Total Quartz Ineo MC3 5W30

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: userfriendly
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.

I never predicted any of that, except Alberta was a shocker, so that's the only place I could have possibly been wrong.

Heck froze over, for sure.

A 10w- certainly can pass GF-5, but would they want to? The OEMs will look for the best fuel economy oil they can get. The oil companies certainly could make a GF-5 10w-16, let's say, but would the OEMs specify it in the first place?

 

[userfriendly]

A trick back in the day was moving the biffy back a few feet on a dark night, plus a garden rake on the path leading to the biffy.

Could SAE 10W12 be GF-5?
I thought SAE10W could be anything it wanted to be.
A mono-grade, and now a multi grade too.

 

[Garak]

I would think it could be GF-5. Again, though, it's a case as to whether or not an oil company would make a grade that the OEMs wouldn't specify in the first place.

Of course, we might be getting to a case where a monograde could be an ILSAC grade at the same time. However, that's requiring talking about a grade that is essentially hypothetical, and also assuming that when such a grade has come out, the ILSAC goal posts haven't moved in the interim.

 

[userfriendly]

I had to read your post three times to get what you were saying. Try typing slower.
It could be argued that HDEO 0w40 is a grade that oil companies rolled out that had no OEM application.
For the longest time all that was stated; "meets or exceeds xxxx".
Now we see 0W40 CJ-4/SN. It could be fuel saving vs a base-line oil if we buy into the VI argument.
Fuel savings according to the Oronite videos I watched till 6am, can be achieved with FMs instead of dropping viscosity.

www.oronite.com

 

[Garak]

Yes, and several of the 0w-40 HDEOs and even 0w-30 HDEOs, for instance, still aren't API approved. Many aren't available in the U.S., either, and I suppose they were just something the oil companies saw as useful up here.

Friction modifiers, too, certainly have their use, but anything that gets dumped into the oil has to be carefully considered with respect to other matters, such as deposits or emissions system compatibility. Further, if they can drop viscosity and load up friction modifiers, they do even better. We certainly did see some OEM Japanese oils with very high VIs and a whack of moly, for instance.

And, what I said was clear.

Basically, a monograde could be ILSAC rated, but we're talking grades we don't see sold anywhere, much less see specified by an OEM.

While a Canadian diesel owner might see the value in a 0w-40 HDEO over a 15w-40 in the winter, would the average person driving a vehicle that called for a 0w-16 who felt uncomfortable with that grade be more likely to grab something equally unfamiliar like a hypothetical 10w-16, or would he be more likely to grab something on the shelf he's seen for years?

 

[userfriendly]

OEMs that now spec 0W20 will likely in the future recommend 0W16, 5W20 engines may become 5w16 instead.
Those engines will undoubtedly have variable pressure and displacement engine oil pumps.
BITOG member X wishes to boost the viscosity and VI of 5W16 by mixing 0W20 together with 0W16.
BITOG member Y, 0W20 straight out of the bottle.
BITOG member Z, 5W20 instead of 0W16.

Userfriendly switched to SAE30, quite the jump in viscosity from 0W16, but that's just me.
Because of the programmed oil pump, none of us observed a change in operating oil pressure.
Could that be used as evidence that SAE30 didn't change the MOFT from 0W16?

 

[Jetronic]

Not if you have a variable oil pump... oil pressure says very little about MOFT anyway (except if there's no oil pressure) and even less if the amount of oil being pushed by the oil pump is variable.

 

[Garak]

You may see some buying habits like that, and I wager someone trying an SAE 30 or 10w-30 would outnumber those trying something like a 10w-16.

 

[userfriendly]

Non-synthetic group II 0w16, NOACK @ 15% , evaporation losses will keep it in grade.
That would be one of the "get out of jail free" cards mentioned on another thread.
Mixing 20% 0w20 or 10% 0W30 in an attempt to bring the viscosity up will be discussed @ BITOG shortly.
Get ready for that discussion.
Mono-grade SAE20 and 20W20 are almost history, Duron dropped their SAE20 for 2016.
Nobody that I know of buys SAE10W any longer, will SAE16 fill the gap? Why not?
It would likely pass 10W and have the same HTHS as 0W20 if not higher, without the NOAK issues.

 

[Garak]

I definitely haven't seen a 10w for a long time. I may have seen a 20w-20 recently, but I'll have to check on that and see if I can get pictures. And yes, there will be mixing.

 

[userfriendly]

If I mix 5W50 and 0W16 together, will I get 2.5W33 or salad dressing?
NOACK will keep it in grade.

 

[Garak]

If I were to mix a 5w-50 and 0w-16 together, I'd probably stroke out.

 

[userfriendly]

Well if your gonna, do it at the gun show so nobody will notice.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Garak
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.

Garak you're welcome to interject at any time; I wish you did it more often.
No, Shannow doesn't agree with that excerpt of mine you've cited.
He is against high VI oils calling them "unicorns". He champions the lowest VI oils like Ravenol; their 0W-20 has the lowest VI of any 0W-20, not much better than a 5W-20 dino.
But he does agree that the lighter the oil is on both start-up and at operating temp' the better the fuel economy due to the reduced oil drag.

But where he disagrees with myself applies to engine wear. To his way of thinking, all that matters is the winter rating of an oil. As long as the oil will pump even marginally, has a viscosity no higher than say 6,200 cP, there will be no increased wear on start-up/warm-up.
So a 20W-50 which has a kinematic viscosity at 32F of about 3,000cSt will have no increased engine wear than Sustina 0W-20 which has a viscosity of only 170cSt at the same temperature. Yes the 20W-50 is well within it's borderline pumping range but much less oil is being pumped with the relief value open even on idle. With the 0W-20 the oil pump isn't even in relief until the rev's are over 2,500 rpm or so.

He dismisses the claims by the auto manufacturers that the 0W-20 grade provides less engine start-up wear as marketing fluff. But even the oil formulators claim less start-up engine wear with their lighter oils and they have no reason to lie.

Regarding my blending of the high VI TGMO 0W-20 and M1 0W-40 to make a 200+ VI 0W-30. Yes it will still retain it's 0W rating (as will the blending of any other 0W Mobil oil) but it has absolutely nothing to do with making an oil that will perform exceptionally well at -40 degrees since neither of these two oil have particularly great MRV spec's. It's about being as light as possible at more typical start-up temp's which of course an oil pressure gauge confirms with the inherent high temperature advantages of a maximized VI.

If you asked me to suggest the best oil to perform at -40 degrees it wouldn't be a blend because there no 0W-40s that I know of with an exceptionally low MRV. I would suggest an oil like M1 0W-30 with the lowest MRV of any 30 grade, or perhaps PP Euro LX 0W-30 if you need a 3.5 HTHSV oil, or Mobil Delvac 222 0W-30 (although the lack of published MRV & CCS spec's leads me to believe this oil may not be as good as the PAO based XD-3).

Or if you have oil gauges I would suggest running the lightest 0W-20 (Sustina) or M1 0W-20 if your maximum oil temp's are contained which is usually the case at these super low temp's.

And for all our members that are running a 0W-20 or a 0W-40 and are concerned switching brands or topping up with another brand might drop the 0W rating, don't be.
No proof has been presented that this could occur with modern synthetic oils. No manufacturer is concerned about it (you can run any blend of approved oils that you like without voiding your warranty) and no formulator thinks it's remotely an issue.

 

[Shannow]

CATERHAM...Your post is worthless even arguing, as you are claiming my position holds "at the limits of pampabilit"...i.e. through "even marginally".

That, I have never claimed...it's always when an oil is in a reasonably pumpable range (i.e. my statements that they are all the same around freezing), and you well know it.

So again, you tell lies about my position rather than defending your own...

Is that something that they teach in insurance school ?

Or is that something you learned in your B$

 

[Shannow]

For those that are interested in the above disingenuous statements from CATERHAM (nothing out of the ordinary), here is my position, that I have stated consistently. And here's why CATERHAM on start-u wear is plain wrong.

Here's some actual test results from actual engine tests (not advertising puff pieces).

RAOT is the time for oil to arrive at the last rocker arm on the engine...that's his cold start flow. FOPT is time to ful oil pressure.

As can be clearly seen, the SAE30 at 30F got oil to the rocker arms at 3 seconds, and 15 at 20F...therefore 30F is ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE for an SAE 30.

the 5W20 did the same job at 12 and -11F respectively.

The mechanical design of this particular test engine appears to have an oil pump, that when the oil is in it's reasonably pumpable range takes about 5 seconds to get to the worst rocker arm...it's a mechanical, positive displacement pump, shifting the same volume per engine revolution.

So placing a 0W in the sump, at freezing temperatures, WILL not and CAN not, result in increased lubrication to the remotest end of the oiling system.

If the engine is operated well below freezing, then the SAE30 is entirely inappropriate, and an appropriate "W" grade IS appropriate.

And besides, the vast majority of wear occurs in the WARM UP phase, not the first seconds of cranking (again, anyone who's ever pulled apart any engine knows that there is oil there already, you get filthy)...warmup, the oil is all there and flowing.

The industry standard warmup wear test, the oil is there and flowing, and the engine is purposely held at a temperature that's below the additive activation temperature...if CATERHAM's posit was true, the 0W20 grade would show marked advantage in such a test...but it doesn't.

Please compare the above with what's been claimed to be my position (by an individual who considers advertisements to be science, and documentaries if in video form).

 

[userfriendly]

Shannow;
Is the term you use marketing "fluff" referring to videos, in your above example, "AS SEEN ON TV", one-arm-bandits, pour point demonstrations, an engine running without oil and so on?

Edit; Nobody believes those advertising fluff pieces science, do they?

 

[zeng]

WEAR is too general a term here that causes confusion and incorrect interpretation of 'wear phenomenon'.

For simplicity and meaningful discussion here,we may classify ALL wear in automotive applications into:
*a )corrosion wear(which forms a major portion of cold start wear);
*b )abrasion wear (which forms a minor part of cold start wear);and
*c )adhesive wear (which isn't quite part of cold start wear above)
* - may subject to further deliberations.

For identical basestocks/additive package, a 0W20 can never cause relatively lesser Abrasion wear AND Adhesive wear than a thicker grade of say, 0W30/40.
However, a high quality add pack in a 0W20(or any SAE grade for that matter) can directly cause lesser Corrosion wear than a thicker 0W30/40 whose add pack is of industry-standard (read:lower quality).

Just my $0.02.

Edit:spelling

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Garak you're welcome to interject at any time; I wish you did it more often. No, Shannow doesn't agree with that excerpt of mine you've cited.

I really can't speak for Shannow, but I suspect you're selling him short on that issue. High VI oils do improve fuel economy, obviously when compared with a lower VI oil of the same HTHS and friction modification characteristics, particularly during warming cycles.

High VI oils may or may not be unicorns, I suppose. The truth is in the pudding, as it were. The OEM oils, particularly the ones you've referenced over the years, do have a higher VI than most off the shelf examples. I would suggest that these oils benefit them in fuel economy testing in the United States, and probably in Canada and Japan, too. Of course, their manual recommendations can lead someone to an oil with a lower VI, since the oil companies themselves have little incentive to create an extremely high VI oil for the consumer market who wouldn't recognize an SAE J300 table if they saw one. Consumers, at least the vast majority outside the BITOG crowd, don't give a darn. It's a minor miracle if a vehicle owner picks up the correct grade and specification of oil in the first place.

It seems to me, and I may very well be wrong, that there isn't a lot of testing, and certainly not much data, with respect to winter performance on wear and fuel economy. If something passes the CCS and MRV testing, well, it gets its 0w-XX or 5w-XX or whatever designation. The thing is, we do know that there are wear issues in the cold, and we have to note heat activation of additives. I don't know how much viscosity tweaking would do in the cold, obviously as long as we have something reasonable for the temperatures in the first place. In my application, for instance, I'm skeptical about seeing a significant difference in wear during a warmup from say -20 C using a 0w-40, 5w-30, 0w-30, or 5w-30, assuming similar additive chemistries, of course.

I still have a healthy skepticism about mixing two 0w-XX oils and expecting that 0w portion remains unconditionally. For most winter conditions for most consumers, it wouldn't be a concern. But, I do live in a climate where we get hit with bad enough weather on occasion that I wouldn't want to be rolling the dice. I get to store my G37 in a heated garage most of the time, but there are times to be careful. Blending oils may certainly impart some advantages, at least in some limited circumstances. As you've mentioned, Red Line advocates it with their products. However, blending can also have a downside, if only in some very limited circumstances, and some people, including myself, get caught out in those limited circumstances. You fall under those limited circumstances where you can claim a benefit from fine tuning viscosity by mixing. I fall under one of those limited circumstances where I do have to depend upon the CCS and MRV capabilities of an oil and rely on its stay in grade capabilities, too. You happen to fall outside of most of those concerns. Where you do mix, you're not doing extended OCIs and depending upon an oil company's guarantee. Also, you're not relying on your blend to get you going unaided in -40.

With all the claims of lower temperature wear improvement, I'd like to see more evidence of this. Living in Canada, you're well aware of the marketing rhetoric. It's been on the walls of the oil aisles at Canadian Tire for at least thirty years. Canadian Tire has been telling us for a long time how we need synthetic for the winter, and how it helps cold start wear. That's not exactly evidence, though. We simply haven't seen any evidence that one viscosity is better than another for warm up wear protection, assuming that both viscosities being compared are suitable for the testing temperatures.

There are plenty of reasons to be using a modern multi-viscosity grade of oil, with modern specifications. We don't have to be hunting for needles in a haystack nor split hairs to justify those choices. I've always lived in Saskatchewan and have always despised oil changes based upon ambient temperatures. Therefore, I embraced 5w-30 as a year round fill very early on. Outside of for the taxis, which used 10w-30 all the time, I would guess I've purchased no more than 20 to 40 litres of 10w-30 throughout my life.

As for oil formulations, I wonder how oils would change if fuel economy testing included a warmup from, say, -30 C, the MRV limit for a 10w-XX. I'd also wonder what changes we'd see if the API introduced wear testing at a similarly low temperature.

 

[userfriendly]

Would you like to try a 5w40 non-synthetic Garak?
It's been a few years since that grade rolled out in 1971.
If you believe what you just wrote, wouldn't 0w40 be in both of your vehicles?

My little LML has two grade approvals, 15W40 & 5w40 CJ-4.
The gasoline engines 5w30, but 0W30 may be used in Moose Jaw.
I don't remember 0W30 conventional, but it's possible.
Thank you for that essay, but I'll take my 0w30 and 5W40's in synthetic, group III or otherwise.