Viscosity Index Improvers are not bad.

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
I'm not sure what kind of engine designer would select two materials that would tighten the clearance when cold and cut off the oil supply.


The kind of engine designer that wants to take advantage of the weight-saving and heat transfer properties of Aluminum. It's part of the design process to calculate the clearance expected at the lowest expected temperature to make sure there is still running clearance. (Although I have read of some race engines that are built with such tight bearing clearances, they must be preheated before starting or they won't even turn.) But life was slightly simpler when blocks and cranks were both iron-based.

Pistons are always subject to differential thermal expansion issues because they run so much hotter than the bores.

 

[DeepFriar]

Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar

I'm all about overkill and proudly so.

Oil itself may cost around $70 for a change if its Redline, or $30 if its M1. A lot of people don't think its a lot of money. Its not compared to the cost of the engine. People on these forums do like to penny pinch, and nothing wrong with that if you're into it.


One more going-away thought on the cost issue. I went back and looked at my Amazon order history and I paid $47 for the gallon container of RL delivered at the door. The SE-R won't take more than 3.5 quarts even with the filter. So, yes, it is expensive @ 12 bux. I wouldn't buy it at $70. The Motul Xcess was $48 for the five liter jug, figure 9 bux per quart after conversion, also delivered. The truck takes 6 quarts so I top up with whatever is around including RL. It costs more than most but not $70 in my case. At least it ain't Neo oil (remember them?).
Cheers.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: ExMachina
I still believe the engine would wear less if the oil coming up from the cold sump were thinner though, since the cold thick gooey oil in there gets knocked out quickly before the circulating engine oil can get to it.

Things have improved markedly since the monograde days. The other issue, too, is if the limits were adjusted or some company made some fantastic winter oil (I suppose Imperial Oil already does with Mobil Delvac Elite 222 0w-30, which reportedly had some unparalleled numbers, and Amsoil and Petro-Canada have some nice offerings), would people use it? There are enough people who will simply use a 5w-30 if that's specified, and not go to a 0w-30. There might be a benefit to those already using something like a 0w-20, if the oil company can market it effectively enough.

 

[Solarent]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Solarent

Thanks for this information, Buster. can you find the SAE paper reference code, I'd like to pull it up and compare to my other notes in this regard.


This is probably it:
http://papers.sae.org/981444/

First hit in google.

Just curious, but has there been any improvement in VII technology since 1998 when this paper was published?



Sorry to change the direction of the thread - I think the info on MRV and CCS has been great discussion but I wanted to post my analysis of the paper referenced early on (I have been out of town for a couple of days):

In reading the paper, it is pretty obvious that the primary objective is to extoll the benefits of synthetic oils (specifically PAOs) in extended drains. I don't think any of us would disagree with that.

Because the oils tested use a "nearly identical" core additive performance package it seems that the focus is much more on the benefits of synthetic base oils in extending drains They do reference shear stability and VM's a couple of times, but I assume they used the same type of VM across the board. Which considering the date it was published would not be surprising.

There are some benefits from reducing the volume of VM as a part of the formula. However in today's world VM's are an essential part of Engine oil formulas and we should be careful when assuming an oil has a low VM content just because of the SAE grade of oil or that that the oil with lower VM content(ie OCP's) would perform better than one that had a higher concentration of a VM designed for performance and higher shear stability (ie PMA's).

*Clarfication on the above - often OCPs have lower treat rates but less shear stability than PMAs

 

[buster]

^ Great points I completley agree.

Also, genearally speaking, the narrower the spread the less VM content, however, I'm not sure that always applies. For example, Mobil 1 0w20 EP contains roughtly 65% PAO vs the 5w20 grade which uses more Grp III and (i think) 30-40% PAO. So despite the 5w20 having a narrower spread, the 0w20 has more PAO, which I would think it therefore uses less VM. Does that make sense or am I off?

 

[Solarent]

Originally Posted By: buster
^ Great points I completley agree.

Also, genearally speaking, the narrower the spread the less VM content, however, I'm not sure that always applies. For example, Mobil 1 0w20 EP contains roughtly 65% PAO vs the 5w20 grade which uses more Grp III and (i think) 30-40% PAO. So despite the 5w20 having a narrower spread, the 0w20 has more PAO, which I would think it therefore uses less VM. Does that make sense or am I off?


If the marketer is using the same VM in a family of oils (same technology just different grades) than you are probably right - less spread would be on the lower end of VM concentration. When comparing 5W20 to 0W20 I would guess that they actually have close to the same VM concentration and that the difference in the cold temperature performance comes from the increased concentration of low vis PAO.

Sometimes though for unique grades (like 0W40 or an oil designed with an extra high VI ) they might use a completely different VM in which case all bets are off.

 

[Shannow]

Solarent,
given your last statement, and I think I know the answer but will ask anyway.

There are some on the board who expect perfectly linear results by mixing two different ultra high VI oils (e.g. TGMO and M1 0W40)...claiming that by definition, the blend will still be a 0W, and that the KV40, KV100, and HTHS

My belief (happy to be corrected) is that for this to be true, the additives must work linearly (i.e. half concentration gives exactly the half effect), and cumulatively (i.e. the two half dosed additive, in the new base oil viscosity exactly add back to "1").

e.g. if I look at the Mobil blending chart, a 50:50 0W20/0W40 blend would give a thicker 30 than the formulated oil (higher VI bas-oil with similar, maybe higher VM add).

So the question really is

Does blending high VM treated formulated OTC oils with each other give a predictable outcome, that can be relied on a blending calculator to give the KV40, KV100, and HTHS ?

(subset, does blending two 0Ws predictably give you a 0W outcome...same for other W ratings).

 

[Ducman]

Thank you for posing this question.

I have wondered the exact same thing.

I believe there are too many assumptions being made regarding this matter and no proof of concept from what I can see.

 

[Solarent]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
So the question really is

Does blending high VM treated formulated OTC oils with each other give a predictable outcome, that can be relied on a blending calculator to give the KV40, KV100, and HTHS ?

(subset, does blending two 0Ws predictably give you a 0W outcome...same for other W ratings).


Creating your own blends using OTC oils can be tricky if you are going for a desired outcome. This stems from the fact that you don't know exactly what types of base or VM is being used.

However brands like Mobil have gone out and said that you can mix their products and it won't harm the engine. If you were to do a 50/50 blend of the products in the chart - you could safely predict something in the range of the 0W30 shown. However to be safe, the blend should be tested first. It's not exactly linear, but it is predictable enough that you can be confident in results - provided you confirm with proper viscosity testing.

You can also mix oils with different types of VM (if you know what they are) but with less predictable results. This can be helpful for blenders who need better cold flow performance, but don't want to use high cost VM's (ie mix OCP which is typically cheaper with PMA). Again extensive viscosity testing would be required to confirm blending ratios.

I think the CATERHAM blends that were quite popular for a while on this board were a good example of this - they were blended with an intentional outcome and then tested (via VOA and in service) and he found good results. But just because it worked for him, doesn't mean you could apply that to blending any 0W20 and 0W40 and expect the same results.

 

[buster]

Mobil uses the same chemistry across their lineup for the most part other than different base oil ratios. If VOA's are any indication they all use the same detergent/anti wear system just in diferent amounts. M1 0w40 is the exception as that still uses the higher calcium levels. So mixing Mobil 1 I don't think is really ever an issue.

 

[userfriendly]

For that perfect M1 in between grade that is not available.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: Solarent
But just because it worked for him, doesn't mean you could apply that to blending any 0W20 and 0W40 and expect the same results.


^^^True, but my LS1 has not self destructed yet (almost 185K miles on stock, untouched internals), so I am guessing that this high VI blend is not the "fluid of catastrophe" that many on here would claim it to be (maybe even CATERHAM himself??), despite the different base stocks, AW/AF/detergent add packs, and possibly VMs.

 

[Shannow]

dailydriver, "self destructing", and "catastrophe" aren't the words that anyone has suggested with your (or any other blend)...so why the strawman implying that's what people say (you know the guy himself has no problems mixing gear lube in)?

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Solarent
Creating your own blends using OTC oils can be tricky if you are going for a desired outcome. This stems from the fact that you don't know exactly what types of base or VM is being used.

However brands like Mobil have gone out and said that you can mix their products and it won't harm the engine. If you were to do a 50/50 blend of the products in the chart - you could safely predict something in the range of the 0W30 shown. However to be safe, the blend should be tested first. It's not exactly linear, but it is predictable enough that you can be confident in results - provided you confirm with proper viscosity testing.

You can also mix oils with different types of VM (if you know what they are) but with less predictable results. This can be helpful for blenders who need better cold flow performance, but don't want to use high cost VM's (ie mix OCP which is typically cheaper with PMA). Again extensive viscosity testing would be required to confirm blending ratios.

I think the CATERHAM blends that were quite popular for a while on this board were a good example of this - they were blended with an intentional outcome and then tested (via VOA and in service) and he found good results. But just because it worked for him, doesn't mean you could apply that to blending any 0W20 and 0W40 and expect the same results.


Thanks

 

[Greasymechtech]

https://www.lubrizol.com/ViscosityModifiers/Asteric/default.html
https://www.lubrizol.com/ViscosityModifiers/KnowledgeCenter/ScienceBehindAsteric.html
https://www.lubrizol.com/AstericViscosityModifiers/Presentation.pdf
https://www.lubrizol.com/AstericViscosityModifiers/AdvancedPolymerTechnology.pdf
http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/jun-2013/satisfying-both-sides-of-the-equation
http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/june-2015/shear-stability-up-close
http://oil-additives.evonik.com/sites/dc...t-davidgray.pdf
http://oil-additives.evonik.com/sites/dc...n-lung-wang.pdf
http://www.italmatch.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Italmatch-LR-20131230.pdf
http://www.optimal.co.th/uploads/Lube Oil Newsletter Vol 20.pdf

I guess when cost, treat rate, performance.... are considered, you can see why VII has a bad name. Can't blend too cheaply and expect perfection. I want my VII/VM and am willing to pay for whatever is the best.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: Solarent
But just because it worked for him, doesn't mean you could apply that to blending any 0W20 and 0W40 and expect the same results.


^^^True, but my LS1 has not self destructed yet (almost 185K miles on stock, untouched internals), so I am guessing that this high VI blend is not the "fluid of catastrophe" that many on here would claim it to be (maybe even CATERHAM himself??), despite the different base stocks, AW/AF/detergent add packs, and possibly VMs.

You've got an LS1, which is easy on the oil, and doesn't really seem to need much in the way of oil pressure to keep everything lubricated.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: Solarent
But just because it worked for him, doesn't mean you could apply that to blending any 0W20 and 0W40 and expect the same results.


^^^True, but my LS1 has not self destructed yet (almost 185K miles on stock, untouched internals), so I am guessing that this high VI blend is not the "fluid of catastrophe" that many on here would claim it to be (maybe even CATERHAM himself??), despite the different base stocks, AW/AF/detergent add packs, and possibly VMs.

You've got an LS1, which is easy on the oil, and doesn't really seem to need much in the way of oil pressure to keep everything lubricated.


Yes, they are supposedly "easy on the oil", so where is the actual harm done by my mix, even if it is considered "unnecessary overkill" by most on here, but it gives me the 'warm and fuzzies' using it?

Who is to say it is NOT near optimal (which cannot be shown in UOAs anyway), despite the different chemistries involved, even though I have never claimed it to be such?

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Who is to say it is NOT near optimal (which cannot be shown in UOAs anyway), despite the different chemistries involved, even though I have never claimed it to be such?


Who is to say that you haven't stumbled upon the exact formula that they use for the Gimbal mechanism on the Hubble telescope ?

We'll never know, but it COULD be that lube.

Chances of random mixing of OTC product being better than both of their predescessors IS pretty remote 'though.

Absence of blowups isn't proof of superior performance.

 

[DeepFriar]

Modern Marvels had a 2008 vintage show on this afternoon covering "oil". Not greatly indepth of course but it showed them adding blocks of VII in the production process. Looked like a heavier version of aerogel or parafin wax, that sort of frosty look. The announcer pointed out that the material is not really a solid. Left for a bit it would simply flow. After all this discussion it was nice to actually see the stuff.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Absence of blowups isn't proof of superior performance.


No it is not.

But, just how much worse could it be (performance wise) than the PYB which everyone on here tells me would allow my engine to last over a million miles with no rebuilds??