Same HTHS mid SAPS v full SAPS

[M405]

Hi,

Below we have two 5w30 oils, the first oil is a C3 ACEA spec and the 2nd is A3/B3. When you look at the hths for them the C3 is 3.7 and the A3/B3 is 3.5. The C3 has 0.7% sulphated ash and the A3/B3 1.24% ash. Both have similar viscosity at 100degrees so my assumption is that the additive pack and use of pao is the differentiator when it comes to how each oil achieves it's hths number . Does it matter how an oil achieves wear protection; is there any difference between the higher additive full saps A3/B3 and the mid saps C3 functionally when it comes to wear protection?

The background is that I am hunting for an oil for a 2004 Mondeo ST220 which has a Duratec V6 engine with roller finger followers and timing chain. The engine is commonly found in the states in the Ford Taurus and Escape as well other vehicles.

Ford originally specified WSS-M2C913-C engine oil superseded by WSS-M2C913-D I think. This spec is similar to A5/B5. Originally I was going to put Mobil 1 0w40 or an A3/B4 in the engine due to better hths then I realised that A5/B5 and Ford spec has much better low temp pumping viscosity and CCS viscosity. I am concerned about wear to the top end of the engine on cold start up. Is it a valid concern?
The A3/B4 Ravenol oil is the only oil I have found which offers >3.5 mPas hths and low temp pump. Viscosity & CCS viscosity which is comparable to a typical A5/B5 oil. It's expensive so I will have to sacrifice one aspect of the oils properties to find one which is in budget. My preference is to keep the >3.5 mPas hths and not to focus too much on cold temp viscosity because here in the UK it doesn't get much colder than zero often.
ravenol full saps
https://www.ravenol-direct.uk/ravenol-usvo-rsp-5w-30-racing-engine-oil-5-litres.html
Ravenol mid saps
https://www.ravenol-direct.uk/ravenol-usvo-vmp-5w-30-engine-oil.html

 

[Cujet]

HTHS is a factor, but never forget that most of the time the oil's native viscosity is in play.

Yes, it is true that studies show as HTHS approaches 4.0, wear decreases. Beyond 4.0 we find diminishing returns.

I'd say this. If you rely heavily on the additive package and/or HTHS for wear protection, your viscosity is too low.

 

[User_19876]

HTHS is a factor, but never forget that most of the time the oil's native viscosity is in play.

Yes, it is true that studies show as HTHS approaches 4.0, wear decreases. Beyond 4.0 we find diminishing returns.

I'd say this. If you rely heavily on the additive package and/or HTHS for wear protection, your viscosity is too low.

Is there a minimum HTHS to shoot for in terms of mitigating wear?

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Is there a minimum HTHS to shoot for in terms of mitigating wear?

Naw. Depends on the engineering design and intended use.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Hi,

Below we have two 5w30 oils, the first oil is a C3 ACEA spec and the 2nd is A3/B3. When you look at the hths for them the C3 is 3.7 and the A3/B3 is 3.5. The C3 has 0.7% sulphated ash and the A3/B3 1.24% ash. Both have similar viscosity at 100degrees so my assumption is that the additive pack and use of pao is the differentiator when it comes to how each oil achieves it's hths number . Does it matter how an oil achieves wear protection; is there any difference between the higher additive full saps A3/B3 and the mid saps C3 functionally when it comes to wear protection?

The background is that I am hunting for an oil for a 2004 Mondeo ST220 which has a Duratec V6 engine with roller finger followers and timing chain. The engine is commonly found in the states in the Ford Taurus and Escape as well other vehicles.

Ford originally specified WSS-M2C913-C engine oil superseded by WSS-M2C913-D I think. This spec is similar to A5/B5. Originally I was going to put Mobil 1 0w40 or an A3/B4 in the engine due to better hths then I realised that A5/B5 and Ford spec has much better low temp pumping viscosity and CCS viscosity. I am concerned about wear to the top end of the engine on cold start up. Is it a valid concern?
The A3/B4 Ravenol oil is the only oil I have found which offers >3.5 mPas hths and low temp pump. Viscosity & CCS viscosity which is comparable to a typical A5/B5 oil. It's expensive so I will have to sacrifice one aspect of the oils properties to find one which is in budget. My preference is to keep the >3.5 mPas hths and not to focus too much on cold temp viscosity because here in the UK it doesn't get much colder than zero often.
ravenol full saps
https://www.ravenol-direct.uk/ravenol-usvo-rsp-5w-30-racing-engine-oil-5-litres.html
Ravenol mid saps
https://www.ravenol-direct.uk/ravenol-usvo-vmp-5w-30-engine-oil.html

View attachment 316859

View attachment 316860

With regards to the ACEA, C3 must meet the same wear requirements as A3/B4. The qualifier is that ULSD/ULSG is required with C3. When your vehicle was built C3 didn't really exist.

You're driving a 20 yr old vehicle. I envision at this point your choosing between A3/B4 vs C3 is going to determine the demise of the engine.

 

[JavierH19]

Is there a minimum HTHS to shoot for in terms of mitigating wear?

The old euro standard for minimum was 3.5 but of course this has gone down over the years and now bmw lists 0w-12 but still allow for the use of 0w-30.

 

[JavierH19]

Hi,

Below we have two 5w30 oils, the first oil is a C3 ACEA spec and the 2nd is A3/B3. When you look at the hths for them the C3 is 3.7 and the A3/B3 is 3.5. The C3 has 0.7% sulphated ash and the A3/B3 1.24% ash. Both have similar viscosity at 100degrees so my assumption is that the additive pack and use of pao is the differentiator when it comes to how each oil achieves it's hths number . Does it matter how an oil achieves wear protection; is there any difference between the higher additive full saps A3/B3 and the mid saps C3 functionally when it comes to wear protection?

The old way of thinking is that more saps = more gooder protection but it's not true anymore. A low saps can be formulated very well like Mobil 1 ESP or delo adf 600 a diesel/gas oil with no zinc or phos with a saps of 0.4% with a ton of molybdenum to reduce wear and pass engine tests.

Both would be good to use. If you worry about passing emissions or having a catalyst related engine code low saps is better especially if it burns oil. But if that's of no concern and/or the engine burns little to nothing then high saps isn't an issue as long as lspi isn't an issue which it isn't for this v6.

The background is that I am hunting for an oil for a 2004 Mondeo ST220 which has a Duratec V6 engine with roller finger followers and timing chain. The engine is commonly found in the states in the Ford Taurus and Escape as well other vehicles.

Anything will do. It was designed around whatever conventional 5w-30 and motorcraft wss oil is still synthetic blend going into 2026 and it's cromulent. After just three 5k mile oil changes the rings and pistons will look hideous when that stuff is used.

Ford originally specified WSS-M2C913-C engine oil superseded by WSS-M2C913-D I think. This spec is similar to A5/B5. Originally I was going to put Mobil 1 0w40 or an A3/B4 in the engine due to better hths then I realised that A5/B5 and Ford spec has much better low temp pumping viscosity and CCS viscosity. I am concerned about wear to the top end of the engine on cold start up. Is it a valid concern?

A 5w is good down to -20 and many still use it even at -35f. Cold cranking isn't that big of a concern for me since it's over 80f in texas today.

The A3/B4 Ravenol oil is the only oil I have found which offers >3.5 mPas hths and low temp pump. Viscosity & CCS viscosity which is comparable to a typical A5/B5 oil. It's expensive so I will have to sacrifice one aspect of the oils properties to find one which is in budget. My preference is to keep the >3.5 mPas hths and not to focus too much on cold temp viscosity because here in the UK it doesn't get much colder than zero often.

A 5w is fine, heck even a 15w would do if it doesn't go below -20c. But some 0w versions of oils like castrol, mobil, valvoline ect will have a better blended 0w-30/40 over the 5w-30/40's but those are still ok.

 

[chris719]

Use the VMP. The wear protection on full vs mid SAPS is close enough because they meet the same test requirements. While they may have a higher theoretical ceiling, we actually do not know the FS oils are any better and it probably depends on the exact formulation.

 

[OVERKILL]

I get a chuckle about the concern regarding performance at -35C (CCS) and -40C (MRV) when you barely get below freezing. Those values are immaterial at the temperatures you are experiencing. They matter in Winnipeg and Thunder Bay, but not where you are.

I generally prefer a full-SAPS oil for applications for which they are appropriate, just due to the added formulation flexibility, but either will be fine, the approvals on the C3 oil mean it's an excellent oil that jumped through many of the same hoops as its full-SAPS counterpart.

Also, there'd be nothing wrong with just running Mobil 1 0W-40.

 

[M405]

With regards to the ACEA, C3 must meet the same wear requirements as A3/B4. The qualifier is that ULSD/ULSG is required with C3. When your vehicle was built C3 didn't really exist.

You're driving a 20 yr old vehicle. I envision at this point your choosing between A3/B4 vs C3 is going to determine the demise of the engine.

Truth be told I'm being overly analytical about the oil. The engine is bulletproof as evidenced by my American cousins who have taken various Fords with this duratec V6 to 200k+ miles on all different grades of oil.

I'm just looking for that 1%. The engine spends a lot of the time 5k rpm+ so I'm trying to look after it.

The ravenol oil I linked has TBN closely matched between the A3/B4 and the C3 when usually I have seen that C3 has lower TBN. Fuel is ultra low sulfur where I am so that is not an issue.

 

[M405]

I get a chuckle about the concern regarding performance at -35C (CCS) and -40C (MRV) when you barely get below freezing. Those values are immaterial at the temperatures you are experiencing. They matter in Winnipeg and Thunder Bay, but not where you are.

I generally prefer a full-SAPS oil for applications for which they are appropriate, just due to the added formulation flexibility, but either will be fine, the approvals on the C3 oil mean it's an excellent oil that jumped through many of the same hoops as its full-SAPS counterpart.

Also, there'd be nothing wrong with just running Mobil 1 0W-40.

Thanks for your thoughts. Regarding cold temperature oil performance why is it seen as immaterial. I understand that -1C is a lot warmer than -35C but will a 0W oil not flow better than a 5W at -1C. Is the difference in wear between the two at this temperature negligible?

Regarding your preference for full saps because of the "added formulation flexibility" would you be so kind as to explain this further? What are the strengths of this formulation and benefits over a C3 oil?

 

[OVERKILL]

Thanks for your thoughts. Regarding cold temperature oil performance why is it seen as immaterial. I understand that -1C is a lot warmer than -35C but will a 0W oil not flow better than a 5W at -1C. Is the difference in wear between the two at this temperature negligible?

No, a 5W-30 can be less viscous than a 0W-40 at say -10C. Wax crystal formation in non-PAO primary bases (so excluding esters and AN's, which tend to be co-bases) is pushed to lower temperatures via the use of PPD's (pour point depressants), as it is those wax crystals that ultimately drive the massive increase in viscosity and gelation that's experienced with Group I/II/III bases at low temperatures (this is not experienced by PAO). So a Group III based 5W-30 could be 300cSt at say -10C and a 0W-40 600cSt, but the 5W-30 starts to run into the limits of its PPD's at -32C (CCS for a 5W-xx is measured at -30C) and it barely passes MRV at -35C, while the 0W-40, which has some PAO in the base oil blend, easily passes below the 6,200cP limit for CCS at -35C.

There's no concern about "flow" at the temperatures at which we are discussing here, we aren't talking about oil that is 10's of thousands of cp putting the oil pump on the pressure relief and potentially restricting how much oil is flowing through the engine until it warms and viscosity reduces a bit. So yes, there's no reason for concern about wear, these are temperatures easily handled by a 10W-xx.

Regarding your preference for full saps because of the "added formulation flexibility" would you be so kind as to explain this further? What are the strengths of this formulation and benefits over a C3 oil?

Full-SAPS oils aren't restricted on, well, SAPS, which includes a few chemicals, like phosphorous, that help with anti-wear. A lot of effort goes into making oils that are restricted by the mid and low SAPS envelope perform at the level the approvals these oils carry mandate. Mobil 1 ESP oils are a good example here, which often have phosphorous (the primary AW component of the ZDDP compound) close to or right at the 900ppm upper limit, while FS 0W-40 carries 1,000ppm.

The ESP oils are designed to be kind to exhaust aftertreatment devices like DPF's and GPF's, while the full-SAPS oils (eg, A3/B4) are not.

 

[M405]

No, a 5W-30 can be less viscous than a 0W-40 at say -10C. Wax crystal formation in non-PAO primary bases (so excluding esters and AN's, which tend to be co-bases) is pushed to lower temperatures via the use of PPD's (pour point depressants), as it is those wax crystals that ultimately drive the massive increase in viscosity and gelation that's experienced with Group I/II/III bases at low temperatures (this is not experienced by PAO). So a Group III based 5W-30 could be 300cSt at say -10C and a 0W-40 600cSt, but the 5W-30 starts to run into the limits of its PPD's at -32C (CCS for a 5W-xx is measured at -30C) and it barely passes MRV at -35C, while the 0W-40, which has some PAO in the base oil blend, easily passes below the 6,200cP limit for CCS at -35C.

There's no concern about "flow" at the temperatures at which we are discussing here, we aren't talking about oil that is 10's of thousands of cp putting the oil pump on the pressure relief and potentially restricting how much oil is flowing through the engine until it warms and viscosity reduces a bit. So yes, there's no reason for concern about wear, these are temperatures easily handled by a 10W-xx.

Full-SAPS oils aren't restricted on, well, SAPS, which includes a few chemicals, like phosphorous, that help with anti-wear. A lot of effort goes into making oils that are restricted by the mid and low SAPS envelope perform at the level the approvals these oils carry mandate. Mobil 1 ESP oils are a good example here, which often have phosphorous (the primary AW component of the ZDDP compound) close to or right at the 900ppm upper limit, while FS 0W-40 carries 1,000ppm.

The ESP oils are designed to be kind to exhaust aftertreatment devices like DPF's and GPF's, while the full-SAPS oils (eg, A3/B4) are not.

I've come back to read this post several times to try and understand it. I have always thought that a 0WXX oil has universally better flow at minus temperatures compared to a 5WXX. I am only just discovering that this is not the case as the relationship between viscosity and cold temperatures is not a linear one. The advantage of a 0WXX in terms of flow at extreme low temperatures in comparison to a 5WXX only becomes apparent at the extreme low temperature at which the oil has been tested in order to obtain it's winter rating.

As you have explained, the 5W30 can be less viscous than a 0W40 oil at a mildly cold temperature but it's viscosity can increase exponentially at extreme cold temperatures (relative to the 0W40 oil) and will "crossover on the graph" to eventually become even more viscous than the 0W40. Somebody correct me if I have understood this wrong.

For myself in the UK this means that the winter rating is not all that relevant at temperatures of say minus 1-5 Celsius. If I understand it correctly this is because the measurement to obtain the winter rating has been done at far lower temperatures than we will ever see in the UK.

I should explain that although I have always known I don't need a 0WXX oil I have wrongly assumed that the increased flow at minus 5 will be appreciated by my engine compared to a 5WXX oil. Obviously now I know that the crossover in viscosity between different grade oils happens at much lower temperatures.

Now I'm wondering why manufacturers spec oils for vehicles here starting from 5WXX and below. You never really see 10W40 oil being specified for some reason.

If I've understood something wrong please correct me. I appreciate all the knowledge on this forum.

 

[OVERKILL]

I've come back to read this post several times to try and understand it. I have always thought that a 0WXX oil has universally better flow at minus temperatures compared to a 5WXX. I am only just discovering that this is not the case as the relationship between viscosity and cold temperatures is not a linear one. The advantage of a 0WXX in terms of flow at extreme low temperatures in comparison to a 5WXX only becomes apparent at the extreme low temperature at which the oil has been tested in order to obtain it's winter rating.

As you have explained, the 5W30 can be less viscous than a 0W40 oil at a mildly cold temperature but it's viscosity can increase exponentially at extreme cold temperatures (relative to the 0W40 oil) and will "crossover on the graph" to eventually become even more viscous than the 0W40. Somebody correct me if I have understood this wrong.

For myself in the UK this means that the winter rating is not all that relevant at temperatures of say minus 1-5 Celsius. If I understand it correctly this is because the measurement to obtain the winter rating has been done at far lower temperatures than we will ever see in the UK.

I should explain that although I have always known I don't need a 0WXX oil I have wrongly assumed that the increased flow at minus 5 will be appreciated by my engine compared to a 5WXX oil. Obviously now I know that the crossover in viscosity between different grade oils happens at much lower temperatures.

Now I'm wondering why manufacturers spec oils for vehicles here starting from 5WXX and below. You never really see 10W40 oil being specified for some reason.

If I've understood something wrong please correct me. I appreciate all the knowledge on this forum.

Sounds like you are properly understanding it

The reason OEM's spec grades like 0W-40 and 5W-40 for locations that don't experience temperatures that require them is the universality of it. They don't need to worry about the grade being appropriate, no matter where the vehicle is sold and operated. It will work just as well in Dallas as it does in For MacMurray or Anchorage. They (particularly oils like 0W-40) are truly "universal", and, having to jump through hoops for approvals like those for A40 and 229.5 means that there's no disadvantage to the consumer in buying them instead of something like a 10W-40, which won't have the same approvals, since OEM's like Porsche and Mercedes don't spec that grade.

 

[BC1]

You seek HTHS on a budget with an expected low temperature of 0C in a 20 year old car? The answer to this is easy, 15w-40. The minimum HTHS is 3.7 for that grade. It was 18F here the other morning and my old truck fired up no problem.

 

[CleanSump]

Pick the most economical oil that meets your HTHS requirement or preference.
When that engine was introduced Ford didn't even require synthetic oil.
No DPF/GPF - don't worry about SAPS.
UK fuel - ULSF is fine with full/mid/low SAPS.
UK temps - don't worry about 0W vs 5W vs 10W.
xW-30 or xW-40 - use what that old manual suggests or what makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

 

[willbur]

The old way of thinking is that more saps = more gooder protection but it's not true anymore. A low saps can be formulated very well like Mobil 1 ESP or delo adf 600 a diesel/gas oil with no zinc or phos with a saps of 0.4% with a ton of molybdenum to reduce wear and pass engine tests.

Both would be good to use. If you worry about passing emissions or having a catalyst related engine code low saps is better especially if it burns oil. But if that's of no concern and/or the engine burns little to nothing then high saps isn't an issue as long as lspi isn't an issue which it isn't for this v6.

Anything will do. It was designed around whatever conventional 5w-30 and motorcraft wss oil is still synthetic blend going into 2026 and it's cromulent. After just three 5k mile oil changes the rings and pistons will look hideous when that stuff is used.

A 5w is good down to -20 and many still use it even at -35f. Cold cranking isn't that big of a concern for me since it's over 80f in texas today.

A 5w is fine, heck even a 15w would do if it doesn't go below -20c. But some 0w versions of oils like castrol, mobil, valvoline ect will have a better blended 0w-30/40 over the 5w-30/40's but those are still ok.

where did you find that word "cromulent"? It's from an early Simpsons episode(?)

 

[kschachn]

I've come back to read this post several times to try and understand it. I have always thought that a 0WXX oil has universally better flow at minus temperatures compared to a 5WXX. I am only just discovering that this is not the case as the relationship between viscosity and cold temperatures is not a linear one. The advantage of a 0WXX in terms of flow at extreme low temperatures in comparison to a 5WXX only becomes apparent at the extreme low temperature at which the oil has been tested in order to obtain it's winter rating.

As you have explained, the 5W30 can be less viscous than a 0W40 oil at a mildly cold temperature but it's viscosity can increase exponentially at extreme cold temperatures (relative to the 0W40 oil) and will "crossover on the graph" to eventually become even more viscous than the 0W40. Somebody correct me if I have understood this wrong.

For myself in the UK this means that the winter rating is not all that relevant at temperatures of say minus 1-5 Celsius. If I understand it correctly this is because the measurement to obtain the winter rating has been done at far lower temperatures than we will ever see in the UK.

I should explain that although I have always known I don't need a 0WXX oil I have wrongly assumed that the increased flow at minus 5 will be appreciated by my engine compared to a 5WXX oil. Obviously now I know that the crossover in viscosity between different grade oils happens at much lower temperatures.

Now I'm wondering why manufacturers spec oils for vehicles here starting from 5WXX and below. You never really see 10W40 oil being specified for some reason.

If I've understood something wrong please correct me. I appreciate all the knowledge on this forum.

Plus the fact that flow is not the issue. Cranking and pumpability is. If it can be pumped it will flow, and that’s where the winter rating is important. As Overkill has noted, at -5C you can use an oil with nearly any winter rating.

 

[UNC035]

If you break down this question tribology-style.

First, the fundamentals: Wear protection comes from two main regimes. Hydrodynamic lubrication(full film, parts separated by oil pressure) is driven mostly by viscosity under heat and shear— that’s your HTHS number.

Boundary lubrication (metal touching metal, like during cold starts or high-load extremes) relies on the additive package forming sacrificial tribofilms (think ZDDP, moly, tungsten, boron, etc.).

Both of these Ravenol USVO oils are top-tier PAO-heavy synthetics, so base oil quality is excellent in each.

The difference you’re seeing:

• VMP (mid-SAPS C3): Higher HTHS (3.7 cP) from a thicker base oil blend and robust VM package. Lower sulfated ash (0.7%) means restricted phosphorus/sulfur — formulators compensate with alternatives (likely higher moly or other friction modifiers) to pass the same ACEA wear tests (OM646, DV4, etc.).

• RSP (full-SAPS A3/B4): Slightly lower HTHS (3.57 cP) but full formulation freedom — higher ash (1.24%), higher TBN (10.3 vs 8.8), and Ravenol’s tungsten additive tech for boundary friction reduction. Lower NOACK and slightly better CCS too.

Do they perform differently on wear? In the ACEA sequences, C3 and A3/B4 oils have to meet essentially the same engine wear limits (cam/tappet, piston ring, bearings). Mid-SAPS oils prove they can hit those marks without the “traditional” high ZDDP levels — modern chemistry (moly, organic friction modifiers) gets it done. Full-SAPS has a bit more headroom for extreme boundary conditions, but in real data (Sequence IVB, ASTM wear tests), the gap is small unless you’re pushing flat-tappet cams or sustained ultra-high loads.

For your ’04 Duratec V6 (roller followers, timing chain, high-rev street use):

• Roller rockers = mostly hydrodynamic/boundary mix, not heavy sliding like flat tappets → HTHS is king for bearing and chain protection at 5k+ rpm.
• No DPF/GPF → no aftertreatment worry, so full-SAPS ash won’t hurt anything.
• UK winters → cold-start flow concern is valid in theory, but at 0°C to -5°C, both oils pump and flow fine. The “0W advantage” only shines way below -20°C where PPD limits kick in.

The bottom line is functionally, wear protection will be excellent with either — you’re splitting hairs at this level. The VMP’s higher HTHS gives a slight edge in hydrodynamic film strength (better for your high-rpm driving). The RSP’s full-SAPS + tungsten gives a slight edge in boundary/extreme conditions and longevity (higher TBN, lower volatility).

If budget is the decider, pick whichever is cheaper — both will out-protect the original Ford semi-synth spec by a mile. This engine is tough; it’ll hit huge miles on far worse oil.

 

[Japanese]

The background is that I am hunting for an oil for a 2004 Mondeo ST220 which has a Duratec V6 engine with roller finger followers and timing chain.

From what the info above and the fact your car is not a sports or racing car, I would definitely would choose 5W-30 ACEA C3.
https://www.ravenol-direct.uk/ravenol-usvo-vmp-5w-30-engine-oil.html