Quick freezer comparison Durablend 10w-30 & Pennz 10w-30

[DirtyApe]

One tablespoon each of 10w30 Durablend and 10w30 Pennz dino in two clear dixie cups taped to a piece of cardboard. Placed in the freezer at 5f for 1 hour.

Took it out did the tilt test, both oils reached the lip of the cup at EXACTLY the same time.

SO....... I take it that at least with these two, extra $$ spent on the Durablend for cold weather starting is null and void, eh?

Interesting test on a boring Sunday afternoon.

Next is 5w30 Pennz versus 10w30 ...

 

[pbm]

I think it would be more meaningful if you left it in the freezer overnight. One hour isn't really that long.

 

[Rob Taggs]

I agree, leave it in longer than one hour. I do the same but, at -20 degrees for 24 hours. Most oils I've tried do not hold up to their claims at this temp. Synthetics seems to do a little better.

 

[DirtyApe]

I'll set another test up tonight (same oils) and let it go until after supper tomorrow night. I know I'm only testing flowability (that a word?) with this, but still fun nonetheless.

 

[jagabom]

Good idea. I await the results. These kind are the best tests.
Jim
5-30 in the winter and 10-30 in the summer.
99 GMC 4.3

 

[1 FMF]

it's averaging 5F overnight here in CT. How about where you are? Let it sit outside overnight and check it in the morning.

Small world, I just did this a few days ago with a few oils, all were in the qt bottle and they seemed to all still pour. However, two samples were only a couple ounces in blackstone oil analysis containers. Initially I was doing an aeration experiment with lucas oil stabilizer additive, added to castrol 30HD. So in addition to that since it's been so darn cold out, I stuck those two outside overnight, next morning the castrol 30HD by itself would not move! I could turn the container upside down and it stuck to the bottom, it stayed like that for at least a minute inside on the counter at 65F. The other sample with about 10% of lucas added to the 30HD flowed, and the full qt bottle of castrol 30HD still flowed in the bottle, go figure

I think the amount of the sample has a lot to do with it, when there's a lot of it I think it's more apt to flow. I will have to clean out my UOA containers and try other oils now.

 

[DirtyApe]

It's about 25f outside right now..

 

[DirtyApe]

Well, I just checked after about 22hrs at 5f (door not opened at all), and I still see no difference in which oil drips from the cup first. Basically a dead heat between the 10-30 durablend and 10-30 pennz dino.

I'm going to try 5w30 pennz against the 10-30 tonight. more later.

I'm guessing that the synth content (~30%)? is simply not enough to get it flowing quicker versus the dino pennz? I know dino pennz has a good rep for cold flow, but?

 

[Dominic]

theyre both 10w30 - they should both reach the end of the cup at the same time!!!

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dominic:
theyre both 10w30 - they should both reach the end of the cup at the same time!!!

---

Not necessarily. Remember, viscosity is defined in ranges, not absolute must-meet single numbers. I would assume that a "thin" 30 would behave somewhat different than a "thick" 30.

 

[ekpolk]

Funny that this thread appeared now. I had planned to start a thread tonight entitled something along the lines of, "new respect for cold oil."

Last night, I drew out a sample of the GC that is just reaching 5k miles in my G35 (it's staying in; I'm shooting for 10k). On a whim, I sucked out a second bottle and tossed it in the freezer. I was absolutely shocked by what I found this evening when I took it out, about 24 hours after it went in. This 0w-30 German Castrol was very thick compared to how it looked when still warm. It's somewhere around the consistency of thick maple syrup. It flows and pours fine, but it's noticeably a lot thicker. I'm just thinking to myself, "wow, this is a 0w- oil???"

I have just gained a lot of respect for cold oil and especially cold engines with cold oil in them. I've never flogged cold engines, but from now on, I'll be even more careful.

 

[TallPaul]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:
I have just gained a lot of respect for cold oil and especially cold engines with cold oil in them. I've never flogged cold engines, but from now on, I'll be even more careful.

---

That's why my pickup is plugged in all the time when at home. The only time the oil gets really cold is the 9 hours it is parked while I am at work. The oil pan heater (250 watt pad) appears to maintain the oil somewhere above 70F. Starts very nicely, even on zero days, and with 10w40 dino.

Because the cold engine is misshapen by contraction, I never drive a cold engine hard. I was always told the quickest way to make an oil burner was to race a cold engine.

 

[DirtyApe]

My reasoning was that the durablend should have flowed a little faster being that it is purported to be about 1/3 synth. Perhaps the durablend is a 'thicker' 30wt and the pennzoil is a thinner 30wt and the synth blend advantage got canceled out.

?

 

[ekpolk]

Since you're getting identical dripping with the two 10s, it would be interesting to test your assumptions by repeating this test with one of your 10s and maybe a 0w-x oil (maybe a straight weight 30 too). If you don't see a difference then, you've got to ask whether your method is valid. It would also be neat to get an idea of just how much difference there is between some of the grades.

 

[jsharp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:
Since you're getting identical dripping with the two 10s, it would be interesting to test your assumptions by repeating this test with one of your 10s and maybe a 0w-x oil (maybe a straight weight 30 too). If you don't see a difference then, you've got to ask whether your method is valid. It would also be neat to get an idea of just how much difference there is between some of the grades.

---

If I'm not mistaken, the xW ratings come from cold cranking simulation tests, not simple pour tests.

I can't see how a simple pour test would show you much more than the basic viscosity at a given temperature. You can compare oils that way with a calculator. No freezer is required...

 

[mechtech]

Concerning the freezer test - both oils flow better than Ted Williams.

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsharp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:
Since you're getting identical dripping with the two 10s, it would be interesting to test your assumptions by repeating this test with one of your 10s and maybe a 0w-x oil (maybe a straight weight 30 too). If you don't see a difference then, you've got to ask whether your method is valid. It would also be neat to get an idea of just how much difference there is between some of the grades.

---

If I'm not mistaken, the xW ratings come from cold cranking simulation tests, not simple pour tests.

I can't see how a simple pour test would show you much more than the basic viscosity at a given temperature. You can compare oils that way with a calculator. No freezer is required...

---

Yes, as far as what I know, you are correct regarding the CCCS and xW ratings. That said, keep this all in context. We're talking about a home experiment using paper cups and cardboard. I think you may see some differences between oils of the same "w" grade, and I'd hope you'd see some difference between oils of widely different "w" grades. Of course, I understand that performance on a CCCS test may not correspond directly with pouring performance. And besides, using a calculator isn't nearly as much fun as doing your own, hands-on experiment.

 

[jsharp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsharp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:
Since you're getting identical dripping with the two 10s, it would be interesting to test your assumptions by repeating this test with one of your 10s and maybe a 0w-x oil (maybe a straight weight 30 too). If you don't see a difference then, you've got to ask whether your method is valid. It would also be neat to get an idea of just how much difference there is between some of the grades.

---

If I'm not mistaken, the xW ratings come from cold cranking simulation tests, not simple pour tests.

I can't see how a simple pour test would show you much more than the basic viscosity at a given temperature. You can compare oils that way with a calculator. No freezer is required...

---

Yes, as far as what I know, you are correct regarding the CCCS and xW ratings. That said, keep this all in context. We're talking about a home experiment using paper cups and cardboard. I think you may see some differences between oils of the same "w" grade, and I'd hope you'd see some difference between oils of widely different "w" grades. Of course, I understand that performance on a CCCS test may not correspond directly with pouring performance. And besides, using a calculator isn't nearly as much fun as doing your own, hands-on experiment.

---

I understand the fun of the test. Some of us have had fun with the viscosity calculator someone posted too. Plugging the numbers in for different oils what surprised me was how thick some 0W and 5W oils get at -20C and -30C according to the calculator. I just couldn't believe it was right given these oils cold weather ratings and my own experience with them.

That's when I did my usual

and realized that the calculated viscosity wasn't the same as the cold cranking viscosity. As if anyone here, self included, wouldn't have known that already...

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsharp:
If I'm not mistaken, the xW ratings come from cold cranking simulation tests, not simple pour tests.

I can't see how a simple pour test would show you much more than the basic viscosity at a given temperature. You can compare oils that way with a calculator. No freezer is required...

---

xW is based on two tests. The cold cranking test you mentioned that determines how much resistance to movement the oil has when a significant shear force is applied to it.

The other test is the pumpability test. It determines how the oil will behave when a pump is trying to pick it up. The forces on the oil are lower there and oil acts differently depending on how much shear force is being applied to it. In other words, it's viscosity is somewhat rate dependant.

Different oils also don't all follow exactly the same shaped curve as they are cooled or heated. The calculators are pretty good at giving you standard viscosity betwenn 40C and 100C and a bit beyond in either direction. If you try to extrapolate too far, the results get questionable.

I don't think you can draw any meaningful conclusions about pour points from a VI based calculation.

 

[jsharp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by XS650:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsharp:
If I'm not mistaken, the xW ratings come from cold cranking simulation tests, not simple pour tests.

I can't see how a simple pour test would show you much more than the basic viscosity at a given temperature. You can compare oils that way with a calculator. No freezer is required...

---

xW is based on two tests. The cold cranking test you mentioned that determines how much resistance to movement the oil has when a significant shear force is applied to it.

The other test is the pumpability test. It determines how the oil will behave when a pump is trying to pick it up. The forces on the oil are lower there and oil acts differently depending on how much shear force is being applied to it. In other words, it's viscosity is somewhat rate dependant.

Different oils also don't all follow exactly the same shaped curve as they are cooled or heated. The calculators are pretty good at giving you standard viscosity betwenn 40C and 100C and a bit beyond in either direction. If you try to extrapolate too far, the results get questionable.

I don't think you can draw any meaningful conclusions about pour points from a VI based calculation.

---

That certainly makes sense. I was trying the calculator with different oils and with some of the common viscosity mixes we see around here and just couldn't believe the numbers. But when I've fooled around with my own simple freezer tests before the observed viscosity didn't seem to follow the rating either.

I decided I didn't understand all I thought I knew about this...