Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Garak,

I'd hazard a guess that a 5W30 Group III OCP VII oil will contain roughly the same level of VII as a 0W40 PAO (+ a bit of ester?) oil. Generally OW40's are based around Shellvis VII. Put this together and there's probably not much of a difference in Noack between the two oils. However the 0W40 will be significantly more expensive to manufacture.

Modern Group III+ and GTL base stocks have higher VI than PAO. Therefore, a PAO base oil requires more VII than a Group III base oil.

NOACK has nothing to do with the VII. It's entirely determined by the base oil. PAO and GTL both excel in NOACK. Non-GTL Group III has higher NOACK than PAO and GTL.


Got any examples of VI's for these base stocks? I see Mobil's SpectraSyn 10 for example has a VI of 132, SpectraSyn 40 is 147, SpectraSyn 100 is 169. The mPAO products are even higher.

The numbers after SpectraSyn indicate KV100 in cSt. These are extremely thick base stocks that are not used in motor oil or used in very small quantities.

With any type of base stock, VI increases dramatically with KV100.

You should compare typical KV100 viscosities, such as 4, 6, or 8 cSt used in motor oil. Google Shell XHVI, Mobil Visom, and Shell GTL. You will see that Group III overwhelmingly beat their PAO counterparts in VI for the same KV100.

 

[4WD]

They make SpectaSyn Elite 65 mPAO

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Google Shell XHVI, Mobil Visom, and Shell GTL. You will see that Group III overwhelmingly beat their PAO counterparts in VI for the same KV100.


Visom 6
VI 142

Spectrasyn 6
VI 138

scarcely overwhelming, and demonstrative of your claims....

Visom 6
NOACK 8
FlashPoint 210C
Pour Point -18C

Spectrasyn 6
NOACK 6.4
Flashpoint 246C
Pour point -57C

I can see why you advocates of viscosity index trumps all other measures are so keen here...

Spectr

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan

The numbers after SpectraSyn indicate KV100. These are extremely thick base stocks that are not used in motor oil or used in very small quantities.
I'm aware, that's why I went in the order I did with them. The heavier bases are usually blended into the lower visc bases to bump up visc, but the artifact of that is also higher VI.

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
With any type of base stock, VI increases dramatically with KV100.

You should compare typical KV100 viscosities, such as 4, 6, or 8 cSt used in motor oil. Google Shell XHVI, Mobil Visom, and Shell GTL. You will see that Group III overwhelmingly beat their PAO counterparts in VI for the same KV100.


Well, that's basically what I was asking you for. I know what the XOM VI's are, based on the data readily available on the XOM Chemical site. What I'm looking for is data on the GTL product, as it doesn't seem to be readily available from what I could find in a quick search.

I don't see big differences in these VI's however

XHVI 4.0 has a VI of 136.7 (calculated, it is listed as 141 interestingly enough)
Spectrasyn 4 has a VI of 126

XHVI 8.2 has a VI of 147
SpectraSyn 8 has a VI of 139

However, what is worth mentioning is that for the same base oils above:
XIVI 8.2 has a pour point of -15C
SpectraSyn 8 has a pour point of -48C

XHVI 4.0 has a pour point of -18C
SpectraSyn 4 has a pour point of -66C

In case we were forgetting there are other metrics in determining the performance characteristics of a finished lubricant other than VI in play here

You can blend a PAO-based product to meet the 0W-xx designation without PPD's and as long as you aren't shooting for some ridiculous VI, you'll use very little VII. On the other hand, you'll need PPD's and a lot more VI, using lighter bases, to do the same with a non-GTL Group III as the above numbers demonstrate.

Meeting the cold temp performance target with PAO has historically always been much easier. That's always been its strong point. Given VI's calculated nature I'm not sure how you can conclude that a PAO base oil requires more VII for a finished product. It doesn't, it just will simply have a lower final VI.

You can easily blend a VI-free 5w-30 from the SpectraSyn products for example.

That's why that statement strikes me as a bit of a logical leap, as it is predicated on the premise that the final products ability to meet both sides of the performance envelope depends on the VI of the base

Within reason, that's not the case.

 

[SonofJoe]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Garak,

I'd hazard a guess that a 5W30 Group III OCP VII oil will contain roughly the same level of VII as a 0W40 PAO (+ a bit of ester?) oil. Generally OW40's are based around Shellvis VII. Put this together and there's probably not much of a difference in Noack between the two oils. However the 0W40 will be significantly more expensive to manufacture.

Modern Group III+ and GTL base stocks have higher VI than PAO. Therefore, a PAO base oil requires more VII than a Group III base oil.

NOACK has nothing to do with the VII. It's entirely determined by the base oil. PAO and GTL both excel in NOACK. Non-GTL Group III has higher NOACK than PAO and GTL.



'Noack has nothing to do with the VII'. Well that's a BOLD statement if ever I heard one! One might even describe it as being a tad rash...

Okay, click on the link below.

https://www.google.com/patents/EP1637580A1?cl=en

It's a published patent containing an 'equal viscometrics' comparison of four VIIs. Locate Table 1 which contrasts the properties of four nominally identical 22 SSI OCP VIIs. Might you compare columns 1 and 3? Paratone 8006 (column 3) is a high ethylene OCP VII which means it has better CCS cold flow properties that the amorphous OCP in column 1. This fact allows you to put more heavy Esso 600SN into the oil and less light Esso 150SN. As a consequence, the Noack of the oil drops from 11.4% to 10.1%. So while solid VII doesn't in itself contribute much to Noack (it's essentially non-volatile), it's the properties of the VII that set the base oil ratio which DIRECTLY impacts on Noack. Do you get it now?

One might idly speculate that whoever put this data together might not just have limited himself or herself to looking at OCPs? Maybe they tested a load of other commercial VIIs like Hydrogenated Styrene-Dienes (Shellvis-type) or PMAs (Viscoplex-type)? Who knows what insights they might have discovered about the impact of VIIs on Noack????

Oh and one other thing. If you're going to talk so authoritatively about Group III's, you might want to mention that the world biggest selling Group III is not Shell's GTL or Exxon's VISOM but humble old Yubase which despite the odd improvement, hasn't changed that much in two decades. You could say much the same for Neste's Nexbase. These popular commercial Group IIIs aren't better than PAO are they? In fact they are measurably worse. Just sayin'...

 

[Gokhan]

I think with the advent of Group III+ and GTL base stocks, PAO may be headed to become a thing of the past for motor oil.

It's absolutely right that the biggest advantage of PAO is its extreme-temperature capabilities. For that reason, in my opinion, it may be more desirable for specialty lubrication than automotive motor oil.

 

[Gokhan]

For CAFE-conspiracy believers:

I feel like using thicker oil where thinner oil works is like letting your engine horsepower and MPG be robbed.

TGMO 0W-20 SN is back in and I feel a significant difference with smoother idles and better acceleration at low throttle. For my low-power engine, the difference is easily noticeable. I'm glad that thick oil is gone and it was reassuring that it not only stole performance but also made the wear worse. Thin oil is a win - win in my application.

 

[SonofJoe]

I had a quick look for TGMO 0W20 on Amazon UK. The cheapest I could find it for was £56.61 ($US 73) for 5 litres. Ouch!! That's not exactly cheap especially when I see you can get Petronas 5000 synthetic 5W20 for half that. We can't get US-style mineral Group II 5W20's in the UK but if I could, I suspect they would be even cheaper still.

The point I'm making is that any fuel savings you make in buying TGMO aren't exactly 'free'. It would be interesting to see what minimum fuel savings you have to make in the US, over say a 5,000 mile OCI, just to cover the extra cost of TGMO 0W20 over a supermarket mineral 5W20. In the land of cheap gasoline, big sumps and low OCIs, I can imagine that minimum break-even point might be rather higher than a lot of folks realise.

 

[Shannow]

But Joe, look at the convincing lower wear numbers, in particular the conclusive camshaft/lifter wear that Gokhan is experiencing, with his Visom based, Trinuclear moly fortified, and Asterik VII laden mix...

(well those last 3 are BITOG "facts" that have been made up from scratch, but the benefits are clear).

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
The point I'm making is that any fuel savings you make in buying TGMO aren't exactly 'free'. It would be interesting to see what minimum fuel savings you have to make in the US, over say a 5,000 mile OCI, just to cover the extra cost of TGMO 0W20 over a supermarket mineral 5W20. In the land of cheap gasoline, big sumps and low OCIs, I can imagine that minimum break-even point might be rather higher than a lot of folks realise.

Apparently, here in Canada, this TGMO is supposed to be quite attractively priced at the dealer. Of course, I've never had the opportunity to verify that, having nothing that calls for a 5w-20 or a 0w-20.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
I had a quick look for TGMO 0W20 on Amazon UK. The cheapest I could find it for was £56.61 ($US 73) for 5 litres. Ouch!! That's not exactly cheap especially when I see you can get Petronas 5000 synthetic 5W20 for half that. We can't get US-style mineral Group II 5W20's in the UK but if I could, I suspect they would be even cheaper still.

The point I'm making is that any fuel savings you make in buying TGMO aren't exactly 'free'. It would be interesting to see what minimum fuel savings you have to make in the US, over say a 5,000 mile OCI, just to cover the extra cost of TGMO 0W20 over a supermarket mineral 5W20. In the land of cheap gasoline, big sumps and low OCIs, I can imagine that minimum break-even point might be rather higher than a lot of folks realise.

Oh, no, that's not affordable at all to say the least. That's because they don't export it there. I got it for only $5.19 a US quart. It doesn't get much cheaper than that for a synthetic.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Reading a few posts here, I'm interpreting that VII's are not in and of themselves bad. It's just that the more VII used, the more likely that the base stock used is lighter and thus has a higher NOACK.

So if a 0w40 has a Noack of 8.1% and a VI of 181 (Valvoline Synpower 0w40), is it more desirable than a 5w30, 0w30, 5w40 which carry the same approvals that have a Noack higher than 8.1%?

Or should I also look at any other specs apart from Noack?

 

[4WD]

But so many base oils might get used and it is not so linear:

 

[Gokhan]

It's interesting in the above chart that 0W-20 uses the thickest base oil (hence has the least NOACK) and the least amount of VII among all 0W-xx grades, including 0W-30 and 0W-40.

 

[dblshock]

the 0W-40 and up offer much larger add packs.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
It's interesting in the above chart that 0W-20 uses the thickest base oil (hence has the least NOACK) and the least amount of VII among all 0W-xx grades, including 0W-30 and 0W-40.


However, TGMO is clearly not built the same way.

The Japanese OEMs (have published) their different methodologies, and are chasing low HTHS (not 2.8, per the chart, 2.6 per CATERHAM's testing, and the idemistu one dropping to 2.4 in 400 miles), and ultra high VI (162 in the chart).

 

[WhizkidTN]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Reading a few posts here, I'm interpreting that VII's are not in and of themselves bad. It's just that the more VII used, the more likely that the base stock used is lighter and thus has a higher NOACK.

So if a 0w40 has a Noack of 8.1% and a VI of 181 (Valvoline Synpower 0w40), is it more desirable than a 5w30, 0w30, 5w40 which carry the same approvals that have a Noack higher than 8.1%?

Or should I also look at any other specs apart from Noack?


Hmm. According to Valvoline's PDF for SynPower 0W-40 oil, the NOACK is 9%, not 8.1%. Where did you get that figure?

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: dblshock
the 0W-40 and up offer much larger add packs.

You mean detergent/TBN? That's more of an ACEA A3/B4 thing than viscosity thing.

TGMO 0W-20 SN beats M1 0W-40 SN in moly for example.

 

[dblshock]

zink?

 

[4WD]

I use mostly 5w30 - looking at that chart, that's a good oil - and what they don't add looks good to me ... (VII) ...