Straight 30 getting hard to find

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's a good one. But I suspect the John Deere Plus 50 in SAE 30 would give it a run for the money
laugh.gif
 
Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
You state that multi-grades are made for marketing reasons and provided one chart. I can't say whether you're right or wrong, because I haven't done all the research myself, but I tend to side with companies that have invested billions in developing robust oil specs (such as MB 229.5 or LL-01) that spec multi-grades, even in the hottest of climates.

Marketing might be one way to look at it, because there is a bunch of dumbing down. A manual shows SAE 30 as a suitable summer fill, someone here will do it in the winter and blame the OEM, or at least be looking for their help.

Beyond that, multigrades certainly are more than marketing. They're not marketing here. They're a sensible reality. It's either that or seasonal oil changes or dumping kerosene down the sump, and I'm not interested in that, and never have been. Additionally, if we're trying to push extended drains as a maintenance or environmental issue, it's kind of hard to tell me to run SAE 30 for three or four months here and maybe put not even half an OCI on the vehicle, then dump it for something multigrade for our giant winter. As I've said many times, in my applications, assuming no other overriding factor, if I can't run an oil year round, I'm not really interested.

It's also important to note that higher VI oils do contribute to fuel economy, so there's a minor benefit there from an OEM standpoint, even with a 0w-40 LL-01 over an SAE 40.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
You state that multi-grades are made for marketing reasons and provided one chart. I can't say whether you're right or wrong, because I haven't done all the research myself, but I tend to side with companies that have invested billions in developing robust oil specs (such as MB 229.5 or LL-01) that spec multi-grades, even in the hottest of climates.



It's also important to note that higher VI oils do contribute to fuel economy, so there's a minor benefit there from an OEM standpoint, even with a 0w-40 LL-01 over an SAE 40.


I'd sure be interested in seeing those verified results of MPG increase verified by independent sources rather than infomercials. I've seen dozens of claims and serious in my experience none of those proved out.
 
Last edited:
Definitely make sense.

Their history is based on the fact that some basestocks performed better both cold AND hot, had a better Viscosity Index, and were clearly preferable...here's what passed for J300 in 1923

As understanding grew, it evolved into the "W" system, based on pour points, and then as knowledge grew further, to MRV and CCS.

There's nothing wrong with "multigrade" per se, and the Amosil 30/10W-30 demonstrates it well.

The current drive for artificially ludicrous VI for economy and the compromises that have to be made to achieve that is a separate issue.

Me personally would LOVE for the oil companies to make a 20W20 with a modern (e.d. Dexos) additive package...I'd run it in anything speccing an ILSAC 30. A 30 with the same package, I'd happily run year round in anything that specced 0W or 5W40.

But they AREN'T going to make those, so Dexos 2 A3/B4, C3 style 5W30s are about all I've got access to.

And I won't lose a minute's sleep really.
 
You are restating my "marketing" rational in different ways. All valid. The move away from straight grades to multis was to apeal to the 2/3 of the USA and all of Canada that need a multi for winter. The other 1/3 of the USA and Mexico don't. So why have two product lines if we can convince the customer that one will do it all?

It was a successful plan except for some industries. Those can't and won't switch. So special mono-grade lubes were developed for them as needed and the rest of the world was taught to use multi's which can be stocked easily and resupplied easily.

Marine and Aviation have their own distribution channels. Ditto Ag and Construction, Mining, etc. The US Navy has it's own channel so all the DD2 diesels on ship-board and in launches get their lube through DoD channels.

The marketing I was referring to is the "teaching/informing" that went on for the general public (really more indoctrination) ...

Ideas like cold flow to the head faster and idiocy like that ... It worked. Joe Blow believes it and is reaching for 0W-30 when they live in Arkansas and will not see any -5*F nights ... While the big rig down the block starts just fine on 15W-40 and drives off into the sunrise ...
 
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
[...]
Ideas like cold flow to the head faster and idiocy like that ... It worked. Joe Blow believes it and is reaching for 0W-30 when they live in Arkansas and will not see any -5*F nights ... While the big rig down the block starts just fine on 15W-40 and drives off into the sunrise ...


thumbsup2.gif


Exhibit C:

Fig. 3 in https://jalopnik.com/why-expensive-oil-is-a-waste-of-money-1797241527

If the “cold flow” thing you mentioned was to be true, the Castrol 0W30 should have creamed its Castrol 5W30 brother. Yet it didn’t.....
 
Originally Posted By: JohnnyJohnson
I'd sure be interested in seeing those verified results of MPG increase verified by independent sources rather than infomercials. I've seen dozens of claims and serious in my experience none of those proved out.

The laws of hydrodynamics back it up. You and I will never measure it in practice, but it's there and can be measured under controlled conditions, and that's good enough for most jurisdictions where fuel economy standards exist.
 
Originally Posted By: nap
If the “cold flow” thing you mentioned was to be true, the Castrol 0W30 should have creamed its Castrol 5W30 brother. Yet it didn’t.....

Except 0w-30 Castrol will cream Castrol 5w-30 in MRV and CCS testing.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak

Except 0w-30 Castrol will cream Castrol 5w-30 in MRV and CCS testing.


Correct, except it won’t have any benefits unless you’re actually operating the engine at the temperatures relevant for MRV and CCS. Won’t happen in Arkansas.....
laugh.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: JohnnyJohnson
I'd sure be interested in seeing those verified results of MPG increase verified by independent sources rather than infomercials. I've seen dozens of claims and serious in my experience none of those proved out.

The laws of hydrodynamics back it up. You and I will never measure it in practice, but it's there and can be measured under controlled conditions, and that's good enough for most jurisdictions where fuel economy standards exist.


It's definitely there...but take note of M1 AFE's "when compared to commonly used viscosities.

In YOUR real world, you are comparing 20s with ILSAC 30s, so it's anything from marginally worse to 1.8% better in this standardised test...you'll NEVER measure it in a car with a variance of 10%.



Here's another from the files...probably more pertinent to another thread that was being discussed, but will chuck it in,,,again, 3Cp to 2.6 is a couple of percent max...in the lab.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: JohnnyJohnson
I'd sure be interested in seeing those verified results of MPG increase verified by independent sources rather than infomercials. I've seen dozens of claims and serious in my experience none of those proved out.

The laws of hydrodynamics back it up. You and I will never measure it in practice, but it's there and can be measured under controlled conditions, and that's good enough for most jurisdictions where fuel economy standards exist.


LOL I'd give you my candid opinion but they'd throw me off here!
 
You’ve convinced me that SAE 30 will beat its multigrade conventional counterpart. However, I’m not convinced that it will outperform a full synthetic A3/B4 or E6/E9 multigrade from a wear/protection/cleanliness standpoint. Thoughts? Also have to consider the longevity of synthetic vs conventional.
 
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
If SAE 30 HD were inferior, why would really expensive engines like aero and ships rely on it? And why would there be engines that will not tolerate anything else?

Hey Broc, what is the duty cycle on a ship or aero application?
How does it differ from consumer automotive?

Do you think that has any impact on this discussion?

Are you really defaulting to **if it's really expensive, it must be better**?

Seeking clarification...
 
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
Marine and Aviation have their own distribution channels. Ditto Ag and Construction, Mining, etc.


We can only find lawnmower 30 in the retail market normally, but the oil industry supplies it. I can get it through our oil company at work easily enough, they just don't supply it to us for cars.
 
Well that's a conundrum. Ships oils have a starting TBN like 15. They are way overbased to help with accumulated acids from the constant 99% humidity environment. The make our discussions of "condensation" seem like child's play ... Ships run 100~500 gallon oil tanks, often per engine, and "chest" filters that hold something like 20~50 gallons and maybe 50 "towels" that get laundered and and re-installed.

An oil change on a lot of ships means a small tank truck to collect the used oil and deliver the new fluids. Changes are strictly by the UOA method. On-board engineering departments can centrifuge a sample and look at pH and such. They send a sample in to their contracted lab most times they are in port. The reports coming back will tell them when to expect a change, what the trends are, etc. They contract a change well ahead of time.

Aero has a much lower starting TBN, but a change interval that is fairly conservative and co-insides with some minor engine examination stuff. Their oils are simpler, but the air-cooled nature of the engine and the full rich take-offs, added carb heat for landings, etc. And their designed looser clearanced engines means the oils get beat up with fuel dilution and related issues. Also these engines run at 75% power or better almost all the time. Name a car that does that?

But, really expensive is a criteria for good oil. None of these folks fool around with guessing games. Engine re-builders for either market specify the oils to be used for break-in and run-in (no multi's allowed), with the option for multi's after the third oil change. Also no break-in on synthetics.

A Corvette can pull over if something goes amiss. A plane can not, neither can a ship. Marketing and Cache have something to do with car sales and mystque's. Not so much in Ships, Planes, or Tractors. Those purchasing decisions are usually made with a spreadsheet ... Wear numbers and life expectancy are factored into the spreadsheet. Number of overhauls before EOL, etc. If things do not go as expected, there are serious job threatening questions that get asked ...

SAE 30 HD to SAE 50 HD are the rules of the day. Do you think if there was even a $100/yr to be saved in these environments over the life of the system, that they would overlook it? I suspect that most ships engineers and most aero fleet managers can tell you within $10 what their lube and fuel costs are for any situation. They could tell EPA what a change in lube would mean for the bottom line any day of the week. And their lobbyists make sure they do not have any shenanigans handed down about what to use where ...
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: JohnnyJohnson
I'd sure be interested in seeing those verified results of MPG increase verified by independent sources rather than infomercials. I've seen dozens of claims and serious in my experience none of those proved out.

The laws of hydrodynamics back it up. You and I will never measure it in practice, but it's there and can be measured under controlled conditions, and that's good enough for most jurisdictions where fuel economy standards exist.

But the said laws of hydrodynamics in informecials as broadcast to general consumers had conveniently and subtly .....
.. ignored and disregarded the laws of aerodynamics on air-drag, tire rolling resistance etc .....
which are several orders of magnitude larger in value than an engine oil viscosity drag (arising out of varying viscosity grades in comparisons ) in a typical real life vehicle operations as intended within the context of comparing or claiming vehicle fuel economy superiority , IMHO.
Think, friction reducing solid lubricants too.
 
No, like I mentioned, you'd never measure it yourself in use. But, Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules will allow for an OEM to benefit in testing using a high VI 0w-20 over the reference lube. Yes, lots of other things assist fuel economy in day to day life, but in the realm of testing, OEMs have a set of rules to follow and what gets them credit gets them credit.
 
Low last night 15C, high today 28C. Two engine oils have identical 3.7 HTHS.
One is SAE 40 and the other 0W40.
The SAE40 has a lower KV100C, but is thicker at 40C and colder than the 0W40.

Show me the fuel savings with the 0W40.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom