that must be true. Amsoil claims their 10w30 / 30 offering has no VI's. Does seem to make sense. Why would VI be needed for a straight weight oil anyway?
Rotella T1 Straight 30 Weight:: Who Sells It
- Thread starter Hot_Ajax
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
that must be true. Amsoil claims their 10w30 / 30 offering has no VI's. Does seem to make sense. Why would VI be needed for a straight weight oil anyway?
A straight weight cannot, by definition, contain any VII's.
that must be true. Amsoil claims their 10w30 / 30 offering has no VI's. Does seem to make sense. Why would VI be needed for a straight weight oil anyway?
A straight weight cannot, by definition, contain any VII's.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
that must be true. Amsoil claims their 10w30 / 30 offering has no VI's. Does seem to make sense. Why would VI be needed for a straight weight oil anyway?
A straight weight cannot, by definition, contain any VII's.
Yep
http://paservice.it/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/J300_201304.pdf
Section 6, para 4
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
that must be true. Amsoil claims their 10w30 / 30 offering has no VI's. Does seem to make sense. Why would VI be needed for a straight weight oil anyway?
A straight weight cannot, by definition, contain any VII's.
Yep
http://paservice.it/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/J300_201304.pdf
Section 6, para 4
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Warmed to? What does that mean? Do you have technical or specific objections or just prefer to live 30 years behind the times?
I never can understand the fascination with straight weight oils compared to modern multi-viscosity ones. What benefits do you perceive for a straight weight? I can only think of negatives.
Originally Posted By: Hot_Ajax
Count me in that group of people who haven't warmed to multiweight oil for outdoor power equipment. I have a Wheel Horse with a cast iron Kohler engine, 1984, that went 29 years before an overhaul. And it didn't break, throw a rod, or anything catastrophic. Just starting burning a quart every 10 hours and compression dropped. The lowering compression made it harder to cut through the high stuff. I ran it for those 29 years on straight 30 wt. And plan on using it again. Considering there's no oil filter on these engines, that's pretty good longevity. I'm sure this latest overhaul will outlive me.
Mr. KS: It's very important to keep my tractor running. Particularly because I don't want to shell out $5000 for a new one that won't be half as good. Therefore, I don't mind living 30 years behind times, as you put it, to keep the oil in it that the manufacturer specified. Do I need to be cool or something by using multi vis oil? I just stated that I got 29 years out of the engine using SAE 30, what more evidence do you need?
Warmed to? What does that mean? Do you have technical or specific objections or just prefer to live 30 years behind the times?
I never can understand the fascination with straight weight oils compared to modern multi-viscosity ones. What benefits do you perceive for a straight weight? I can only think of negatives.
Originally Posted By: Hot_Ajax
Count me in that group of people who haven't warmed to multiweight oil for outdoor power equipment. I have a Wheel Horse with a cast iron Kohler engine, 1984, that went 29 years before an overhaul. And it didn't break, throw a rod, or anything catastrophic. Just starting burning a quart every 10 hours and compression dropped. The lowering compression made it harder to cut through the high stuff. I ran it for those 29 years on straight 30 wt. And plan on using it again. Considering there's no oil filter on these engines, that's pretty good longevity. I'm sure this latest overhaul will outlive me.
Mr. KS: It's very important to keep my tractor running. Particularly because I don't want to shell out $5000 for a new one that won't be half as good. Therefore, I don't mind living 30 years behind times, as you put it, to keep the oil in it that the manufacturer specified. Do I need to be cool or something by using multi vis oil? I just stated that I got 29 years out of the engine using SAE 30, what more evidence do you need?
Last edited:
There are a few things that need to be clarified. Any CJ-4 rated lube will have an HTHS of 3.5 or greater, so anything so rated will have ample viscosity reserve. Also, switching to a different viscosity will not be some monumental change for the engine. In the past 29 years with that tractor, the oil you use has probably been significantly reformulated over a dozen times.
Originally Posted By: Garak
There are a few things that need to be clarified. Any CJ-4 rated lube will have an HTHS of 3.5 or greater, so anything so rated will have ample viscosity reserve. Also, switching to a different viscosity will not be some monumental change for the engine. In the past 29 years with that tractor, the oil you use has probably been significantly reformulated over a dozen times.
No biggie, sticking with straight 30. The stuff WORKS!!
There are a few things that need to be clarified. Any CJ-4 rated lube will have an HTHS of 3.5 or greater, so anything so rated will have ample viscosity reserve. Also, switching to a different viscosity will not be some monumental change for the engine. In the past 29 years with that tractor, the oil you use has probably been significantly reformulated over a dozen times.
No biggie, sticking with straight 30. The stuff WORKS!!
29 years with straight 30?why change!
29 years with straight 30?why change!
Originally Posted By: Hot_Ajax
No biggie, sticking with straight 30. The stuff WORKS!!
I don't doubt it works. It would work fine in 99% of brand new vehicles sold, too. That being said, I haven't touched a monograde in over thirty years.
No biggie, sticking with straight 30. The stuff WORKS!!
I don't doubt it works. It would work fine in 99% of brand new vehicles sold, too. That being said, I haven't touched a monograde in over thirty years.
I could understand a person not using mono grade engine oils for 30 years if mono grade engine oils were the same as they were 30 years ago.
Mono grade engine oils are a group 2 product typically.
Single grade engine oils may contain additives that improve the cold crank and flow performance without breaking rules.
Someone up thread said that Amsoil has an SAE 30 that will pass a 10W test, which in fact qualifies it as a multi grade by any other name.
I used to make a point of having mono grades out of a vehicle before Oct 15th. Not any more.
The attribute of mono grade lubricants is that they handle heat very well and usually have a very high flash point as evidence.
Mono grades are the work horses of industry.
I'm glad nobody uses it for two reasons; it would drive the price up and there is not enough to go around.
Mono grade engine oils are a group 2 product typically.
Single grade engine oils may contain additives that improve the cold crank and flow performance without breaking rules.
Someone up thread said that Amsoil has an SAE 30 that will pass a 10W test, which in fact qualifies it as a multi grade by any other name.
I used to make a point of having mono grades out of a vehicle before Oct 15th. Not any more.
The attribute of mono grade lubricants is that they handle heat very well and usually have a very high flash point as evidence.
Mono grades are the work horses of industry.
I'm glad nobody uses it for two reasons; it would drive the price up and there is not enough to go around.
For a compressor or something with a long duty cycle, I have no concerns with monogrades. Additive packages have gotten better over the past thirty years, including those in monogrades. However, additive packages and blending for multigrades have improved that much more in the interim.
Historically it's interesting that the diesel engine manufacturers (of all sorts, OTR, marine, stationary power) all liked SAE30.
Silly to say that they liked SAE 30, as design starts with a series of dimensions, and an assumed operational viscosity (HTHS for a better word), then iteratively ends up with a larger/smaller, faster/slower, closer/looser arrangement that works.
For primarily OTR applications, there was a push for multigrades, that was resisted due to the reasons that HTHS became part of J300, that multigrades could be made with KV100s that met the mark, and didn't make it in service...and the early days of rubberised sumps with 10W40.
OTR engine manufacturers allowed 15W40 when they thought that it was good enough to supply the durability of an SAE30 (HTHS 3.7), with limited downsides for deposits etc.
Latest J300 has raised the bar on the 10W, 5W, 0W 40s to the same minimum HTHS as the 15Ws, 20Ws, and 25Ws of old...which reflects Garak's point...VIIs are way better than they were.
The "new" 10W30 HDMOs are "safe" options to me, in that basestocks are pushing the performance and HTHS back to where the manufacturers knew their performance limits decades ago, but adding low temperature performance to it
Silly to say that they liked SAE 30, as design starts with a series of dimensions, and an assumed operational viscosity (HTHS for a better word), then iteratively ends up with a larger/smaller, faster/slower, closer/looser arrangement that works.
For primarily OTR applications, there was a push for multigrades, that was resisted due to the reasons that HTHS became part of J300, that multigrades could be made with KV100s that met the mark, and didn't make it in service...and the early days of rubberised sumps with 10W40.
OTR engine manufacturers allowed 15W40 when they thought that it was good enough to supply the durability of an SAE30 (HTHS 3.7), with limited downsides for deposits etc.
Latest J300 has raised the bar on the 10W, 5W, 0W 40s to the same minimum HTHS as the 15Ws, 20Ws, and 25Ws of old...which reflects Garak's point...VIIs are way better than they were.
The "new" 10W30 HDMOs are "safe" options to me, in that basestocks are pushing the performance and HTHS back to where the manufacturers knew their performance limits decades ago, but adding low temperature performance to it
Exactly. I wouldn't be rushing to use a 1970s/80s vintage 10w-40 for that HTHS issue alone, and I still avoid the product. Any HDEO with a modern specification (CI-4, CI-4+, CJ-4) is going to have an HTHS of 3.5 or greater, regardless of the bottle grade. I wouldn't be clamoring to replace an SAE 30 in a tractor with an SN/GF-5 5w-30, but I can think of many, many HDEO examples I'd try before the SAE 30.
HTHS values have changed over the years for the various grades. Shannow is handy for finding links.
I wonder if he has an old J300 list from 20 years ago that would contrast the changes from the present?
I believe the changes are driven by the major oil companies that spend billions on modern refineries and lube plants.
Raising the bar eliminates old technology.
This also ensures the consumer who buys an API certified product the best that is available, warranty protection and at an affordable price.
I wonder if he has an old J300 list from 20 years ago that would contrast the changes from the present?
I believe the changes are driven by the major oil companies that spend billions on modern refineries and lube plants.
Raising the bar eliminates old technology.
This also ensures the consumer who buys an API certified product the best that is available, warranty protection and at an affordable price.
Originally Posted By: used_0il
HTHS values have changed over the years for the various grades. Shannow is handy for finding links.
I wonder if he has an old J300 list from 20 years ago that would contrast the changes from the present?
not sure whether you are taking the pi$$ there, but I'll be your huckleberry.
From my library, come the following photos from 1991 Shell product data sheet and 1997 Shell product data sheets...as previously mentioned, the 1984 standard didn't have HTHS, that was only introduced in the late '80s after the multigrades failed to perform as well as their KVs would suggest...
HTHS values have changed over the years for the various grades. Shannow is handy for finding links.
I wonder if he has an old J300 list from 20 years ago that would contrast the changes from the present?
not sure whether you are taking the pi$$ there, but I'll be your huckleberry.
From my library, come the following photos from 1991 Shell product data sheet and 1997 Shell product data sheets...as previously mentioned, the 1984 standard didn't have HTHS, that was only introduced in the late '80s after the multigrades failed to perform as well as their KVs would suggest...
Hi,
Shannow - I can't quickly access my Data from MB for the 1950s-1960s but the 1979 Castrol Product Descriptions Catalogue I have states;
Castrol RX Super 30/40 (SE/CD) Meets MIL-L-2104C and MIL-L-46152. DB OM616, Volvo B20A, GM 6136M, Mack EO-J, Ford M2C-153A. Recommended for Detroit Diesels (two stroke)
Castrol CRF - SAE10W*,20,30,40 (SE/CD) - Mono grade oils recommended for mixed fleet operation (Ford M2C-101C, GM 6136M, Mack EO-H CAT, Perkins etc)
AgriCastrol Multi-Use Tractor Oil - 20W*-40 (SE/CC) (Can be used in place of 80W, 90 lubricants in transmissions where there is no EP requirement
AgriCastrol MP - 20W*-40 (CD or Series 3) (Can be used for 80W, 85, 90 GL4 applications)
SAE "W"rating using extrapolated viscosity to -18C
Castrol was also producing the following ester-caster based lubricants;
Castrol R 30,40,50 and M for two strokes
They were commencing with Formula R synthetic 15W-50 (SE). I was involved in the development of this lubricant which of course ended up as their premium 10W-60. During its development I used it in various small Japanese diesel engines - Kubota, Isuzu, Yanmar etc
The API dropped their bundle in the 1960-1970s era and did not keep up with diesel engine developments. I've mentioned this before on here - engine failures from sludging etc were common! The API started a collaboration process with the OEMs in the late 1970s
CAT and MD had their own lubricant specifications for some decades earlier and were spared the dramas. The Series 3 lubricant Spec noted above was of course from CAT
In the past I've used SAE30 lubricants from Mobil, Shell, Caltex and Castrol in "Artic" conditions and in heavy diesel engines with no problems. Warm up prior to loading was a given. Castrol was always the "varnish" master.....
Shannow - I can't quickly access my Data from MB for the 1950s-1960s but the 1979 Castrol Product Descriptions Catalogue I have states;
Castrol RX Super 30/40 (SE/CD) Meets MIL-L-2104C and MIL-L-46152. DB OM616, Volvo B20A, GM 6136M, Mack EO-J, Ford M2C-153A. Recommended for Detroit Diesels (two stroke)
Castrol CRF - SAE10W*,20,30,40 (SE/CD) - Mono grade oils recommended for mixed fleet operation (Ford M2C-101C, GM 6136M, Mack EO-H CAT, Perkins etc)
AgriCastrol Multi-Use Tractor Oil - 20W*-40 (SE/CC) (Can be used in place of 80W, 90 lubricants in transmissions where there is no EP requirement
AgriCastrol MP - 20W*-40 (CD or Series 3) (Can be used for 80W, 85, 90 GL4 applications)
SAE "W"rating using extrapolated viscosity to -18C
Castrol was also producing the following ester-caster based lubricants;
Castrol R 30,40,50 and M for two strokes
They were commencing with Formula R synthetic 15W-50 (SE). I was involved in the development of this lubricant which of course ended up as their premium 10W-60. During its development I used it in various small Japanese diesel engines - Kubota, Isuzu, Yanmar etc
The API dropped their bundle in the 1960-1970s era and did not keep up with diesel engine developments. I've mentioned this before on here - engine failures from sludging etc were common! The API started a collaboration process with the OEMs in the late 1970s
CAT and MD had their own lubricant specifications for some decades earlier and were spared the dramas. The Series 3 lubricant Spec noted above was of course from CAT
In the past I've used SAE30 lubricants from Mobil, Shell, Caltex and Castrol in "Artic" conditions and in heavy diesel engines with no problems. Warm up prior to loading was a given. Castrol was always the "varnish" master.....
Last edited:
something I've been curious about for a while:
Would a straight 40 shear noticeably in a Powerstroke 6.4?
Charlie
Would a straight 40 shear noticeably in a Powerstroke 6.4?
Charlie
Originally Posted By: m37charlie
something I've been curious about for a while:
Would a straight 40 shear noticeably in a Powerstroke 6.4?
Charlie
It would eventually, but it would be hard to start cold, & would probably "romp" or chug due to the very high cold viscosity. AFAIK Ford never recommended any straight weights in a HEUI engine?
something I've been curious about for a while:
Would a straight 40 shear noticeably in a Powerstroke 6.4?
Charlie
It would eventually, but it would be hard to start cold, & would probably "romp" or chug due to the very high cold viscosity. AFAIK Ford never recommended any straight weights in a HEUI engine?
The WallWorld here in Wenatchee, WA sells T1,as does VatoZone. Its a vit more than the 15w-40 though for some reason.
- Status
