M1 AFE 0w-30?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
the M1 Os are generally thought to be mostly Grp IV/V basestock oils, although only XOM knows for sure,


So we are confident that M1 0W30 is a significantly different formulation than the ubiquitous M1 5W30? I guess most noticeably it having different basestocks?


M1 doesn't include the MRV spec for the 5W-30 anymore but when they did it was reported at 12,700 cP @ -35C.
M1 AFE 0W-30 has a MRV @ -40 of 11,100 cP so it is 13% lighter at -40 than the 5W-30 is at -35C which is obviously a lot.
So yes the base stocks have to be different as is always the case when comparing a 0W-XX to a 5W-XX oil's.

BTW PP 5W-30 has a MRV viscosity of 14,800 cP @ -35C which makes it 17% heavier than even M1 5W-30 at that temperature. And PP is a whopping 33% heavier than AFE 0W-30 is at an even lower temp of -40.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
We are as confident as we can be based upon the lack of any real information


I LOVE this quote!
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
the M1 Os are generally thought to be mostly Grp IV/V basestock oils, although only XOM knows for sure,


So we are confident that M1 0W30 is a significantly different formulation than the ubiquitous M1 5W30? I guess most noticeably it having different basestocks?


M1 doesn't include the MRV spec for the 5W-30 anymore but when they did it was reported at 12,700 cP @ -35C.
M1 AFE 0W-30 has a MRV @ -40 of 11,100 cP so it is 13% lighter at -40 than the 5W-30 is at -35C which is obviously a lot.
So yes the base stocks have to be different as is always the case when comparing a 0W-XX to a 5W-XX oil's.

BTW PP 5W-30 has a MRV viscosity of 14,800 cP @ -35C which makes it 17% heavier than even M1 5W-30 at that temperature. And PP is a whopping 33% heavier than AFE 0W-30 is at an even lower temp of -40.


Thanks for the succinct but pointed response CATERHAM. Good use of the stats.
 
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
At 0f-

PP 5w-30 1316cSt

M1 0w-30 1512cSt


And based upon the MRV viscosity #s given, M1 0W30 passes PP 5W30 in terms of 'lightness' at a temp lower than 0f.
 
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
At 0f-

PP 5w-30 1316cSt

M1 0w-30 1512cSt


Where did you get the viscosity at 0F?
 
Originally Posted By: TTK
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
At 0f-

PP 5w-30 1316cSt

M1 0w-30 1512cSt


Where did you get the viscosity at 0F?


Maybe an extrapolation using Widman's?
21.gif
 
Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
Originally Posted By: TTK
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
At 0f-

PP 5w-30 1316cSt

M1 0w-30 1512cSt


Where did you get the viscosity at 0F?


Maybe an extrapolation using Widman's?
21.gif



Yes that is where he got it from. That is a good tool for estimates but people around here take it as "proof". If M1 0w30 does have a fair amount of PAO then you cannot rely on a simple calculator.
 
21Rouge, your familar with Esso XD-3 which is 100% PAO.
Esso gives a MRV spec' at both -40 and -35C. Even for a pure PAO play the oil's viscosity increases 100% going from -35C to -40:
-40 vis' 22,600 cP and -35C vis 11,200 cP. Or drops 50% going from -40 to -35C.

M1's AFE 0W-30 MRV vis at -40 is 11,100 cP. It's not likely 100% PAO but for the sake of argument, assuming a similar 50% drop in viscosity, at -35C it's vis' would be no heavier than 5,500 cP . That compares very favourably with PP 5W-30's spec' of 14,800 cP, PP being at least 170% or 2.7 times more viscose.

As the temp's rise the difference in viscosity between AFE and the GP III PP will narrow but IMO at no temp level does AFE become thicker than PP since it's HTHS vis is also lower at 2.99 cP vs 3.1 cP for PP. MVR and HTHS are viscosity measurements made under stress (pressure) which closely correlates with the operational viscosity in an engine which of course is also under stress.
Measuring viscosity kinematically is much simplier and very much less expensive than the MVR and HTHS methods and that is why it is commonly used. It works fine when comparing oils of identical chemistry and also for UOA when you're basically comparing an oil against itself in a VOA.
 
I'm merely comparing two oils at the same temp, not trying to determine the exact viscosity of one oil. This is where people are miss-applying the rumoured "inacuracy" of the visc calculator. It's not "accurate" in terms of generating an actual data point, but it doen't have to be to COMPARE oils.

When the visc calc projects a difference between two oils of 100s of cSt, it seems fair to say one is conclusively thinner than another. This is not even at extreme temps, just at freezing and near zero. I find this "check" to be more reliable than simply assuming a 0w is thinner than a 5w and so on.

For the sake of good science, lets compare 0w-30 and 5w-20. From my projections, it takes a synth 5w-20 to beat a 0w-30 around near-sub-freezing, a dino oil won't do it....it's that close. Anyone want to confirm or dispute this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top