Total Quartz Ineo MC3 5W30
- Thread starter Emperors6
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Just to add to this, an oil that is predominantly PAO; that is, deriving its cold temperature performance from the base oil rather than PPD's, which was demonstrated in that graph that has been posted in the past adds yet another dimension to this discussion. A primarily PAO-based oil, which doesn't need or at the most may contain an extremely small amount of PPD's to manipulate the additive package cold temp performance, diluted with one that does (require a good slug of PPD's to meet its grade rating), what are the results of this? That's the unpredictability here. Yeah, if you blended the old PAO M1 0w-40 with M1 EP 0w-20, both of which were predominantly PAO, you'd likely retain the cold temp performance. Mix one that is mostly group III with one that isn't.... How's that PPD balance relative to the new base oil mix?
And this sort of plays into Pennzoil's statement here, as they are using GTL (Group III) and I'm not sure on the wax content in GTL, but if there is a requirement for PPD's depending on the viscosity of the base, if you are mixing heavier and lighter bases, the relative volumes of PPD's becomes potentially disproportionate, affecting the performance of the final product.
This is of course because oils are blends with all aspects of their performance accounted for. When you mix that fully formulated oil with another you are upsetting that chemistry and the results may be insignificant or they may not be. That's the gamble.
Thanks for that explanation! I get it now.
Just to add to this, an oil that is predominantly PAO; that is, deriving its cold temperature performance from the base oil rather than PPD's, which was demonstrated in that graph that has been posted in the past adds yet another dimension to this discussion. A primarily PAO-based oil, which doesn't need or at the most may contain an extremely small amount of PPD's to manipulate the additive package cold temp performance, diluted with one that does (require a good slug of PPD's to meet its grade rating), what are the results of this? That's the unpredictability here. Yeah, if you blended the old PAO M1 0w-40 with M1 EP 0w-20, both of which were predominantly PAO, you'd likely retain the cold temp performance. Mix one that is mostly group III with one that isn't.... How's that PPD balance relative to the new base oil mix?
And this sort of plays into Pennzoil's statement here, as they are using GTL (Group III) and I'm not sure on the wax content in GTL, but if there is a requirement for PPD's depending on the viscosity of the base, if you are mixing heavier and lighter bases, the relative volumes of PPD's becomes potentially disproportionate, affecting the performance of the final product.
This is of course because oils are blends with all aspects of their performance accounted for. When you mix that fully formulated oil with another you are upsetting that chemistry and the results may be insignificant or they may not be. That's the gamble.
Thanks for that explanation! I get it now.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
The BMW N20 engine was designed with the 0W-20 grade in mind.
Ok but why does BMW spec 0w30 in Germany for the Motor N20 if it was designed for 0w20? Its not like 0w20 isn't available.
Toyota recommends 10w60 for unmodified 2.0 engines used in short duration cup races, no bigger cams, or additional coolers or engine mods allowed.
They don't spec 0w30 or 5w40 they recommend 10w60 for engines seeing levels of an engine seeing occasional track day use.
I think its clear they don't have much faith in the 0w20 to protect the engine used in anything but the most ordinary daily use.
The BMW N20 engine was designed with the 0W-20 grade in mind.
Ok but why does BMW spec 0w30 in Germany for the Motor N20 if it was designed for 0w20? Its not like 0w20 isn't available.
Toyota recommends 10w60 for unmodified 2.0 engines used in short duration cup races, no bigger cams, or additional coolers or engine mods allowed.
They don't spec 0w30 or 5w40 they recommend 10w60 for engines seeing levels of an engine seeing occasional track day use.
I think its clear they don't have much faith in the 0w20 to protect the engine used in anything but the most ordinary daily use.
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
The new trick in the race manual is 0w50.
The KV100 gives the oil pressure a boost, without a corresponding rise in HTHS.
A win-win situation for all theories.
Not really because oil pressure correlates to HTHS viscosity. In fact HTHSV is sometimes referred to as bearing viscosity.
Years ago I posted a piece titled "HTHSV trumps KV100":
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2276634&page=1
The new trick in the race manual is 0w50.
The KV100 gives the oil pressure a boost, without a corresponding rise in HTHS.
A win-win situation for all theories.
Not really because oil pressure correlates to HTHS viscosity. In fact HTHSV is sometimes referred to as bearing viscosity.
Years ago I posted a piece titled "HTHSV trumps KV100":
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2276634&page=1
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
The wear advantage of the 0W-20 obviously applies on start-up /warm-up vs the "standard" BMW 5W-30 which I believe owners can still use.
Again, this is utter rubbish.
0W provides better protection when starting at -40C.
at 0C, it does NOTHING.
During warmup, the oil is there, it's flowing, and 0W20 DOES NOTHING to reduce warmup wear.
Again, happy for you to provide some data to back your (much repeated never supported) position.
So you keep saying but you're wrong.
The move to 0W oils is ALL about a higher viscosity index and very little if anything to do with being able to pump at -40 degrees which impacts few users.
A 0W-20 flows more oil at all start-up temp's and therefore more rev's can be safely used during warm-up. It is the oil's viscosity that is the primary limiting factor on how hard an engine can be worked when cold and avoid increased wear.
But why are you arguing with me on the details of the reduced wear with the BMW 0W-20 vs their 5W-30? Contact BMW or Pennzoil directly for the documentation you what.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
The wear advantage of the 0W-20 obviously applies on start-up /warm-up vs the "standard" BMW 5W-30 which I believe owners can still use.
Again, this is utter rubbish.
0W provides better protection when starting at -40C.
at 0C, it does NOTHING.
During warmup, the oil is there, it's flowing, and 0W20 DOES NOTHING to reduce warmup wear.
Again, happy for you to provide some data to back your (much repeated never supported) position.
So you keep saying but you're wrong.
The move to 0W oils is ALL about a higher viscosity index and very little if anything to do with being able to pump at -40 degrees which impacts few users.
A 0W-20 flows more oil at all start-up temp's and therefore more rev's can be safely used during warm-up. It is the oil's viscosity that is the primary limiting factor on how hard an engine can be worked when cold and avoid increased wear.
But why are you arguing with me on the details of the reduced wear with the BMW 0W-20 vs their 5W-30? Contact BMW or Pennzoil directly for the documentation you what.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Emperors6,
a couple of points...
* if your oil pump is barely relieving, or "heavily" into relief, there's no difference in oil heating...the heat created via the oil pump is proportional to flow and pressure, regardless of how much is relieved.
* At such point, the galleries are full anyway, and the bearings are drawing off that which they need to replace the side leakage.
* The oil itself is generating most of it's own heat through being sheared in bearing surfaces (like bearings and piston skirts)
* I can get the oil temp in my supercharged 3.8 to 135C simply by holding it in "2" at 65MPH for less than 10 minutes. Type K thermocouple down the dipstick, which indicates that the big ends are carrying serious heat.
* Oil pressure and temperature (bulk) tell you nothing about what's happening at the big end, which operates significantly higher than any of the temperatures that are typically (well more like can be) measured.
The heavier the oil the higher the sump oil temp's when an engine is being worked hard. If the oil is so heavy that the relief valve is still open at normal operating temp's at high rev's, oil flow is being reduced and oil temp's can climb dramatically if sustained. And of course the higher the sump oil temp's the higher the oil is in every part of an engine. To maximize engine cooling, at the very least the oil grade chosen should be light enough for the oil pump to be out of relief at operating temp's and an oil pressure gauge will indicate that.
Emperors6,
a couple of points...
* if your oil pump is barely relieving, or "heavily" into relief, there's no difference in oil heating...the heat created via the oil pump is proportional to flow and pressure, regardless of how much is relieved.
* At such point, the galleries are full anyway, and the bearings are drawing off that which they need to replace the side leakage.
* The oil itself is generating most of it's own heat through being sheared in bearing surfaces (like bearings and piston skirts)
* I can get the oil temp in my supercharged 3.8 to 135C simply by holding it in "2" at 65MPH for less than 10 minutes. Type K thermocouple down the dipstick, which indicates that the big ends are carrying serious heat.
* Oil pressure and temperature (bulk) tell you nothing about what's happening at the big end, which operates significantly higher than any of the temperatures that are typically (well more like can be) measured.
The heavier the oil the higher the sump oil temp's when an engine is being worked hard. If the oil is so heavy that the relief valve is still open at normal operating temp's at high rev's, oil flow is being reduced and oil temp's can climb dramatically if sustained. And of course the higher the sump oil temp's the higher the oil is in every part of an engine. To maximize engine cooling, at the very least the oil grade chosen should be light enough for the oil pump to be out of relief at operating temp's and an oil pressure gauge will indicate that.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
my interest in 0W oils is because most have the highest VIs; meaning for a given HTHSV they have to lowest viscosity at more typical start-up temp's. And that is easy to determine with a viscosity calculator, confirm with KV40 and KV100 tests and finally prove in service with an oil pressure gauge; the best indicator of actual operational viscosity that I know of.
Aside from the opening flaw (0Ws don't always have the highest VIs), if you are chasing the most fuel economy during warm-up, or another 1.5HP flooring it at 60C internal temperatures, your approach has merit.
However there's all sorts of stuff like polymer shear (which you've demonstrated in your testing) taking place.
The industry moving towards 0W16s so far appear to be chasing a solid HTHS number, and having a lower viscosity index. Ravenol's appears to have little or no impact from VIIs.
The Japanese push for uber high VIs was an artifact of working inside the J300 tables...with the new grades available, they will stop making those unicorns.[/quote]
And what opening flaw? I didn't say 0Ws always have high VIs but rather that most do. Just another example of your strawman arguments that you're prone to in addition to your mainstay of obfuscation.
As mentioned my blends of 0W oils is all about maximizing VI.
The move to the 0W-20 grade from 5W-20 is all about the higher VI.
The most advanced race oils are 0Ws. Of course it's not so that they can pump at -40 degrees but rather it's to achieve a high VI with the all the lubricating benefits high VI oils possess.
And contrary to what you claim the Japanese 0W-8, 0W-12 and 0W-16 oils will have high VIs if the Honda Ultra brand is anything to go by. So these high VI "unicorn" oils are here to stay and will only become more common as formulating costs allow.
my interest in 0W oils is because most have the highest VIs; meaning for a given HTHSV they have to lowest viscosity at more typical start-up temp's. And that is easy to determine with a viscosity calculator, confirm with KV40 and KV100 tests and finally prove in service with an oil pressure gauge; the best indicator of actual operational viscosity that I know of.
Aside from the opening flaw (0Ws don't always have the highest VIs), if you are chasing the most fuel economy during warm-up, or another 1.5HP flooring it at 60C internal temperatures, your approach has merit.
However there's all sorts of stuff like polymer shear (which you've demonstrated in your testing) taking place.
The industry moving towards 0W16s so far appear to be chasing a solid HTHS number, and having a lower viscosity index. Ravenol's appears to have little or no impact from VIIs.
The Japanese push for uber high VIs was an artifact of working inside the J300 tables...with the new grades available, they will stop making those unicorns.[/quote]
And what opening flaw? I didn't say 0Ws always have high VIs but rather that most do. Just another example of your strawman arguments that you're prone to in addition to your mainstay of obfuscation.
As mentioned my blends of 0W oils is all about maximizing VI.
The move to the 0W-20 grade from 5W-20 is all about the higher VI.
The most advanced race oils are 0Ws. Of course it's not so that they can pump at -40 degrees but rather it's to achieve a high VI with the all the lubricating benefits high VI oils possess.
And contrary to what you claim the Japanese 0W-8, 0W-12 and 0W-16 oils will have high VIs if the Honda Ultra brand is anything to go by. So these high VI "unicorn" oils are here to stay and will only become more common as formulating costs allow.
I'll go along with light weight engine oils such as 0W12, could have a high VI.
How much would a pump operating in relief add to the sump oil temperature?
How much would a pump operating in relief add to the sump oil temperature?
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
I'll go along with light weight engine oils such as 0W12, could have a high VI.
How much would a pump operating in relief add to the sump oil temperature?
That's the rub, and where CATERHAM's lack of grasp of even the simplest of science is apparent.
Even an extreme 10gpm set up at full noise, with a relief at 80psi, and CATERHAM blend dropping it to 60psi, the heat reduction in the sump due to the pump relief is of the order of 100W. Compared to the whole numbers of KW being GENERATED in the bearings, it's trivial, but he hands onto it regardless.
And that's the rub...he doesn't understand that the temperature rise across the bearings is due to the viscous shearing within the bearings, not "carrying away the heat of combustion".
That's why he simply doesn't get that bulk temperature and oil pressure tell you absolutely nothing about the temperatures and conditions within the big end, and until he crosses that Rubicon, he'll never get that the universe isn't his linear simplistic model.
Here's my post from earlier...using bearing design formulae and tables for two extremes. As we've discussed in other threads, a 10W could be labelled a 10W16 under the current J300, so it's clearly relevent.
CATERHAM labels it obfuscation, but they are bearing design principals that haven't changed to meet his linear universe.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/1212972/Re:_OIL_"Cushion&#Post1212972
I'll go along with light weight engine oils such as 0W12, could have a high VI.
How much would a pump operating in relief add to the sump oil temperature?
That's the rub, and where CATERHAM's lack of grasp of even the simplest of science is apparent.
Even an extreme 10gpm set up at full noise, with a relief at 80psi, and CATERHAM blend dropping it to 60psi, the heat reduction in the sump due to the pump relief is of the order of 100W. Compared to the whole numbers of KW being GENERATED in the bearings, it's trivial, but he hands onto it regardless.
And that's the rub...he doesn't understand that the temperature rise across the bearings is due to the viscous shearing within the bearings, not "carrying away the heat of combustion".
That's why he simply doesn't get that bulk temperature and oil pressure tell you absolutely nothing about the temperatures and conditions within the big end, and until he crosses that Rubicon, he'll never get that the universe isn't his linear simplistic model.
Here's my post from earlier...using bearing design formulae and tables for two extremes. As we've discussed in other threads, a 10W could be labelled a 10W16 under the current J300, so it's clearly relevent.
CATERHAM labels it obfuscation, but they are bearing design principals that haven't changed to meet his linear universe.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/1212972/Re:_OIL_"Cushion&#Post1212972
Shannow back in 2008 said:
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
So you keep saying but you're wrong.
The move to 0W oils is ALL about a higher viscosity index and very little if anything to do with being able to pump at -40 degrees which impacts few users.
No, I agree, the uber high VI is purely to reduce viscous drag during warmup...to aid in economy.
The Japanese OEMs even state it in their papers.
But you keep harping that the "0W" is almost produced by "accident" as an artifact of doping the oil with Unicorn tears.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
A 0W-20 flows more oil at all start-up temp's and therefore more rev's can be safely used during warm-up. It is the oil's viscosity that is the primary limiting factor on how hard an engine can be worked when cold and avoid increased wear.
Again, facts and data ?
You keep wheeling this out.
Flow doesn't lubricate...period.
How does the oil's viscosity "prevent" excess wear when loaded cold ?
When it's cold and flowing, it's at it's thickest, and almost certainly in the hydrodynamic regime (aka "zero wear") design point.
How does this increased "flow" pan out in the industry standard warmup test, the Sequence IV ?
Oh, and you forgot to answer OVERKILL's excellent point...as usual when something has such clarity.
So you keep saying but you're wrong.
The move to 0W oils is ALL about a higher viscosity index and very little if anything to do with being able to pump at -40 degrees which impacts few users.
No, I agree, the uber high VI is purely to reduce viscous drag during warmup...to aid in economy.
The Japanese OEMs even state it in their papers.
But you keep harping that the "0W" is almost produced by "accident" as an artifact of doping the oil with Unicorn tears.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
A 0W-20 flows more oil at all start-up temp's and therefore more rev's can be safely used during warm-up. It is the oil's viscosity that is the primary limiting factor on how hard an engine can be worked when cold and avoid increased wear.
Again, facts and data ?
You keep wheeling this out.
Flow doesn't lubricate...period.
How does the oil's viscosity "prevent" excess wear when loaded cold ?
When it's cold and flowing, it's at it's thickest, and almost certainly in the hydrodynamic regime (aka "zero wear") design point.
How does this increased "flow" pan out in the industry standard warmup test, the Sequence IV ?
Oh, and you forgot to answer OVERKILL's excellent point...as usual when something has such clarity.
How cold would it have to be outside before an SAE20 engine oil would cause a measurable drop in fuel efficiency (ml/100km) in comparison to 0w20 with the same HTHS?
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
How cold would it have to be outside before an SAE20 engine oil would cause a measurable drop in fuel efficiency (ml/100km) in comparison to 0w20 with the same HTHS?
I've not seen a 0W20 with a comparable HTHS..."natural" HTHS for the SAE20 grade is around 2.9, (3.5-3.6 for the SAE30).
How cold would it have to be outside before an SAE20 engine oil would cause a measurable drop in fuel efficiency (ml/100km) in comparison to 0w20 with the same HTHS?
I've not seen a 0W20 with a comparable HTHS..."natural" HTHS for the SAE20 grade is around 2.9, (3.5-3.6 for the SAE30).
What is the HTHS for SAE16?
If the target "W" cold performance is 0W, would 0W16 have a lower VI than 0W20?
If a SAE16 contained synthetic base stock or group II, a mono grade SAE16 should pass either 5W or 10W.
Is the natural W for SAE16 5W or 10W, and the HTHS somewhere around that of 0W20?
Same question as above, 10W16 instead of SAE20?
If the target "W" cold performance is 0W, would 0W16 have a lower VI than 0W20?
If a SAE16 contained synthetic base stock or group II, a mono grade SAE16 should pass either 5W or 10W.
Is the natural W for SAE16 5W or 10W, and the HTHS somewhere around that of 0W20?
Same question as above, 10W16 instead of SAE20?
Lots of questions, I can only answer half of them 'though.
Firstly, here's J300 as it currently stands...so min HTHS for 16 is 2.3, and KV100 can be 6.1 to 8.2.
Here's a Citgo Monograde Mineral
KV100 is 6.9, so it's at the light end of the 16 range, as is the HTHS, right on 2.3...so it COULD be labelled as a 10W16 if it took the blender's fancy.
Harman Index is smack bang on 1, so there's no VII interplat in this oil (the MRV is pretty close to 2X the CCS, so again, minimal VII interplay)...note that the VI of this monograde is 129.
There's a school of thought that the Viscosity Index Calculation penalises light weight oils, but clearly, this plain jane mineral at 129 demonstrates that concept as farcical.
RavenolExtra Cold Start Protection Extra Fuel Economy 0W16
Has a KV40 of 38.36, and a KV100 of 7.24, with an HTHS of 3.4....Per the posits above, it's got a WHOPPING VI of...oh...156..not much more than a plain jane mineral in that range.
Harman Index again, is smack bang on 1 (1.02), AGAIN indicating that this oil is essentially a monograde in having little to no VII impact...it's all done with basestocks in this oil. (again, in confirmation, MRV is a bit over double CCS).
As to what this company says about cold starts, they are quite detailed in their presentations and info sheets.
http://www.ravenolamerica.com/motor-oil/0w-16-motor-oil-ravenol-extra-fuel-economy-efe/
http://www.ravenol.de/fileadmin/content/documents/pdfs/Ravenol_EFE_SAE_0W-16__en.pdf
Oz has a home grown 0W16, KV40 39, KV100 7.6...and a MASSIVE...ooops, 168 VI.
http://www.penriteoil.com.au/products.php?id_products=748
And their "Racing 0W20"
http://www.penriteoil.com.au/products.php?id_categ=1&id_subcateg=0&id_products=275
Was really Oz's first 0W16 years ago with a 2.4 HTHS...again 151 VI, and again, all achieved with minimal VI treat.
Firstly, here's J300 as it currently stands...so min HTHS for 16 is 2.3, and KV100 can be 6.1 to 8.2.
Here's a Citgo Monograde Mineral
KV100 is 6.9, so it's at the light end of the 16 range, as is the HTHS, right on 2.3...so it COULD be labelled as a 10W16 if it took the blender's fancy.
Harman Index is smack bang on 1, so there's no VII interplat in this oil (the MRV is pretty close to 2X the CCS, so again, minimal VII interplay)...note that the VI of this monograde is 129.
There's a school of thought that the Viscosity Index Calculation penalises light weight oils, but clearly, this plain jane mineral at 129 demonstrates that concept as farcical.
Ravenol
Has a KV40 of 38.36, and a KV100 of 7.24, with an HTHS of 3.4....Per the posits above, it's got a WHOPPING VI of...oh...156..not much more than a plain jane mineral in that range.
Harman Index again, is smack bang on 1 (1.02), AGAIN indicating that this oil is essentially a monograde in having little to no VII impact...it's all done with basestocks in this oil. (again, in confirmation, MRV is a bit over double CCS).
As to what this company says about cold starts, they are quite detailed in their presentations and info sheets.
http://www.ravenolamerica.com/motor-oil/0w-16-motor-oil-ravenol-extra-fuel-economy-efe/
http://www.ravenol.de/fileadmin/content/documents/pdfs/Ravenol_EFE_SAE_0W-16__en.pdf
Oz has a home grown 0W16, KV40 39, KV100 7.6...and a MASSIVE...ooops, 168 VI.
http://www.penriteoil.com.au/products.php?id_products=748
And their "Racing 0W20"
http://www.penriteoil.com.au/products.php?id_categ=1&id_subcateg=0&id_products=275
Was really Oz's first 0W16 years ago with a 2.4 HTHS...again 151 VI, and again, all achieved with minimal VI treat.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
The move to 0W oils is ALL about a higher viscosity index and very little if anything to do with being able to pump at -40 degrees which impacts few users.
Just to interject, I would agree with that, and Shannow probably would, too. The high VI does impact fuel economy.
I still would not be comfortable in my climate mixing two 0w-XX oils in the hope of having a 0w-XX at the back end. There are 0w-XX oils with sufficiently high VI to keep me happy as it is already.
The move to 0W oils is ALL about a higher viscosity index and very little if anything to do with being able to pump at -40 degrees which impacts few users.
Just to interject, I would agree with that, and Shannow probably would, too. The high VI does impact fuel economy.
I still would not be comfortable in my climate mixing two 0w-XX oils in the hope of having a 0w-XX at the back end. There are 0w-XX oils with sufficiently high VI to keep me happy as it is already.
For 0w20 to be more fuel efficient than 10w16, the ambient at start up would be lower than -25C.
In a few short minutes, and for the rest of the day, advantage 10w16.
Therefore, VI only impacts the W grade of the engine oil, at start up and the first few minutes of operation.
Take this one more step, 0w20 vs 5w16, see J300 chart above.
Advantage 0w20 below -35C.
In a few short minutes, and for the rest of the day, advantage 10w16.
Therefore, VI only impacts the W grade of the engine oil, at start up and the first few minutes of operation.
Take this one more step, 0w20 vs 5w16, see J300 chart above.
Advantage 0w20 below -35C.
Last edited:
usefriendly,
I'm still searching for my (personal) holy grail, which is a high shear viscosity index.
Newtonian oils, it's the same as VI ostensibly, but with polymeric VII which change shape with temperature it's different.
The Japanese uber VI 0W20s were (in my professional opinion) an attempt to skirt J300 as it currently stood.
They appeared to be targetting an HTHS, and a High shear low temperature viscositythat would drop out of grade early in service (CATERHAM's testing on one of the many "unique" TGMOs showed it dropping to 2.4 within hours of operation) purely for warm-up fuel economy.
Touched on here
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3871970/Is_Fuel_Economy_Hiding_in_J300
As to the posit that the 0W20s only get their "0W" as an accidental byproduct of their chemistry, and the reference to race oils this and that, M1 0W50 is a strange unicorn in that regard.
a "50"in name only, presumably to make people feel like they are getting the full package with an HTHS of 3.8.
Viscometricaly...Delvac 1 would do everything that this oil offers.
I'm still searching for my (personal) holy grail, which is a high shear viscosity index.
Newtonian oils, it's the same as VI ostensibly, but with polymeric VII which change shape with temperature it's different.
The Japanese uber VI 0W20s were (in my professional opinion) an attempt to skirt J300 as it currently stood.
They appeared to be targetting an HTHS, and a High shear low temperature viscositythat would drop out of grade early in service (CATERHAM's testing on one of the many "unique" TGMOs showed it dropping to 2.4 within hours of operation) purely for warm-up fuel economy.
Touched on here
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3871970/Is_Fuel_Economy_Hiding_in_J300
As to the posit that the 0W20s only get their "0W" as an accidental byproduct of their chemistry, and the reference to race oils this and that, M1 0W50 is a strange unicorn in that regard.
a "50"in name only, presumably to make people feel like they are getting the full package with an HTHS of 3.8.
Viscometricaly...Delvac 1 would do everything that this oil offers.
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
For 0w20 to be more fuel efficient than 10w16, the ambient at start up would be lower than -25C.
Well, it depends on the test parameters. I'm speaking of comparing a high VI 0w-20 versus a lower VI 20, assuming HTHS is held constant. The warm up phase is part of fuel economy testing, and there's a reason we'll never see an ILSAC rated monograde.
For 0w20 to be more fuel efficient than 10w16, the ambient at start up would be lower than -25C.
Well, it depends on the test parameters. I'm speaking of comparing a high VI 0w-20 versus a lower VI 20, assuming HTHS is held constant. The warm up phase is part of fuel economy testing, and there's a reason we'll never see an ILSAC rated monograde.
I didn't believe you because you said the NDP would never lose in Manitoba or win in Alberta, and Brad Wall never re-elected in Saskatchewan.
Zero for three!
Besides, I just put Queen City Towing on speed dial.
10W will pass GF-5, wouldn't it?
Zero for three!
Besides, I just put Queen City Towing on speed dial.
10W will pass GF-5, wouldn't it?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Hey buddy, why are you arguing with me if you're so convinced the Manufacturers and oil formulators have got it so wrong when they claim less wear with lighter higher VI oils such as the 0W-20 grade.
Write Toyota, or Honda or the latest company, BMW, that claim less wear with the 0W-20 grade. Or contact Pennzoil, BMWs current oil provider for an explanation.
OK, here's Toyota...
http://www.pieseautopro.ro/uploads/item/data_sheet/1215/TOYOTA-Fuel-Economy-5W-30.pdf
Quote:
Superior low temperature performance The excellent wide range viscosity-temperature characteristics and exceptional low-temperature fluidity of Toyota Genuine Motor Oil Fuel Economy SAE 5W-30 ensure that oil gets pumped to all parts of the engine quickly to protect against starting friction and wear.
Oh, wait, that's 5W30...
We'll try another
https://www.toyota.com.au/owners/parts/fluids-cleaner/motor-oil
Quote:
The engine oil provides complete engine protection against starting friction, heat stress and engine sludging for better performance and maximum engine life.
Ooops, that also includes 20W50...
http://www.copelandtoyota.com/OilChanges
Quote:
More Engine Protection
Our 0W-20 oil is a low-viscosity synthetic oil formulated to provide uniform lubrication and reduce friction throughout the engine. Lighter than conventional engine oil, 0W-20 evenly and uniformly bathes your engine's moving parts, which means less wear and tear, better thermal stability and increased engine efficiency.
bathes...
As I said, advertising puff pieces....
Hey buddy, why are you arguing with me if you're so convinced the Manufacturers and oil formulators have got it so wrong when they claim less wear with lighter higher VI oils such as the 0W-20 grade.
Write Toyota, or Honda or the latest company, BMW, that claim less wear with the 0W-20 grade. Or contact Pennzoil, BMWs current oil provider for an explanation.
OK, here's Toyota...
http://www.pieseautopro.ro/uploads/item/data_sheet/1215/TOYOTA-Fuel-Economy-5W-30.pdf
Quote:
Superior low temperature performance The excellent wide range viscosity-temperature characteristics and exceptional low-temperature fluidity of Toyota Genuine Motor Oil Fuel Economy SAE 5W-30 ensure that oil gets pumped to all parts of the engine quickly to protect against starting friction and wear.
Oh, wait, that's 5W30...
We'll try another
https://www.toyota.com.au/owners/parts/fluids-cleaner/motor-oil
Quote:
The engine oil provides complete engine protection against starting friction, heat stress and engine sludging for better performance and maximum engine life.
Ooops, that also includes 20W50...
http://www.copelandtoyota.com/OilChanges
Quote:
More Engine Protection
Our 0W-20 oil is a low-viscosity synthetic oil formulated to provide uniform lubrication and reduce friction throughout the engine. Lighter than conventional engine oil, 0W-20 evenly and uniformly bathes your engine's moving parts, which means less wear and tear, better thermal stability and increased engine efficiency.
bathes...
As I said, advertising puff pieces....
- Status