Why not 0w?
- Thread starter Jake777
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: bbhero
Spot on man.. Just look at Pennzoil Ultra 5w30 vs. it's 10w30. The 5w version is around 11. The 10w is around 5.8 or so.
Comically, the old Pennzoil Ultra 5w30 had a NOACK of 6.4%, while the old 10w30 had a NOACK of 4.8%.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2455137
Spot on man.. Just look at Pennzoil Ultra 5w30 vs. it's 10w30. The 5w version is around 11. The 10w is around 5.8 or so.
Comically, the old Pennzoil Ultra 5w30 had a NOACK of 6.4%, while the old 10w30 had a NOACK of 4.8%.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2455137
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: SoNic67
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: SoNic67
I am talking about the SAME brand, same type of oil (synt or conv) - comparing apples with apples.
Sure, so which do you think has lower NOACK volatility, Mobil 1 5w30 or Mobil 1 0w-40?
I am talking of the SAME oils as in same brand and same 'top' end - 0W30 VS 5W30 VS 10W30...
I know, science is hard, you need to figure out that you really need to change only ONE variable.
Nice show of class with the personal attack
Your post tried to discredit what I just said above by going out of way and... I showed your error in this 'scientific' investigation. You never change multiple variables in an experiment/argument, unless you are trying to pull a straw-man . Oh wait, isn't that a personal attack?
After all that you came back with a post that actually support my original point (that there are advantages of 5W versus 0W exactly because of NOACK)...
I guess you like to argue???
PS: Before other people complain again about my use of words, I have used the ' symbols around them ( like 'xxx') for a reason.
Originally Posted By: SoNic67
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: SoNic67
I am talking about the SAME brand, same type of oil (synt or conv) - comparing apples with apples.
Sure, so which do you think has lower NOACK volatility, Mobil 1 5w30 or Mobil 1 0w-40?
I am talking of the SAME oils as in same brand and same 'top' end - 0W30 VS 5W30 VS 10W30...
I know, science is hard, you need to figure out that you really need to change only ONE variable.
Nice show of class with the personal attack
Your post tried to discredit what I just said above by going out of way and... I showed your error in this 'scientific' investigation. You never change multiple variables in an experiment/argument, unless you are trying to pull a straw-man . Oh wait, isn't that a personal attack?
After all that you came back with a post that actually support my original point (that there are advantages of 5W versus 0W exactly because of NOACK)...
I guess you like to argue???
PS: Before other people complain again about my use of words, I have used the ' symbols around them ( like 'xxx') for a reason.
Last edited:
The point really is, though, that Noack can be all over the place, and it's only one spec among many. If someone wants to chase VI, go buy some Eneos Sustina thing. if one wants to chase Noack, run a monograde.
Originally Posted By: Garak
The point really is, though, that Noack can be all over the place, and it's only one spec among many. If someone wants to chase VI, go buy some Eneos Sustina thing. if one wants to chase Noack, run a monograde.
Garak,
that's a great statement. Chasing an extreme of a single variable is a bit silly, and a solid VI with a modest NOACK is probably the best balance between the two.
The point really is, though, that Noack can be all over the place, and it's only one spec among many. If someone wants to chase VI, go buy some Eneos Sustina thing. if one wants to chase Noack, run a monograde.
Garak,
that's a great statement. Chasing an extreme of a single variable is a bit silly, and a solid VI with a modest NOACK is probably the best balance between the two.
Well I see there is much more to it. Just thought when cold a lower number would mean the oil would flow better until it reached operating temperature but I see that if a 0w oil could
"burn off" a bit more than say 5w or 10w than I guess I see the point in running the spec w oil in hot weather. So my take away from reading everything you guys are saying is just stick with the number on the cap. Thanks for the info and helping me understand. I didn't think it would be that simple
By the way I assume most of you have read that article i posted that comes from this website. That guy sounded like he really knew what he was talking about.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/motor-oil-101/
"burn off" a bit more than say 5w or 10w than I guess I see the point in running the spec w oil in hot weather. So my take away from reading everything you guys are saying is just stick with the number on the cap. Thanks for the info and helping me understand. I didn't think it would be that simple
By the way I assume most of you have read that article i posted that comes from this website. That guy sounded like he really knew what he was talking about.http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/motor-oil-101/
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: SoNic67
Your post tried to discredit what I just said above by going out of way and...
No, all I was trying to point out was that this was not always the case, and I have provided examples of that. You've chosen to get offended by that for some reason.
Originally Posted By: SoNic67
I showed your error in this 'scientific' investigation. You never change multiple variables in an experiment/argument, unless you are trying to pull a straw-man . Oh wait, isn't that a personal attack?
Well, last I checked, your "absolute" statement that I took issue with didn't have any sort of experiment associated with it and certainly wasn't any form of scientific paper. It wasn't even an argument, it was a statement. When I mentioned that it wasn't always the case, you further clarified. When I cited an example that fell within the terms of your clarification, you again took exception and then started on with this tripe about changing multiple variables, whilst that was not one of the qualifiers in your original statement, nor your second one.
If your original statement had read something like what I stated in my last post, that GENERALLY, the wider the visc spread, the higher the NOACK volatility, I would not have taken exception, as that is correct. There are exceptions, but it is a good GENERAL rule of thumb. And there are exceptions, as I already noted, even if we use your qualifiers of same brand and type (part 2 of your clarification) and the same grade (part 3).
Originally Posted By: SoNic67
After all that you came back with a post that actually support my original point (that there are advantages of 5W versus 0W exactly because of NOACK)...
Because it is GENERALLY correct. My point wasn't that you were completely wrong, simply that this was not always the case, and I've said as much several times now.
And you still haven't provided any further clarification on your 200,000 mile 20 grade statement BTW.
Originally Posted By: SoNic67
I guess you like to argue???
This isn't really an argument, this is you getting offended by somebody taking exception to what you've said, getting angry and tossing in qualifiers that weren't part of your original statement, nor your 2nd statement, when questions were asked/statements made regarding that content.
I DO enjoy a good civil debate, but this has not been one of those because instead of allowing that to happen and asking your own questions, you got huffy and started tossing out insults. That's not protocol conducive to discourse that would qualify as debate.
Your post tried to discredit what I just said above by going out of way and...
No, all I was trying to point out was that this was not always the case, and I have provided examples of that. You've chosen to get offended by that for some reason.
Originally Posted By: SoNic67
I showed your error in this 'scientific' investigation. You never change multiple variables in an experiment/argument, unless you are trying to pull a straw-man . Oh wait, isn't that a personal attack?
Well, last I checked, your "absolute" statement that I took issue with didn't have any sort of experiment associated with it and certainly wasn't any form of scientific paper. It wasn't even an argument, it was a statement. When I mentioned that it wasn't always the case, you further clarified. When I cited an example that fell within the terms of your clarification, you again took exception and then started on with this tripe about changing multiple variables, whilst that was not one of the qualifiers in your original statement, nor your second one.
If your original statement had read something like what I stated in my last post, that GENERALLY, the wider the visc spread, the higher the NOACK volatility, I would not have taken exception, as that is correct. There are exceptions, but it is a good GENERAL rule of thumb. And there are exceptions, as I already noted, even if we use your qualifiers of same brand and type (part 2 of your clarification) and the same grade (part 3).
Originally Posted By: SoNic67
After all that you came back with a post that actually support my original point (that there are advantages of 5W versus 0W exactly because of NOACK)...
Because it is GENERALLY correct. My point wasn't that you were completely wrong, simply that this was not always the case, and I've said as much several times now.
And you still haven't provided any further clarification on your 200,000 mile 20 grade statement BTW.
Originally Posted By: SoNic67
I guess you like to argue???
This isn't really an argument, this is you getting offended by somebody taking exception to what you've said, getting angry and tossing in qualifiers that weren't part of your original statement, nor your 2nd statement, when questions were asked/statements made regarding that content.
I DO enjoy a good civil debate, but this has not been one of those because instead of allowing that to happen and asking your own questions, you got huffy and started tossing out insults. That's not protocol conducive to discourse that would qualify as debate.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Jake777
Well I see there is much more to it. Just thought when cold a lower number would mean the oil would flow better until it reached operating temperature but I see that if a 0w oil could
"burn off" a bit more than say 5w or 10w than I guess I see the point in running the spec w oil in hot weather. So my take away from reading everything you guys are saying is just stick with the number on the cap. Thanks for the info and helping me understand. I didn't think it would be that simple By the way I assume most of you have read that article i posted that comes from this website. That guy sounded like he really knew what he was talking about.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/motor-oil-101/
There are some issues with that article that Shannow (and others) have pointed out (and causes a fair deal of confusion), but it IS well written, which is why it tends to get guys "hooked" and then have them pop in and make threads with questions such as yours
Well I see there is much more to it. Just thought when cold a lower number would mean the oil would flow better until it reached operating temperature but I see that if a 0w oil could
"burn off" a bit more than say 5w or 10w than I guess I see the point in running the spec w oil in hot weather. So my take away from reading everything you guys are saying is just stick with the number on the cap. Thanks for the info and helping me understand. I didn't think it would be that simple
By the way I assume most of you have read that article i posted that comes from this website. That guy sounded like he really knew what he was talking about.http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/motor-oil-101/
There are some issues with that article that Shannow (and others) have pointed out (and causes a fair deal of confusion), but it IS well written, which is why it tends to get guys "hooked" and then have them pop in and make threads with questions such as yours
I don't understand the obsession over noak. And shear for that matter . They balance each other out. As long as there is still lubricity...
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I don't understand the obsession over noak. And shear for that matter . They balance each other out. As long as there is still lubricity...
Salient point sir
As more volatile components flash off and the oil oxidizes, it will thicken. As the oil shears, it will thin. There is a bit of a balance between the two.
NOACK is important, but the DEGREE of importance has already been set by a number of the OEM's above and beyond the basic API limits already in place. I don't recall what GM's limit is in DEXOS, but Mercedes sets the ceiling at 10%, significantly lower than many of the non 0w-xx oils that people use every day.
I don't understand the obsession over noak. And shear for that matter . They balance each other out. As long as there is still lubricity...
Salient point sir
As more volatile components flash off and the oil oxidizes, it will thicken. As the oil shears, it will thin. There is a bit of a balance between the two.
NOACK is important, but the DEGREE of importance has already been set by a number of the OEM's above and beyond the basic API limits already in place. I don't recall what GM's limit is in DEXOS, but Mercedes sets the ceiling at 10%, significantly lower than many of the non 0w-xx oils that people use every day.
I would think the oils we have now days would flash at a lower rate as it cooks down and maybe stop at some point. I remember the old days when an oil was run too long it would jell and stop pumping. The mechanic would have to take a torch to the oil pan to get the oil to drain.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I would think the oils we have now days would flash at a lower rate as it cooks down and maybe stop at some point.
We do know that they generally last a lot longer in service. Some of the RP, AMSOIL and Mobil 1 used oil analysis with extensive mileage do a good job of demonstrating that.
I would think the oils we have now days would flash at a lower rate as it cooks down and maybe stop at some point.
We do know that they generally last a lot longer in service. Some of the RP, AMSOIL and Mobil 1 used oil analysis with extensive mileage do a good job of demonstrating that.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I remember the old days when an oil was run too long it would jell and stop pumping. The mechanic would have to take a torch to the oil pan to get the oil to drain.
When I was at University, I spent every spare minute in the SAE library (on microfiche), and there were quite a few articles on it.
Worst was the 10W40 grade, which as has been pointed out by one of the blenders on BITOG could be made incredibly poorly.
Here's a Lubrizol demo of exactly that...the poorly made 10W40 can't get out of it's own way at room temp.
http://origin-qps.onstreammedia.com/orig...0EngineOils.htm
I remember the old days when an oil was run too long it would jell and stop pumping. The mechanic would have to take a torch to the oil pan to get the oil to drain.
When I was at University, I spent every spare minute in the SAE library (on microfiche), and there were quite a few articles on it.
Worst was the 10W40 grade, which as has been pointed out by one of the blenders on BITOG could be made incredibly poorly.
Here's a Lubrizol demo of exactly that...the poorly made 10W40 can't get out of it's own way at room temp.
http://origin-qps.onstreammedia.com/orig...0EngineOils.htm
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked