Switching from 0w-20 to 0w-30 experience

[SureshR]

I was never aware of fuel dilution phenomenon when I bought this car used at 21k. So I did a close to 5k run and sampled it thinking it was going to be perfect. So I decided I can do 3k max oil changes with cheaper oils. However I recently switched back to Amsoil products and experimenting with 5w30 and 10w30 Amsoil XL 20k formula see how it does with 5-6k runs.

Using boutique oils and just doing 5-6k OCI is an utter waste of money when any competent group III should last at least 5K. Sounds like you need a higher weight or at least higher HTHS oil than what you're using for your engine, that is with HTHS at the upper rather than lower end of what the specified oil grade is - that at least should give you enough of a safety margin before fuel dilutes your oil beyond providing useful protection.

 

[tired]

Formulations change all the time. With or without an API license change and within or outside Annex E interchange allowances.

You said “It's significant when formulations change, and what made the oil so impressive is removed”. I suppose I’m after what it was that was removed and made it no longer “so impressive”. I think one could make the argument that it is improved considering it now has BMW Longlife-01 approval which it lost for a while.

Thank you for the reply. I appreciate you pointing out what you took issue with and why. Very poor word choice on my point that I only see in hindsight now. I didn't communicate my point well.

What I was referring to was the formula change removing the ester (and ANs and PAO?? Memory fuzzy on that one. Possibly just decreasing PAO. I'm sure someone can correct me.) and transitioning it to a group III oil alone now.

I think it regained the LL-01 approval because of the decreased virgin oxidation which is requirement for LL. (And why Mobil 1 ESP 0w30 lacks it but 5w30 has it, for example.)

Even though my poor phrasing would suggest otherwise, I wasn't trying to say it is a "bad" oil now. Just different than what Dave at HPL said was the best OTS oil available. (And maybe he'd still say the same if it were tested again, as I mentioned above, but to my knowledge, there haven't been additional tests.)

 

[Hohn]

If that were true, EPA would have never allowed, and almost no manufacturers would have taken the CAFE hit if they could pick up 10% by sticking with smaller diameter rims.

My vehicle comes with 18s or 20s depending on trim level, and considering that the Touring trim with 20s weighs several hundred pounds more in luxury upgrades over the base model with 18s and suffers less than a 3% mileage hit, I’d love to see some industry data backing your 10% claim as I’d switch tomorrow if that were true.

This is only true if your usage perfectly mimics the EPA test cycles.

When I went from 225/45r17s on my IS250 down to 205/60r16s on STEEL wheels, I gained 4mpg quite consistently and with nearly identical revs/mile is was not due to speedometer error. Despite going to steel wheels, the weight reduction per wheel was 8# of unsprung mass. Never mind the rotational inertia due to how that weight is distributed.

I really which steel would make a comeback in wheels. A356 casting alloy can have it's specific yield strength easily exceeded by even basic 4140 alloy, allowing a steel wheel to be no heavier than an aluminum counterpart while being stiffer and having superior fatigue properties.

 

[4wd]

This is only true if your usage perfectly mimics the EPA test cycles.

When I went from 225/45r17s on my IS250 down to 205/60r16s on STEEL wheels, I gained 4mpg quite consistently and with nearly identical revs/mile is was not due to speedometer error. Despite going to steel wheels, the weight reduction per wheel was 8# of unsprung mass. Never mind the rotational inertia due to how that weight is distributed.

I really which steel would make a comeback in wheels. A356 casting alloy can have it's specific yield strength easily exceeded by even basic 4140 alloy, allowing a steel wheel to be no heavier than an aluminum counterpart while being stiffer and having superior fatigue properties.

Can you find them with good coating ? If not, want to get them coated right away - have seen “steelies” ate up in three winters bcs they come with such a poor/thin coating …
Even in Texas - all of my trailers get changed to galvanized …
The OEM rims are horrible …

 

[Hohn]

Can you find them with good coating ? If not, want to get them coated right away - have seen “steelies” ate up in three winters bcs they come with such a poor/thin coating …
Even in Texas - all of my trailers get changed to galvanized …
The OEM rims are horrible …

I have mine a bath of Surface Shield and they looked rust free after two Indiana winters when I sold the car.

 

[Synth vibes]

I really appreciate

Your approach to this

Given your use case it is as scientific as you can do.

I also appreciate the numbers you shared with psi, temp and mpg.

Even if the difference is negligible, it is fun to see people dive into these topics and share experiences .

And ultimately, you are taking smart steps to keep your vehicle running it's best and keeping you and your fam safe.

Cheers

 

[SammyChevelleTypeS3]

GTL also has poor solubility, albeit it's a bit better than PAO, but that's really not saying much, that's why carrier oils are used. PAO is blended with AN and/or Ester primarily to offset its seal shrink tendency, if it was just for solubility, a lower group base like Group I/II would be used as a carrier. Remember, GTL is ultimately just a Group III base (hydrocracked), but it benefits from having less wax in it than competing, more conventional Group III offerings, improving its cold temp performance, and it also has lower Noack. Basically, it offers closer-to-PAO performance without the price tag, and without the seal shrink issue, nobody is using it because of its solvency.

Exactly how many motor oils are considered GTL oils? So far I only know of a few that Shell developed and owns at this time. What kind of future is there with those type of motor oils if any? What are the pros / cons of using them? About the most thing I have seen discussed on the GTLs are the possible "keeps engines clean" claims...... Is there info we can find that shares stuff like shear numbers vs heat impact or benefits etc......

 

[OVERKILL]

Exactly how many motor oils are considered GTL oils? So far I only know of a few that Shell developed and owns at this time. What kind of future is there with those type of motor oils if any? What are the pros / cons of using them? About the most thing I have seen discussed on the GTLs are the possible "keeps engines clean" claims...... Is there info we can find that shares stuff like shear numbers vs heat impact or benefits etc......

Shell advertises their use of GTL bases, but there are plenty of oils on the market buying those bases from Shell and using them in their products. Think of it as a better Group III base, because that's really what it is. Mobil has been using GTL for years (but not advertising it), same with AMSOIL, Valvoline (IIRC) and others.

As far as cons, about the only one I can think of that the GTL base slate has over regular Group III is the range of available base oil viscosities, which isn't as broad. Pros: better cold temp performance, lower volatility, better oxidation resistance. As I said in the post you are quoting, it offers closer to PAO performance, while not having the same seal shrink issue and without the price tag.

 

[4wd]

Shell advertises their use of GTL bases, but there are plenty of oils on the market buying those bases from Shell and using them in their products. Think of it as a better Group III base, because that's really what it is. Mobil has been using GTL for years (but not advertising it), same with AMSOIL, Valvoline (IIRC) and others.

As far as cons, about the only one I can think of that the GTL base slate has over regular Group III is the range of available base oil viscosities, which isn't as broad. Pros: better cold temp performance, lower volatility, better oxidation resistance. As I said in the post you are quoting, it offers closer to PAO performance, while not having the same seal shrink issue and without the price tag.

It’s almost like Ford bragging on aluminum / try to stick a magnet on my Jeep

 

[altaylar]

Shell advertises their use of GTL bases, but there are plenty of oils on the market buying those bases from Shell and using them in their products. Think of it as a better Group III base, because that's really what it is. Mobil has been using GTL for years (but not advertising it), same with AMSOIL, Valvoline (IIRC) and others.

As far as cons, about the only one I can think of that the GTL base slate has over regular Group III is the range of available base oil viscosities, which isn't as broad. Pros: better cold temp performance, lower volatility, better oxidation resistance. As I said in the post you are quoting, it offers closer to PAO performance, while not having the same seal shrink issue and without the price tag.

Correct me if i am wrong, but i think shell pioneered GTL, and did not even sell it to others for a long time? I remember Shell (or shell owned companies) selling GTL to others, and Exxon (Mobil 1) selling PAO. But later on Mobil 1 had an accident in one of their facilities and I believe slowly decreased PAO content of their oil.

Overall GTL is not a magic product but high quality ingredient for a relatively low cost. As you mentioned PAO has seal issues, along with solubility issues.

 

[OVERKILL]

Correct me if i am wrong, but i think shell pioneered GTL, and did not even sell it to others for a long time?

No, the Fischer-Tropsch process was developed around the time of World War II IIRC, the Germans used it to create synfuels via coal gasification. It's not a novel process developed by Shell, they were simply the ones who were willing to spend the money to complete their plant. Mobil lost billions on their GTL plant that was under construction but went massively over budget, so ended up cancelled.

I remember Shell (or shell owned companies) selling GTL to others, and Exxon (Mobil 1) selling PAO. But later on Mobil 1 had an accident in one of their facilities and I believe slowly decreased PAO content of their oil.

Mobil's roadmap always had GTL in it, and they were one of the first companies outside Shell to have GTL-derived bases appear in their SDS's. The pivot was that this GTL was supposed to come from their own GTL base oil plant, but instead they ended up buying it from Shell.

Overall GTL is not a magic product but high quality ingredient for a relatively low cost. As you mentioned PAO has seal issues, along with solubility issues.

It's a Group III base oil with some superior properties to conventional Group III bases. Like other Group III bases and PAO, it has very poor solubility. PAO's seal shrink issues are easily mitigated with esters or an AN/ester blend, but this adds cost to the final product, which can be avoided with higher quality Group III bases that allow products that previously required PAO to meet their performance targets, to be blended without it, at reduced cost.

As always, it comes down to money, and Shell spent a ton on Pearl, so trying to recoup those costs by moving the products it produces is key.

 

[SammyChevelleTypeS3]

No, the Fischer-Tropsch process was developed around the time of World War II IIRC, the Germans used it to create synfuels via coal gasification. It's not a novel process developed by Shell, they were simply the ones who were willing to spend the money to complete their plant. Mobil lost billions on their GTL plant that was under construction but went massively over budget, so ended up cancelled.

Mobil's roadmap always had GTL in it, and they were one of the first companies outside Shell to have GTL-derived bases appear in their SDS's. The pivot was that this GTL was supposed to come from their own GTL base oil plant, but instead they ended up buying it from Shell.

It's a Group III base oil with some superior properties to conventional Group III bases. Like other Group III bases and PAO, it has very poor solubility. PAO's seal shrink issues are easily mitigated with esters or an AN/ester blend, but this adds cost to the final product, which can be avoided with higher quality Group III bases that allow products that previously required PAO to meet their performance targets, to be blended without it, at reduced cost.

As always, it comes down to money, and Shell spent a ton on Pearl, so trying to recoup those costs by moving the products it produces is key.

I have actually been kind of surprised there has not been a massive following of people moving to use those type oils. One good thing about it is if you see those products in the stores it is very fairly priced for all of their types.

 

[OVERKILL]

I have actually been kind of surprised there has not been a massive following of people moving to use those type oils. One good thing about it is if you see those products in the stores it is very fairly priced for all of their types.

You have to keep context in mind here, just because GTL offers some superior properties to conventional Group III doesn't mean that this is going to translate to something significant for the end user. Shell is using it because they spent 10's of billions on the plant, this is also why they are selling it to competitors. These companies are in-turn using it to optimize blending costs, increasing profits. This goes doubly for applications where one would previously have used PAO and now can get away with using something less expensive.

 

[altaylar]

This is only true if your usage perfectly mimics the EPA test cycles.

When I went from 225/45r17s on my IS250 down to 205/60r16s on STEEL wheels, I gained 4mpg quite consistently and with nearly identical revs/mile is was not due to speedometer error. Despite going to steel wheels, the weight reduction per wheel was 8# of unsprung mass. Never mind the rotational inertia due to how that weight is distributed.

I really which steel would make a comeback in wheels. A356 casting alloy can have it's specific yield strength easily exceeded by even basic 4140 alloy, allowing a steel wheel to be no heavier than an aluminum counterpart while being stiffer and having superior fatigue properties.

There is a small detail you might be missing here
Your tire diameter has changed, meaning your odometer reading has changed and the car miscalculates its speed. Which means your MPG reading should be off too, but that should, i think that should explain about 3-5% of it along with minimal aerodynamic change it brings sonce your ride heifght also changes.
But the remaining is probably the decreased rotational mass you have. It also matters a lot on track driving and that is people pay good money for forged wheels

Ps: 8 pounds per corner? That is huge. I am currently looking for a smaller diameter but wider rim (to accommodate wider tires). So overall i will be hopefully saving 3 pounds per corner and that is still big for me

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

The Subaru folks and I have been talking about this a lot lately in regards to the FA24F engine which shreds most 0W20 oils and will quickly shear down any Xw-30. The difference being that while the 0w20 lubes do shear down but not as rapidly and drastically as other heavier grade lubes.

I did a little experiment using two quarts of 0W20 (Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy) that I had left over with 3 quarts of 0W30 (Mobil 1 ESP). Even at this mix I'm noticing a bit of lag with the engine and I wouldn't say that fuel economy has taken a big hit but it's still a few MPG short of what I was getting with straight 0w20.

For me I'm going to try using Castrol EDGE Extended Performance and Pennzoil Ultra Platium 0w20 oils next because they have proven to not shear out of grade in this engine during a standard OCI. Otherwise I will likely try out Mobil 1 ESP, HPL, and Redline 0w20s in the future to see what results I get with those products.

The “Subaru folks” and you are making a lot of mostly unprovable assumptions that aren’t going to help you out long-term. But I’ll help you out a bit. Base oils don’t shear, and since I’ve run both No VII oils and those with VIIs proven to shear just a fraction of what most shelf-oils use, I can tell you that my FA24 is only affected by fuel dilution, not shear. Gas chromatography doesn’t lie.

I’ll also share that @kschachn has posted useful search results several times for those who think that a centistoke or two is going to cause a multiple-MPG hit or boost for their vehicle: shocker, it’s at most a few tenths, and indistinguishable from the noise of a few thousand variables every time you turn the key on.

Since neither of the “Subaru folks’” myths hold scientific water, I’ll give you some that do. I run only Xw30 in my Ascent, because it has a higher HT/HS, and that is one thing that has been proven to actually protect our hardworking boxers, their turbos and timing chains. I don’t personally know anyone with a turbo engine who runs Xw20, and that’s based on sound engineering knowledge.

 

[tired]

Shell advertises their use of GTL bases, but there are plenty of oils on the market buying those bases from Shell and using them in their products. Think of it as a better Group III base, because that's really what it is. Mobil has been using GTL for years (but not advertising it), same with AMSOIL, Valvoline (IIRC) and others.

As far as cons, about the only one I can think of that the GTL base slate has over regular Group III is the range of available base oil viscosities, which isn't as broad. Pros: better cold temp performance, lower volatility, better oxidation resistance. As I said in the post you are quoting, it offers closer to PAO performance, while not having the same seal shrink issue and without the price tag.

Mobil buys base oils from Shell (GTL)? That's surprising to me, given the infrastructure Mobil must have already spent on refining/creating base oils. Odd that they'd want to spend money on buying base oils when they produce so much.

 

[altaylar]

The “Subaru folks” and you are making a lot of mostly unprovable assumptions that aren’t going to help you out long-term. But I’ll help you out a bit. Base oils don’t shear, and since I’ve run both No VII oils and those with VIIs proven to shear just a fraction of what most shelf-oils use, I can tell you that my FA24 is only affected by fuel dilution, not shear. Gas chromatography doesn’t lie.

I’ll also share that @kschachn has posted useful search results several times for those who think that a centistoke or two is going to cause a multiple-MPG hit or boost for their vehicle: shocker, it’s at most a few tenths, and indistinguishable from the noise of a few thousand variables every time you turn the key on.

Since neither of the “Subaru folks’” myths hold scientific water, I’ll give you some that do. I run only Xw30 in my Ascent, because it has a higher HT/HS, and that is one thing that has been proven to actually protect our hardworking boxers, their turbos and timing chains. I don’t personally know anyone with a turbo engine who runs Xw20, and that’s based on sound engineering knowledge.

I know the overarching theme on this forum is that base oil viscosity is forever stable, and VM just deform with time/pressure/temperature and any and all viscosity loss can only be attributed to VM depredation (some also include fuel dilutaion, some dont). But actually things are a little bit different out there (contaminants, light oil evaporation etc.):


https://www.api.org/~/media/files/c...shear-stability-of-automotive-engine-oils.pdf


https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/475/oil-breakdown?

 

[altaylar]

No, the Fischer-Tropsch process was developed around the time of World War II IIRC, the Germans used it to create synfuels via coal gasification. It's not a novel process developed by Shell, they were simply the ones who were willing to spend the money to complete their plant. Mobil lost billions on their GTL plant that was under construction but went massively over budget, so ended up cancelled.

Mobil's roadmap always had GTL in it, and they were one of the first companies outside Shell to have GTL-derived bases appear in their SDS's. The pivot was that this GTL was supposed to come from their own GTL base oil plant, but instead they ended up buying it from Shell.

It's a Group III base oil with some superior properties to conventional Group III bases. Like other Group III bases and PAO, it has very poor solubility. PAO's seal shrink issues are easily mitigated with esters or an AN/ester blend, but this adds cost to the final product, which can be avoided with higher quality Group III bases that allow products that previously required PAO to meet their performance targets, to be blended without it, at reduced cost.

As always, it comes down to money, and Shell spent a ton on Pearl, so trying to recoup those costs by moving the products it produces is key.

I always appreciate your inputs.

Quite honestly to me it seems like patato potato here. I think your comment also argues that shell pioneered GTL. But i guess you are focusing on the science aspect. Lets add a nuance there: Shell pioneered its modern large-scale commercialization for lubricant-grade base oils. They turned a chemistry concept into a globally viable industrial process.

 

[kschachn]

I know the overarching theme on this forum is that base oil viscosity is forever stable, and VM just deform with time/pressure/temperature and any and all viscosity loss can only be attributed to VM depredation (some also include fuel dilutaion, some dont). But actually things are a little bit different out there (contaminants, light oil evaporation etc.):


https://www.api.org/~/media/files/c...shear-stability-of-automotive-engine-oils.pdf


https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/475/oil-breakdown?

How is that different? I see nothing that claims the relatively low molecular weight oil molecules are being cleaved in any way.

It’s just not possible. I’ve done work where we subjected similar length hydrocarbon chains to extreme shear and impact forces and they do not cleave. They are way too small and stable for mechanical forces to separate those bonds. Multi-million molecular weight VM? Sure. But the oil molecules themselves? No way. It’s why monograde oils are so stable.

 

[altaylar]

How is that different? I see nothing that claims the relatively low molecular weight oil molecules are being cleaved in any way.

It’s just not possible. I’ve done work where we subjected similar length hydrocarbon chains to extreme shear and impact forces and they do not cleave. They are way too small and stable for mechanical forces to separate those bonds. Multi-million molecular weight VM? Sure. But the oil molecules themselves? No way. It’s why monograde oils are so stable.

Oh 100% agreed, monograde is infinitely more stable, and c=0 or c-o-c is very durable against impact or pressure, but there is also a reason why synthetic oil is more stable than mineral oil, even though both are just base. But with contamination, especially Ethanol, and under high temperature (think Turbo) they may not be so stable, and here we are talking about relatively high weight molecules, not lower. Perhaps its of the reasons why 0w20 seems to be more stable than, lets say, 15w50.


But again for the practical applications i completely agree with you. I just wanted to point out a little nuance there.