OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Why are you pointing out the obvious? PU was a mostly PAO oil
This is the current formulation for PU and it most certainly isn't PAO, it is GTL. So it obviously isn't that obvious
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
and PP without PurePlus was mostly a low-grade Group III. Apples to oranges.
Hardly. You had no problem cross comparing entirely different grades with different certifications/approvals but comparing two of the same grade for the same application from the same manufacturer is suddenly apples to oranges?
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Visom base stocks have VI of 136 and 142 *snip*
GTL typically has VI of 140 and above. Modern Group III+ and GTL easily beat most PAOs' VI.
I already told you VI doesn't tell the whole story, heck I gave you some bloody examples! Why are you continuing to go on about VI? It's a bloody calculation based on 40C and 100C viscosity, it does NOT cover the HUGE difference between PAO and any of these other high VI bases you keep chest thumping about which is PAO's massive advantage at lower temperatures.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Where PAO really excels is its resistance to oxidation, which is probably the most important quality of a base oil. That's what makes PAO a premium base oil.
Where PAO really excels, which is covered in the Infineum presentation I linked, is both oxidation resistance and extreme cold temperature performance. BOTH of those qualities are what make it a premium base oil.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
You can have a quality 0W-40 even with a Group II+/IV synthetic blend
And your point? Current 0w-40's are all a blend of bases designed to meet a specific suit of performance targets. I'm not sure what this has to do with you obsessing about the VI of GTL and Group III+ and ignoring the fact that this does not cover one of the main specific advantages of PAO, which applies DIRECTLY to the 0w-xx designation, and that is the ability for it to meet extreme low temperature performance targets.
Why are you pointing out the obvious? PU was a mostly PAO oil
This is the current formulation for PU and it most certainly isn't PAO, it is GTL. So it obviously isn't that obvious
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
and PP without PurePlus was mostly a low-grade Group III. Apples to oranges.
Hardly. You had no problem cross comparing entirely different grades with different certifications/approvals but comparing two of the same grade for the same application from the same manufacturer is suddenly apples to oranges?
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Visom base stocks have VI of 136 and 142 *snip*
GTL typically has VI of 140 and above. Modern Group III+ and GTL easily beat most PAOs' VI.
I already told you VI doesn't tell the whole story, heck I gave you some bloody examples! Why are you continuing to go on about VI? It's a bloody calculation based on 40C and 100C viscosity, it does NOT cover the HUGE difference between PAO and any of these other high VI bases you keep chest thumping about which is PAO's massive advantage at lower temperatures.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Where PAO really excels is its resistance to oxidation, which is probably the most important quality of a base oil. That's what makes PAO a premium base oil.
Where PAO really excels, which is covered in the Infineum presentation I linked, is both oxidation resistance and extreme cold temperature performance. BOTH of those qualities are what make it a premium base oil.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
You can have a quality 0W-40 even with a Group II+/IV synthetic blend
And your point? Current 0w-40's are all a blend of bases designed to meet a specific suit of performance targets. I'm not sure what this has to do with you obsessing about the VI of GTL and Group III+ and ignoring the fact that this does not cover one of the main specific advantages of PAO, which applies DIRECTLY to the 0w-xx designation, and that is the ability for it to meet extreme low temperature performance targets.