does the CCS number only deal with virgin oils? thank you

Cold-crank simulator (CCS) is a precise test but it doesn't directly measure the cranking performance. All they are saying is that a satisfactory correlation can be established between CCS and the CRC L-49 cranking test, the latter of which is a true cranking test but lacks precision and standardization.

In fact, CRC L-49 is worse than pour point for predicting cranking performance, correct?

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by kschachn
In fact, CRC L-49 is worse than pour point for predicting cranking performance, correct?

CRC L-49 is a cranking test but it's really old (1960s) and lacks standardization and precision. It has been replaced by the CCS test. The Evonik Industries article I posted above discusses the MRV and pour point.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted by burla
They recommend adding a average CRC L-49 along with CCS as a predictor, to achieve a "satisfactory" result. Does the CCS number only deal with virgin oils? thank you

MRV deals with pumpability.

 

[edhackett]

Originally Posted by Gokhan



Nope, CCS isn't affected by pour-point depressants (PPD). It's the MRV that is affected:

"Other low-temperature tests are often misinterpreted as being related to PPD performance. The Cold Cranking Simulator (CCS, ASTM D5293) is a low-temperature test designed to test engine oils to ensure low temperature engine cranking at startup. PPDs are relevant only in low-temperature, low-shear environments. However, CCS is run at low temperatures but at a high shear rate. The high shear aspect of the CCS breaks any wax structure and makes the test irrelevant to wax-crystallization phenomenon and thus PPD selection."

Evonik Industries pour-point depressants


This is what I had read:
Quote
AB 119 is a viscous Solution of Alkyl Methacrylate Polymer in Neutral Oils recommended for use as a Pour Point Depressant for Lubricating Base Oils. In finished Lubricants they are compatible with other commonly used additive.
AB 119 is used for Pour depressing Industrial and gear lubricants, Mono grade and Multi-grade crankcase oils. In addition to reducing the Pour Point, AB 119 is particularly effective in controlling low temperature viscosity under sheer conditions.

http://abpetrochem.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/AB-BOOKLET-2018NEWEST-VERSION.pdf


There you have it, one additive company saying PPD isn't effective under sheer, and one saying it is.

I'm still not convinced on the effect of additives. What stands out to me are the HDEO formulations. Even group III+ formulated oils that are blended on the high end of the viscosity range for high HTHS end up with very unremarkable Noack values.

Ed

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by edhackett
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Nope, CCS isn't affected by pour-point depressants (PPD). It's the MRV that is affected:

"Other low-temperature tests are often misinterpreted as being related to PPD performance. The Cold Cranking Simulator (CCS, ASTM D5293) is a low-temperature test designed to test engine oils to ensure low temperature engine cranking at startup. PPDs are relevant only in low-temperature, low-shear environments. However, CCS is run at low temperatures but at a high shear rate. The high shear aspect of the CCS breaks any wax structure and makes the test irrelevant to wax-crystallization phenomenon and thus PPD selection."

Evonik Industries pour-point depressants

This is what I had read:
Quote
AB 119 is a viscous Solution of Alkyl Methacrylate Polymer in Neutral Oils recommended for use as a Pour Point Depressant for Lubricating Base Oils. In finished Lubricants they are compatible with other commonly used additive.
AB 119 is used for Pour depressing Industrial and gear lubricants, Mono grade and Multi-grade crankcase oils. In addition to reducing the Pour Point, AB 119 is particularly effective in controlling low temperature viscosity under sheer conditions.

http://abpetrochem.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/AB-BOOKLET-2018NEWEST-VERSION.pdf

There you have it, one additive company saying PPD isn't effective under sheer, and one saying it is.

I'm still not convinced on the effect of additives. What stands out to me are the HDEO formulations. Even group III+ formulated oils that are blended on the high end of the viscosity range for high HTHS end up with very unremarkable Noack values.

Ed

Thanks for the link. I've been looking for the datasheets on Shell GTL and I finally got them. 2% NOACK for their 7.6 cSt base stock is impressive but it gets pretty unimpressive with thinner GTL base stocks (hence the unimpressive NOACK of PPPP and Pennzoil Ultra Platinum PurePlus). Also, this confirms that thinner base oils (smaller x in xW-y) clean better, as they have lower aniline points, which means higher solvency.

They are referring to the MRV viscosity, not the CCS viscosity. It's a low-shear test, where the shear rate is between 0.4 - 15â€1/s. The CCS test is a high-shear test, where the shear rate is between 10,000 - 100,000 1/s. At this high shear rate, the PPD has no effect. Both references are correct, except that the latter reference is vague and doesn't say which test they are talking about.

Grades like 15w40 (larger x in xW-y) use thicker base oils and they have lower NOACK as a result. HTHSV is controlled through the amount of VII used.

 

[Wick]

How about putting a catch can on the PCV system, you'll end up with a zero for SAPS ... thats something to think about... just tossed a wrench in .... have fun with that. I think it might make your engine a bit more environmentally friendly too, not that I'm a tree hugger or anything.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by Garak
MRV deals with pumpability.

Good point. MRV measures pumpability, which is a low-shear process, where the oil is pushed through the gears in the oil pump. CCS measures crankability, which is a high-shear process, where the oil is squeezed in the bearings and between the cylinders and pistons. Therefore, MRV is affected by the wax crystals and pour-point depressants, whereas CCS is not affected by wax crystals and pour-point depressants, as high shear destroys the wax crystals.

You obviously need both pumpability and crankability -- that's why both MRV and CCS are required parameters for the SAE xW viscosity grades.

 

[4wd]

and all the guys complain they did not get Delvac rebate fast enough ... (after paying $2/gallon for the finished lube) ...

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
You obviously need both pumpability and crankability -- that's why both MRV and CCS are required parameters for the SAE xW viscosity grades.

Yes. Of course, within a grade, one can pay attention to other specifications (A3/B4 versus A5/B5) to figure which is going to be a bit better in the cold, which is more important than worrying about pour point, for instance.