Valvoline 0w40 new blend?

[Crobinson16]

So over the course of the day I've been trying to convince my self of which oil I want to use between Valvoline, Castrol and Mobil 1 in the 0w 40 belnds. I really like the Valvoline as it seems very stout going by all it's approvals, i really don't think any of them are a bad choice. My concern is cold start ups and shearing of the oil through it's oci. I really am leaning towards the Valvoline, however I was concerned of the pour point however after read a thread on

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4393679/1

here about the differences in pour point , mrv and CCS. Pour point isn't necessary a relative in it's cold start abilities. So what are the difference between Valvoline, Mobil 1 and Castrol 0w40 in there cold start abilities. I'm try to put all truck information together between the 3.

The only thing I can find on the Valvoline is what I believe to be a minimum standard as it's value give is listed as

 

[Crobinson16]

Can any offer any insight to the cold flow properties ?

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by Crobinson16
Can any offer any insight to the cold flow properties ?

The only flow that is important is to the pickup screen from the sump, and that ability at low temperatures has been shown to be somewhat complicated. The ability to do so is reported as the "W" rating, so a 0W rated oil is able to perform properly at very low temperatures and not gel around the pickup.

No one here can read the tea leaves of a PDS and predict which 0W oil will perform better than another if they both meet that rating. Pour point is not a reliable indicator, that's why SAE J300 exists.

The importance (or lack of importance) of flow was discussed later in this thread you started earlier:

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4600798/2

And this one you also started:

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...bil-0w-40-vs-5-30-cold-start#Post4317265

Where Shannow explains why you won't find the numbers you're asking about.

 

[Crobinson16]

Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by Crobinson16
Can any offer any insight to the cold flow properties ?

The only flow that is important is to the pickup screen from the sump, and that ability at low temperatures has been shown to be somewhat complicated. The ability to do so is reported as the "W" rating, so a 0W rated oil is able to perform properly at very low temperatures and not gel around the pickup.

No one here can read the tea leaves of a PDS and predict which 0W oil will perform better than another if they both meet that rating. Pour point is not a reliable indicator, that's why SAE J300 exists.

The importance (or lack of importance) of flow was discussed later in this thread you started earlier:

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4600798/2

And this one you also started:

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...bil-0w-40-vs-5-30-cold-start#Post4317265

Where Shannow explains why you won't find the numbers you're asking about.



And those threads were discussing different oils and comparison between 0w and 5w .

In the continuing of this thread I was trying to compare the Valvoline 0w40 to Mobil fs 0w40 and Castrol 0w40 in regards to there cold flow properties. So people on here are able to find the information easily compared to others or my self and wanted to see if any did.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by Crobinson16
And those threads were discussing different oils and comparison between 0w and 5w .

In the continuing of this thread I was trying to compare the Valvoline 0w40 to Mobil fs 0w40 and Castrol 0w40 in regards to there cold flow properties. So people on here are able to find the information easily compared to others or my self and wanted to see if any did.

Yes, but within the threads there is discussion about the W rating which is pertinent.

Again though you will not find the information you're looking for. All three of those oils meet the cold cranking and pumpability requirements to be labeled as 0W and there is no "other" published parameter that would allow you to fine tune between them. Within the requirements for a 0W oil, all three will flow the distance from the sump to the pickup tube in the engine and will not create an un-pumpable gel around the screen. This is where "cold flow properties" are relevant.

Even if you did have this fine tuning number, are you are really looking for the one of the three that will flow to the pickup tube at -45F rather than just at -43F?

 

[Crobinson16]

Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by Crobinson16
And those threads were discussing different oils and comparison between 0w and 5w .

In the continuing of this thread I was trying to compare the Valvoline 0w40 to Mobil fs 0w40 and Castrol 0w40 in regards to there cold flow properties. So people on here are able to find the information easily compared to others or my self and wanted to see if any did.

Yes, but within the threads there is discussion about the W rating which is pertinent.

Again though you will not find the information you're looking for. All three of those oils meet the cold cranking and pumpability requirements to be labeled as 0W and there is no "other" published parameter that would allow you to fine tune between them. Within the requirements for a 0W oil, all three will flow the distance from the sump to the pickup tube in the engine and will not create an un-pumpable gel around the screen. This is where "cold flow properties" are relevant.

Even if you did have this fine tuning number, are you are really looking for the one of the three that will flow to the pickup tube at -45F rather than just at -43F?



No not necessarily, although it may make me feel better. Coldest temps ive been in myself are only -30F so I'm not sure its close enough to be concerned. I was trying to understand how oils with similar or even different pour points within the same 0w grade have very different mvr numbers or CCS numbers. Does it mean one oil is better, at cold flow, I'm.still trying to digest it all . For instance, Mobil 0w40 the old formulation vs the new FS version. Its nearly identical except hths slightly lower, everything else pretty close, but mvr changed a good bit.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Crobinson16


No not necessarily, although it may make me feel better. Coldest temps ive been in myself are only -30F so I'm not sure its close enough to be concerned. I was trying to understand how oils with similar or even different pour points within the same 0w grade have very different mvr numbers or CCS numbers. Does it mean one oil is better, at cold flow, I'm.still trying to digest it all . For instance, Mobil 0w40 the old formulation vs the new FS version. Its nearly identical except hths slightly lower, everything else pretty close, but mvr changed a good bit.


Pour point was replaced by CCS and MRV (though it is often still included) because of how inaccurate it is.

Generally though, what you'll see is that oils with PAO in them will exhibit much lower pour points than oils that don't. This is because PAO doesn't contain wax, so there is nothing to crystallize as the temperature gets low. Its extreme-cold temperature is more predictable, whilst a Group II or Group III laden with PPD's to ward off wax crystallization will go off a cliff viscosity-wise once it hits the limit of the PPD's being used.

PPD's, like VII's, also degrade, which is why an oil is allowed to slip a W rating in service.

 

[kschachn]

Also the reproducibility of ASTM D5293 and D4684 may preclude any such fine-tuning.

 

[Crobinson16]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Crobinson16


No not necessarily, although it may make me feel better. Coldest temps ive been in myself are only -30F so I'm not sure its close enough to be concerned. I was trying to understand how oils with similar or even different pour points within the same 0w grade have very different mvr numbers or CCS numbers. Does it mean one oil is better, at cold flow, I'm.still trying to digest it all . For instance, Mobil 0w40 the old formulation vs the new FS version. Its nearly identical except hths slightly lower, everything else pretty close, but mvr changed a good bit.


Pour point was replaced by CCS and MRV (though it is often still included) because of how inaccurate it is.

Generally though, what you'll see is that oils with PAO in them will exhibit much lower pour points than oils that don't. This is because PAO doesn't contain wax, so there is nothing to crystallize as the temperature gets low. Its extreme-cold temperature is more predictable, whilst a Group II or Group III laden with PPD's to ward off wax crystallization will go off a cliff viscosity-wise once it hits the limit of the PPD's being used.

PPD's, like VII's, also degrade, which is why an oil is allowed to slip a W rating in service.




Okay, I got ya, so when you say slip a grade, you me a 0w could become a 5w, .
My thought was Valvoline was a pretty impressive oil , due to all the manufacturers approvals, especially the LL01, even though it's relativel to me as my only requirement is API SM or higher. I still believe these pcmo oils are better then the bro xps oil. Mobile use be a highly recommend and reguarded oil on here till it lost its LL01 cert then it seemed like everyone was into the Castrol because it still retained it and seeing that Valvoline had what I needed plus all the other approvals and LL01 I figured people would start looking at it but not much talk of Valvoline Advanced full synthetic 0w40 on here.
Just my thoughts.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Crobinson16
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Crobinson16


No not necessarily, although it may make me feel better. Coldest temps ive been in myself are only -30F so I'm not sure its close enough to be concerned. I was trying to understand how oils with similar or even different pour points within the same 0w grade have very different mvr numbers or CCS numbers. Does it mean one oil is better, at cold flow, I'm.still trying to digest it all . For instance, Mobil 0w40 the old formulation vs the new FS version. Its nearly identical except hths slightly lower, everything else pretty close, but mvr changed a good bit.


Pour point was replaced by CCS and MRV (though it is often still included) because of how inaccurate it is.

Generally though, what you'll see is that oils with PAO in them will exhibit much lower pour points than oils that don't. This is because PAO doesn't contain wax, so there is nothing to crystallize as the temperature gets low. Its extreme-cold temperature is more predictable, whilst a Group II or Group III laden with PPD's to ward off wax crystallization will go off a cliff viscosity-wise once it hits the limit of the PPD's being used.

PPD's, like VII's, also degrade, which is why an oil is allowed to slip a W rating in service.




Okay, I got ya, so when you say slip a grade, you me a 0w could become a 5w, .
My thought was Valvoline was a pretty impressive oil , due to all the manufacturers approvals, especially the LL01, even though it's relativel to me as my only requirement is API SM or higher. I still believe these pcmo oils are better then the bro xps oil. Mobile use be a highly recommend and reguarded oil on here till it lost its LL01 cert then it seemed like everyone was into the Castrol because it still retained it and seeing that Valvoline had what I needed plus all the other approvals and LL01 I figured people would start looking at it but not much talk of Valvoline Advanced full synthetic 0w40 on here.
Just my thoughts.


If you ignore LL-01 for a second, you'll see that most of the commercial 0w-40's on the market share the same list of approvals. The Pennzoil 0w-40 doesn't have LL-01 either BTW, but it has Porsche A40 and the same other certs/approvals that Mobil 1 0w-40, Castrol 0w-40...etc all have, including this Valvoline product.

These oils are pretty interchangeable, which is an unsurprising artifact of them being similarly approved. You can't really go wrong with any of them. Castrol is still the darling not only because it has LL-01, but because we know it has a good dose of PAO in it too.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by Crobinson16
Okay, I got ya, so when you say slip a grade, you me a 0w could become a 5w, .
My thought was Valvoline was a pretty impressive oil , due to all the manufacturers approvals, especially the LL01, even though it's relativel to me as my only requirement is API SM or higher. I still believe these pcmo oils are better then the bro xps oil. Mobile use be a highly recommend and reguarded oil on here till it lost its LL01 cert then it seemed like everyone was into the Castrol because it still retained it and seeing that Valvoline had what I needed plus all the other approvals and LL01 I figured people would start looking at it but not much talk of Valvoline Advanced full synthetic 0w40 on here.
Just my thoughts.

No one knows why Mobil 1 0W-40 no longer has Longlife-01 approval, considering it still has the rest (including A40) I think it is difficult to make a quality argument. For myself it doesn't make much difference since my old BMW doesn't even require LL-01, but three feet down the Walmart shelf (and for the same price) there's Castrol 0W-40 which does. But the truth is that the requirement for LL-01 is declining every day.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted by kschachn
Also the reproducibility of ASTM D5293 and D4684 may preclude any such fine-tuning.

Yes, about the only thing that one can do to fine tune would be the general rule that a 0w30 A3/B4 should have slightly better cold start values than a 0w-40 A3/B4, and a 0w30 ILSAC better than a 0w30 A3/B4. Within grades and specs, there are a couple that do seem to shine a little better, but I've never bothered to try fine tuning. If I'm happy with a 5w30 over a 0w-XX, I'm clearly not that worried.