Originally Posted by Shannow
If you re talking basestocks only, then higher VI is GREAT...but that maxes out at 130-140.
If you re talking finished oils, it depends.
Given that the "grade" is determined by the KV100, then previous commentary that thinner base oils and more VII are used is true...which can then be problematic in terms of viscosity retention with shear, and potential deposits.
GrIII with VIs to give over 200VI aren't my idea on a preferable oil design.
And the Japanese appear to agree with me, as their answer was 0W20 with stratospheric VI, which sheared down rapidly (CATERHAM's testing plus a couple of papers), which when they successfully lobbied to include 16 grade, they dropped the VI and VII treat rate considerably...Ravenol's 0W16 appears almost a monograde.
ðŸ‘
Q: if we don't know anything about the lubricants VM's, does VI alone tell us anything about the lubricants noack? (on pds's noack is often omitted but VI is generally disclosed)
If you re talking basestocks only, then higher VI is GREAT...but that maxes out at 130-140.
If you re talking finished oils, it depends.
Given that the "grade" is determined by the KV100, then previous commentary that thinner base oils and more VII are used is true...which can then be problematic in terms of viscosity retention with shear, and potential deposits.
GrIII with VIs to give over 200VI aren't my idea on a preferable oil design.
And the Japanese appear to agree with me, as their answer was 0W20 with stratospheric VI, which sheared down rapidly (CATERHAM's testing plus a couple of papers), which when they successfully lobbied to include 16 grade, they dropped the VI and VII treat rate considerably...Ravenol's 0W16 appears almost a monograde.
ðŸ‘
Q: if we don't know anything about the lubricants VM's, does VI alone tell us anything about the lubricants noack? (on pds's noack is often omitted but VI is generally disclosed)