I think due to the lspi requirements of dexos1 gen2 and 3 that they pretty much have to use magnesium?
" Some Group III base oils outperform POA based Group IV"
- Thread starter easym
- Start date
I don’t understand the connection between that video and dexos licensing requirements. Those are mostly performance based and not generally formulation restrictive.
Okay but it’s an LSPI requirement and doesn’t dictate how the formulator gets there. The question was about the use of a single element having some supposed limit or requirement.
When I mentioned "risk" with using pao/poe and seal shrinkage/swelling balancing act & compatibility and do you really need 0W where you live ... I meant in general, why try something more complex (also more expensive) than needed or required? I violate this rule myself but it's the internet you know and I may have said "why risk it"?
Speaking of 0W and violating my own rule, I use lots of M1 EP 10W-30 (10W is fine where I live) and it's my favorite 10W-30 so not bashing M1 here but the only time I used M1 FS 0W-40 with all its "European" bells & whistles and approvals ... it burned some oil whereas M1 EP 10W-30 burns none! btw, EP is also more expensive than FS.
Many OCIs with M1 EP 10W-30 but only one try with M1 FS 0W-40 and not a real hard evidence so I will give it another try since I have another jug of M1 FS 0W-40 in the garage but I think I'm done after that. Interestingly enough, I also tried Castrol Euro A3/B4 0W-40 in the same car and it burned none! iirc, both Castrol and M1 have the exact same Euro approvals!
Speaking of 0W and violating my own rule, I use lots of M1 EP 10W-30 (10W is fine where I live) and it's my favorite 10W-30 so not bashing M1 here but the only time I used M1 FS 0W-40 with all its "European" bells & whistles and approvals ... it burned some oil whereas M1 EP 10W-30 burns none! btw, EP is also more expensive than FS.
Many OCIs with M1 EP 10W-30 but only one try with M1 FS 0W-40 and not a real hard evidence so I will give it another try since I have another jug of M1 FS 0W-40 in the garage but I think I'm done after that. Interestingly enough, I also tried Castrol Euro A3/B4 0W-40 in the same car and it burned none! iirc, both Castrol and M1 have the exact same Euro approvals!
Agree that elements are not compounds. There is nothing else to compare.
The only reason I use 0w-20 in SoCal is my warranty and OM requires it. Rather use 5w-20
This is what I have understood as well. Plenty of discussion here about calcium playing a role in LSPI so the oil companies lowered calcium and boosted magnesium.
You're actually insisting on using a 'PAO based' PCMO instead of a 'group 3 based'
PCMO with the same approvals being 'a risk'? Sorry, I have a different understanding
of 'a risk'. Commonly running an PCMO as specified by the manufacturer possesses
the charm of providing choice entirely free of any risk. Isn't that what approvals are for?
The formulators already did all the work for you, there's no reason for any guesswork.
.
Last edited:
S. CA?
Lets introduce you to a good 10W-30 or even 40 (for summer) after your "warranty". lol
I never worried about my warranty period ... maybe I should have!?
I use 30 or 40 instead of required 20! And I bump the W up to the highest required or needed in my area which is 10W and not what the owner's manual or the oil cap says.
If we poured the base oil into our engines, then I might agree that PAO will probably perform better than Gp3. Probably. But all modern engine oils contain additive packages that massively impact the performance of the finished lubricant, which is really what matters. Anyone who says an engine oil performs better (or worse) strictly because of its base oil content is at risk of being incorrect. Too many variables.
I wouldn't even agree with that. PAO alone isn't ideal due to its high aniline number.
It's superior in some regards as a component (e.g. when blended with POE and AN),
but not as the only base oil component.
That's common whisdom and I don't think it has to be repeated again
and again since nobody ever denied that.
Again, I don't remember anyone saying that. You appear to connote
that someone did. At the very least in this discussion nobody did.
.
I guess my engines are doomed. SuperTech blend 10w-40!!!
We can argue that:
- Manufacturer specified what oil to use. We should trust that since the design engineers know best!
- The formulators did the work and got the "approvals" and we should trust that as well.
Big picture, I agree with that but hey we are on bitog!
D
Deleted member 89374
Yes, we should definitively do that, and the forum can be locked down, and everyone can go home. The engineers always know best. Upper management never tells them how to write oil specifications. If they get to write them at all, that is. There is no concern for meeting imaginary CAFE fuel economy targets that only on a treadmill can be accomplished, even with the thinnest oils.
I advocate for "using common sense and good practices when picking a lubricant for your application." Period.
Everyone is free to agree or disagree, that is your right and nobody ever denied that. Yes PAO is superior in some regards, which is why I said probably. There are other factors involved here but not considered in the original premise.
It may be common wisdom for some, but obviously not everyone. When someone asks if an oil performs better because of its base oil content, it begs the matter that I chose to bring up... yes, again, because it is relevant to the topic of discussion.
Here is the premise for this thread: "Synthetics made from Group III oil can, in some cases, outperform those made in Group IV oils in some areas". This statement means that a finished lubricant *can* outperform another finished lubricant, in some cases and in some areas, simply because of its base oil content. Yes someone said it.
It's worth noting that this is a plan B for reducing LSPI events. Increasing ZDDP and MoDTC is more effective at reducing LSPI events than lowering calcium. However, API/ILSAC also limits phosphorus and sulfur, hindering how much ZDDP and MoDTC can be used, and thus they have to reduce calcium instead. This is the double edged sword that is API. If they were able to put 1200 ppm P and 500 ppm Mo in the oil, they could run 4000 ppm Ca and be smooth sailing.
Hope you read to which odd argument I gave an answer. Remember it had
to do with 'PAO' and 'risk'. We should intrinsically agree that there does no
risk exist as far we're talking about approved oil use in the correct application.
Nobody said discussions are pointless, however some discussions seem to be.
.
OP, can you please define "some." That is an ambiguous term. Which? Ty
D
Deleted member 89374
Red Line Oil has about 1200 ppm of Phosphorus, ~500 ppm Moly, and ~3200 ppm of Calcium. Their High-Performance line is not API licensed, yet they still want to reformulate their lineup, specifically their 0W-20 and 0W-30, and offer a 0W-16 with improved protection against LSPI events. That's what I was told by them a few months ago. Why do you think they would alter something that has worked for them for so long?
People seem to forget 10w performs quite well until it gets extremely cold (below 0F). I don't really worry about the W rating even in Massachusetts except December through February (when I stick to 0w or 5w). No matter what the temperature is I never use less than a 40 and lately mostly 50, on an engine that recommends 5w20 at that.
