Yes, and that was a while ago -- I have since learned that racers don't really want high HTHS.
Millers Oil
- Thread starter dennishiip
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: 67King
HTHS values for all of our oils are up on the site I previously linked. I am, frankly, miffed at the dismissal of its importance - given the discussion is about race oils. The point seems to contract the position that VI improvers don't readily break down. Well, HTHS measures resistance to the shearing of the oil (and VI improvers). It is much more important to a race engine than VI. It is the ASTM defined standard for measuring an oil's performance under high temperature, high stress conditions.
All that said, I'd be interested to see something that indicates how high these base stock VI's can get. I just haven't found anything that indicates VI's much over 160 are possible without VI improvers, and obviously, the higher you get, the more you'd need. And again, one would expect that HTHS numbers would correlate with an oil's ability to resist shearing
HTHSV is the most important viscosity measure one has to rely upon to predict operational viscosity followed by the oil's viscosity index.
The HTHSV measure already takes into account the temporary shear that occurs with motor oil under compression like in a bearing, therefore the VII content is really of no consequence other than potentially affecting permanent oil shear in service. How well an oil stands up is very easily determined (an oil pressure gauge will tell you) so no one need bother with oil densities etc which are not accurate predictors. Besides, different oil chemistries have varying pressure-viscosity coefficients anyway which have everything to do with temporary oil shear and little with regards to permanent shear.
While reference has been is made to race oils in this thread, no one here is considering a purely dedicated race oil but rather a high performance street oil that one may use in their street car for track days etc.
Regarding the HTHSV values of Miller Oil, I noticed for the 0W-20 and 0W-30 grades it has them listed as >2.6cP and >2.9cP respectively. Now I see this practice also applies to the heavier grades but for the 20wt and 30wt oils it looks suspiciously like they are just indicating something greater than the grade minimum. As I mentioned previously, there is no such thing as a good or bad HTHSV value, but what would be helpful is to know exactly what it is when selecting an oil.
Since dailydriver wants a 30wt oil, if in reality the 0W-30 significantly higher HTHSV than 2.9cP (as I suspect), he may not need to bothering buying the 5W-40 which is just for blending purposes anyway.
My advise for him would be to just buy the 0W-30, fill the sump to the minimum level and check you operational viscosity with your OP and OT gauges. Then decide whether you need to thicken it up or not.
HTHS values for all of our oils are up on the site I previously linked. I am, frankly, miffed at the dismissal of its importance - given the discussion is about race oils. The point seems to contract the position that VI improvers don't readily break down. Well, HTHS measures resistance to the shearing of the oil (and VI improvers). It is much more important to a race engine than VI. It is the ASTM defined standard for measuring an oil's performance under high temperature, high stress conditions.
All that said, I'd be interested to see something that indicates how high these base stock VI's can get. I just haven't found anything that indicates VI's much over 160 are possible without VI improvers, and obviously, the higher you get, the more you'd need. And again, one would expect that HTHS numbers would correlate with an oil's ability to resist shearing
HTHSV is the most important viscosity measure one has to rely upon to predict operational viscosity followed by the oil's viscosity index.
The HTHSV measure already takes into account the temporary shear that occurs with motor oil under compression like in a bearing, therefore the VII content is really of no consequence other than potentially affecting permanent oil shear in service. How well an oil stands up is very easily determined (an oil pressure gauge will tell you) so no one need bother with oil densities etc which are not accurate predictors. Besides, different oil chemistries have varying pressure-viscosity coefficients anyway which have everything to do with temporary oil shear and little with regards to permanent shear.
While reference has been is made to race oils in this thread, no one here is considering a purely dedicated race oil but rather a high performance street oil that one may use in their street car for track days etc.
Regarding the HTHSV values of Miller Oil, I noticed for the 0W-20 and 0W-30 grades it has them listed as >2.6cP and >2.9cP respectively. Now I see this practice also applies to the heavier grades but for the 20wt and 30wt oils it looks suspiciously like they are just indicating something greater than the grade minimum. As I mentioned previously, there is no such thing as a good or bad HTHSV value, but what would be helpful is to know exactly what it is when selecting an oil.
Since dailydriver wants a 30wt oil, if in reality the 0W-30 significantly higher HTHSV than 2.9cP (as I suspect), he may not need to bothering buying the 5W-40 which is just for blending purposes anyway.
My advise for him would be to just buy the 0W-30, fill the sump to the minimum level and check you operational viscosity with your OP and OT gauges. Then decide whether you need to thicken it up or not.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2011
- Messages
- 109
^^^ Exactly. Still haven't heard back from the Millers rep about whether the HTHS numbers for the 0w20 and 0w30 are correct or if they're just published minimums.
Seems weird they would publish the minimums for those two grades but not for the heavier ones. *shrug*
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2011
- Messages
- 109
Originally Posted By: dparm
Seems weird they would publish the minimums for those two grades but not for the heavier ones. *shrug*
Hence the question. *shrug*
Seems weird they would publish the minimums for those two grades but not for the heavier ones. *shrug*
Hence the question. *shrug*
I'm not a Millers Rep. I'm the NA distributor. As such, I really don't have time to sit and argue all day. Unfortunately there seem to be more folks interested in knocking innovation than learning about it.
ALL HTHS values are published minimums. I've posted links to the listed HTHS values and referenced those links many times. IN those links, you will find that EVERY HTHS value is listed as ">value." I did not respond to the "question" earlier because I suspected it was not a "question." Would I like them to be higher? Ceteris paribus, yes. But if you've actually read my other posts, you'd know I talk about the tradeoffs that come with it.
I have espoused the virtues of using high quality base stocks over VI improvers to achieve properties due to their stability. I won't even mention Millers, this is one of our dealer's* sites showing how inferior base stocks do not hold up: Gibbs vs Mobil 1 break down I remain unimpressed with oils that use VI improvers to obtain certain characteristics, because as this test shows, they cannot maintain them.
So again, would I prefer a higher HTHS? Ceteris paribus, yes. But I'd rather have it start out low and stay where it is than degrade by nearly 30% and end up lower.
* - LN Engineering began carrying the gear oils before NT was in the engine oil, and are currently tied into their current offerings to a point where adding another brand isn't feasible.
Interesting to see how opinions have changed over time, having found some posts from some here saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now. I've had people tell me my oil is junk because of all sorts of reasons. They want twice as much ZDDP as is ideal and refuse to accept that 2200ppm of the stuff may build up. They want a "pure ester" base stock oil, and refuse to listen to anyone tell them that there is no such thing, that ester content tops out at about 20%. They want the highest VI oil they can get, darn the torpedoes on how it is attained.
The race teams we actually talk to look at the oil film, reduction in coefficient of friction, wear tests, load tests, etc. rather than all the stuff here. Oh, and dyno results that show power gains always help, too. I'm sure they are familiar with it, but the point is that they don't dwell on a single thing the way some folks here do. The team running the fastest Honda at the upcoming Indy 500 so happens to be one of those teams. They are using the full range of Millers oils in some of their development cars (Lights, F1600, F2000), but have not switched over the engine oil to the Indycar, yet (using Millers' gear oil, damper oil, and brake fluid). It is not a sponsorship, it is a technical partnership.
To date, some folks have been able to achieve better protection with a lower viscosity oil because of the nanotechnology. It enables protection in boundary lubrication that far exceeds that of non-NT oils, meaning the price for losing hydrodynamic lubrication is not nearly as severe as it is for just about anything else out there. We are working with Millers to do a full project on this, where we may reconsider the viscosity recommendation.
At the end of the day, some companies are going to let their marketing dictate the oil content, rather than engineering. Millers is a small company that has very little marketing budget, and one of the four highest ranking people there is the director of technology, who is the lead chemist, and is personally involved with development. That kind of behavior is how you get recognized by engineering publications like Race Tech Magazine, Racecar Engineering, SAE, etc. We've got several of those articles linked on our website, too, but it doesn't appear my providing links does much good.
ALL HTHS values are published minimums. I've posted links to the listed HTHS values and referenced those links many times. IN those links, you will find that EVERY HTHS value is listed as ">value." I did not respond to the "question" earlier because I suspected it was not a "question." Would I like them to be higher? Ceteris paribus, yes. But if you've actually read my other posts, you'd know I talk about the tradeoffs that come with it.
I have espoused the virtues of using high quality base stocks over VI improvers to achieve properties due to their stability. I won't even mention Millers, this is one of our dealer's* sites showing how inferior base stocks do not hold up: Gibbs vs Mobil 1 break down I remain unimpressed with oils that use VI improvers to obtain certain characteristics, because as this test shows, they cannot maintain them.
So again, would I prefer a higher HTHS? Ceteris paribus, yes. But I'd rather have it start out low and stay where it is than degrade by nearly 30% and end up lower.
* - LN Engineering began carrying the gear oils before NT was in the engine oil, and are currently tied into their current offerings to a point where adding another brand isn't feasible.
Interesting to see how opinions have changed over time, having found some posts from some here saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now. I've had people tell me my oil is junk because of all sorts of reasons. They want twice as much ZDDP as is ideal and refuse to accept that 2200ppm of the stuff may build up. They want a "pure ester" base stock oil, and refuse to listen to anyone tell them that there is no such thing, that ester content tops out at about 20%. They want the highest VI oil they can get, darn the torpedoes on how it is attained.
The race teams we actually talk to look at the oil film, reduction in coefficient of friction, wear tests, load tests, etc. rather than all the stuff here. Oh, and dyno results that show power gains always help, too. I'm sure they are familiar with it, but the point is that they don't dwell on a single thing the way some folks here do. The team running the fastest Honda at the upcoming Indy 500 so happens to be one of those teams. They are using the full range of Millers oils in some of their development cars (Lights, F1600, F2000), but have not switched over the engine oil to the Indycar, yet (using Millers' gear oil, damper oil, and brake fluid). It is not a sponsorship, it is a technical partnership.
To date, some folks have been able to achieve better protection with a lower viscosity oil because of the nanotechnology. It enables protection in boundary lubrication that far exceeds that of non-NT oils, meaning the price for losing hydrodynamic lubrication is not nearly as severe as it is for just about anything else out there. We are working with Millers to do a full project on this, where we may reconsider the viscosity recommendation.
At the end of the day, some companies are going to let their marketing dictate the oil content, rather than engineering. Millers is a small company that has very little marketing budget, and one of the four highest ranking people there is the director of technology, who is the lead chemist, and is personally involved with development. That kind of behavior is how you get recognized by engineering publications like Race Tech Magazine, Racecar Engineering, SAE, etc. We've got several of those articles linked on our website, too, but it doesn't appear my providing links does much good.
Originally Posted By: 67King
I have espoused the virtues of using high quality base stocks over VI improvers to achieve properties due to their stability. I won't even mention Millers, this is one of our dealer's* sites showing how inferior base stocks do not hold up: Gibbs vs Mobil 1 break down I remain unimpressed with oils that use VI improvers to obtain certain characteristics, because as this test shows, they cannot maintain them.
I'm not sure Gibbs has much to teach XOM about formulation motor oils, especially for European applications. If the Gibbs product "stands up" so much better than the XOM product, why not get the actual approvals?
I do realize that promoting an oil on a website and a forum is a little easier and cheaper than getting a formal approval. It's also a lot less rigorous, and really isn't worth a hill of beans.
I have espoused the virtues of using high quality base stocks over VI improvers to achieve properties due to their stability. I won't even mention Millers, this is one of our dealer's* sites showing how inferior base stocks do not hold up: Gibbs vs Mobil 1 break down I remain unimpressed with oils that use VI improvers to obtain certain characteristics, because as this test shows, they cannot maintain them.
I'm not sure Gibbs has much to teach XOM about formulation motor oils, especially for European applications. If the Gibbs product "stands up" so much better than the XOM product, why not get the actual approvals?
I do realize that promoting an oil on a website and a forum is a little easier and cheaper than getting a formal approval. It's also a lot less rigorous, and really isn't worth a hill of beans.
Originally Posted By: 67King
I have espoused the virtues of using high quality base stocks over VI improvers to achieve properties due to their stability. I won't even mention Millers, this is one of our dealer's* sites showing how inferior base stocks do not hold up: Gibbs vs Mobil 1 break down I remain unimpressed with oils that use VI improvers to obtain certain characteristics, because as this test shows, they cannot maintain them.
Thanks for posting that. Good stuff.
I have espoused the virtues of using high quality base stocks over VI improvers to achieve properties due to their stability. I won't even mention Millers, this is one of our dealer's* sites showing how inferior base stocks do not hold up: Gibbs vs Mobil 1 break down I remain unimpressed with oils that use VI improvers to obtain certain characteristics, because as this test shows, they cannot maintain them.
Thanks for posting that. Good stuff.
67King, I don't see a reason to be defensive. I thought they were simply asking if the HTHS quoted was based upon spec or an actual test. Then there was discussion regarding high vs low hths, that illustrated virtues for either under different circumstances.
Do any of the oils you carry meet BMW LL-01? My quick search indicated LL-04 only.
Do any of the oils you carry meet BMW LL-01? My quick search indicated LL-04 only.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2011
- Messages
- 109
Originally Posted By: dparm
Yes, and that was a while ago -- I have since learned that racers don't really want high HTHS.
Not according to this:
Originally Posted By: 67King
HTHS values for all of our oils are up on the site I previously linked. I am, frankly, miffed at the dismissal of its importance - given the discussion is about race oils. The point seems to contract the position that VI improvers don't readily break down. Well, HTHS measures resistance to the shearing of the oil (and VI improvers). It is much more important to a race engine than VI. It is the ASTM defined standard for measuring an oil's performance under high temperature, high stress conditions.
And again, one would expect that HTHS numbers would correlate with an oil's ability to resist shearing (which is what dparm's shreadsheet is attempting to gather).
Given how well most of the Miller oils spec out and perform in the real world, I'm inclined to believe that the published HTHS number for their 0w30 is quite a bit lower than what it would actually test at.
Yes, and that was a while ago -- I have since learned that racers don't really want high HTHS.
Not according to this:
Originally Posted By: 67King
HTHS values for all of our oils are up on the site I previously linked. I am, frankly, miffed at the dismissal of its importance - given the discussion is about race oils. The point seems to contract the position that VI improvers don't readily break down. Well, HTHS measures resistance to the shearing of the oil (and VI improvers). It is much more important to a race engine than VI. It is the ASTM defined standard for measuring an oil's performance under high temperature, high stress conditions.
And again, one would expect that HTHS numbers would correlate with an oil's ability to resist shearing (which is what dparm's shreadsheet is attempting to gather).
Given how well most of the Miller oils spec out and perform in the real world, I'm inclined to believe that the published HTHS number for their 0w30 is quite a bit lower than what it would actually test at.
I wouldn't hesitate to run those oils as an alternative to something like Motul 300V.
Originally Posted By: dparm
It's on the thin side for a 0w30, but these are not exactly targeting average consumers walking into AutoZone.
Exactly why it's being blended with ONE quart of their 5W-40 for MY app/summer OCI.
It's on the thin side for a 0w30, but these are not exactly targeting average consumers walking into AutoZone.
Exactly why it's being blended with ONE quart of their 5W-40 for MY app/summer OCI.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: 67King
I have espoused the virtues of using high quality base stocks over VI improvers to achieve properties due to their stability. I won't even mention Millers, this is one of our dealer's* sites showing how inferior base stocks do not hold up: Gibbs vs Mobil 1 break down I remain unimpressed with oils that use VI improvers to obtain certain characteristics, because as this test shows, they cannot maintain them.
Thanks for posting that. Good stuff.
That Lubrizol test comparing Gibbs vs M1 is interesting but is of course biased since Lubrizol makes the Joe Gibbs oil; nevertheless I'm prepared to believe it. But this bench KRL shear test obviously doesn't represent what goes on in an engine.
I mean M1 0W-40 shearing down to 20wt oil! That's never happened in an actual engine; down to 30wt sure.
There is no shortage of available UOAs of M1 0W-40 and in most cases the SN version has proven to be reasonably shear stable in service. In fact M1 0W-40 hold up very well compared to other 0W/5W-40 oils that have even lower VIs.
Shear stability is even less of an issue with the lighter oil 0W-30 and 0W-20 grades.
What impressed me most about that test is that the VI actually increased after shearing, and with M1 to a whopping VI of 224!
The only concern I have with oil shear is the loss of VI in service; one thing you can always monitor with an OP gauge is viscosity loss, and it's so easy to thicken an oil up in service if it drops lower than you want for any reason not just oil shear. But what you can't do anything about is a loss of VI.
I understand the marketing motivation in snubbing oil formulations that contain polymer VIIs, but it's just that, marketing.
Millers, Joe Gibbs, MPT Thirty-K, etc make good products sold at a premium price formulated for the most part without polymer VIIs, but it is not the only way or even necessarily the best way to formulate a high performance oil.
Originally Posted By: 67King
I have espoused the virtues of using high quality base stocks over VI improvers to achieve properties due to their stability. I won't even mention Millers, this is one of our dealer's* sites showing how inferior base stocks do not hold up: Gibbs vs Mobil 1 break down I remain unimpressed with oils that use VI improvers to obtain certain characteristics, because as this test shows, they cannot maintain them.
Thanks for posting that. Good stuff.
That Lubrizol test comparing Gibbs vs M1 is interesting but is of course biased since Lubrizol makes the Joe Gibbs oil; nevertheless I'm prepared to believe it. But this bench KRL shear test obviously doesn't represent what goes on in an engine.
I mean M1 0W-40 shearing down to 20wt oil! That's never happened in an actual engine; down to 30wt sure.
There is no shortage of available UOAs of M1 0W-40 and in most cases the SN version has proven to be reasonably shear stable in service. In fact M1 0W-40 hold up very well compared to other 0W/5W-40 oils that have even lower VIs.
Shear stability is even less of an issue with the lighter oil 0W-30 and 0W-20 grades.
What impressed me most about that test is that the VI actually increased after shearing, and with M1 to a whopping VI of 224!
The only concern I have with oil shear is the loss of VI in service; one thing you can always monitor with an OP gauge is viscosity loss, and it's so easy to thicken an oil up in service if it drops lower than you want for any reason not just oil shear. But what you can't do anything about is a loss of VI.
I understand the marketing motivation in snubbing oil formulations that contain polymer VIIs, but it's just that, marketing.
Millers, Joe Gibbs, MPT Thirty-K, etc make good products sold at a premium price formulated for the most part without polymer VIIs, but it is not the only way or even necessarily the best way to formulate a high performance oil.
Sorry if I was defensive. I did not infer the question to be a question so much as a Socratic way to imply that the oil is inferior. The links provided and referenced multiple times showed the answer to the question. Maybe I'm a bit jaded since the last time I spent time posting about Millers I had a Polish dealer of a competitor who has had a history of antagonizing my Polish counterpart (which is how I knew who he was) post up some bogus UOA's claiming they were Millers.
Since oil brand preference for a great many folks seems more like religion than science, i.e. based on faith rather than data, I suppose I don't do well in some aspects of the discussions. But furthermore, here's a Race Engine Technology article that talks about the importance of base stocks, and why VM's should be minimized. Again, I do better with the engineering publications, sorry if I can't post up an episode of Two Guys Garage with product placement. Effective, but not my style:
Volume 15, 2006 - Race Engine Technology
Now we read that an oil can lose HALF of its viscosity, and it is a GOOD thing because of a resultant, indirectly calculated number? I am not competent to debate that someone with that perspective. In my world, losing half of its viscosity is a bad sign for the oil. It reads to me like excuse making to support a preference for one characteristic over another, and ignoring the fact that the oil is breaking down to a very significant degree. I do much better just sticking to the info.
Very few manufacturers pay to meet the Porsche approval list. Just like with API, they aim to meet the spec. In the States, other than Mobil 1 who has a deep, deep relationship with Porsche that would be another subject for another day, only Castrol and Elf are on the approval list. Not even Motul (maybe I'm biased in my liking Motul here, it was what I ran before Millers).
LL01 versus LL04, Millers does not make an LL01. In the "grand scheme" of things, it is unusual. Sulfur content in gasoline is what dictates the difference. The LL01 is specified for high sulfur gasoline, and LL04 is specified for low-sulfur countries. The US is for all intents and purposes a low sulfur country. Averages cannot exceed 30ppm, but there are higher numbers allowed for individual batches. Higher sulfur countries are on the order of a few hundred ppm. Outside of North America, there are only a few countries with similar requirements. Since Millers is new to the US, they have never had a need for the LL01. All the shops who use our shop oil for BMW's have used LL04 oils in the past, and continue to do so.
That said, for comparison, Mercedes Benz has a similar arrangement. The 229.3/229.5 versus 229.31/229.51. That said, my understanding is that the later oils are low SAPS, and were primarily developed for diesels. Since MB has more diesels than BMW, at least in the States, that may be what has driven them to do that. Not sure if BMW will start migrating its recommendation to LL04 now that they are selling more diesels, or what.
FWIW, Millers had indicated they were engaging BMW about this, and what their thoughts were on LL04. On my end, I contacted BMW NA, who referred me to my dealer, who can thumb through a manual no more easily than I can, so BMW will continue to say LL01, unless they are told by BMW in Germany to change. But as I said, MB's use it (where oils meeting 229.51 almost universally also meet LL04, which is also ACEA C3.
Getting my panties out of a wad notwithstanding, I really do need to go be productive.
Since oil brand preference for a great many folks seems more like religion than science, i.e. based on faith rather than data, I suppose I don't do well in some aspects of the discussions. But furthermore, here's a Race Engine Technology article that talks about the importance of base stocks, and why VM's should be minimized. Again, I do better with the engineering publications, sorry if I can't post up an episode of Two Guys Garage with product placement. Effective, but not my style:
Volume 15, 2006 - Race Engine Technology
Now we read that an oil can lose HALF of its viscosity, and it is a GOOD thing because of a resultant, indirectly calculated number? I am not competent to debate that someone with that perspective. In my world, losing half of its viscosity is a bad sign for the oil. It reads to me like excuse making to support a preference for one characteristic over another, and ignoring the fact that the oil is breaking down to a very significant degree. I do much better just sticking to the info.
Very few manufacturers pay to meet the Porsche approval list. Just like with API, they aim to meet the spec. In the States, other than Mobil 1 who has a deep, deep relationship with Porsche that would be another subject for another day, only Castrol and Elf are on the approval list. Not even Motul (maybe I'm biased in my liking Motul here, it was what I ran before Millers).
LL01 versus LL04, Millers does not make an LL01. In the "grand scheme" of things, it is unusual. Sulfur content in gasoline is what dictates the difference. The LL01 is specified for high sulfur gasoline, and LL04 is specified for low-sulfur countries. The US is for all intents and purposes a low sulfur country. Averages cannot exceed 30ppm, but there are higher numbers allowed for individual batches. Higher sulfur countries are on the order of a few hundred ppm. Outside of North America, there are only a few countries with similar requirements. Since Millers is new to the US, they have never had a need for the LL01. All the shops who use our shop oil for BMW's have used LL04 oils in the past, and continue to do so.
That said, for comparison, Mercedes Benz has a similar arrangement. The 229.3/229.5 versus 229.31/229.51. That said, my understanding is that the later oils are low SAPS, and were primarily developed for diesels. Since MB has more diesels than BMW, at least in the States, that may be what has driven them to do that. Not sure if BMW will start migrating its recommendation to LL04 now that they are selling more diesels, or what.
FWIW, Millers had indicated they were engaging BMW about this, and what their thoughts were on LL04. On my end, I contacted BMW NA, who referred me to my dealer, who can thumb through a manual no more easily than I can, so BMW will continue to say LL01, unless they are told by BMW in Germany to change. But as I said, MB's use it (where oils meeting 229.51 almost universally also meet LL04, which is also ACEA C3.
Getting my panties out of a wad notwithstanding, I really do need to go be productive.
Originally Posted By: 67King
Now we read that an oil can lose HALF of its viscosity, and it is a GOOD thing because of a resultant, indirectly calculated number? I am not competent to debate that someone with that perspective. In my world, losing half of its viscosity is a bad sign for the oil. It reads to me like excuse making to support a preference for one characteristic over another, and ignoring the fact that the oil is breaking down to a very significant degree.
I was being kind before, but since you're going on about it let me be more clear.
The Lubrizol Four-Ball EP bench test is bogus and does not represent what happens in an actual operating engine.
We have dozens actual UOAs of M1 0W-40, and even the more shear prone SM version never came close to shearing 50% including fuel dilution.
M1 0W-40 remains the benchmark light 40wt oil that few formulators can match let a lone out perform and when you factor in it's price in NA it's the hands down best value. This is the often reached conclusion as was the case in the following VOA of the new Castrol Edge 0W-40:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3008930#Post3008930
One problem Millers has is that you do not offer a 0W-40 grade. Your 5W-40 is a much heavier oil and due to it's lower VI even heavier than M1 5W-50, the heaviest oil that's on the Porsche A40 list.
As I've said, Millers make some fine lubricants but criticizing falsely other formulators when you don't even have a comprable product to offer is not the best way to promote the Millers line of lubricants.
Now we read that an oil can lose HALF of its viscosity, and it is a GOOD thing because of a resultant, indirectly calculated number? I am not competent to debate that someone with that perspective. In my world, losing half of its viscosity is a bad sign for the oil. It reads to me like excuse making to support a preference for one characteristic over another, and ignoring the fact that the oil is breaking down to a very significant degree.
I was being kind before, but since you're going on about it let me be more clear.
The Lubrizol Four-Ball EP bench test is bogus and does not represent what happens in an actual operating engine.
We have dozens actual UOAs of M1 0W-40, and even the more shear prone SM version never came close to shearing 50% including fuel dilution.
M1 0W-40 remains the benchmark light 40wt oil that few formulators can match let a lone out perform and when you factor in it's price in NA it's the hands down best value. This is the often reached conclusion as was the case in the following VOA of the new Castrol Edge 0W-40:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3008930#Post3008930
One problem Millers has is that you do not offer a 0W-40 grade. Your 5W-40 is a much heavier oil and due to it's lower VI even heavier than M1 5W-50, the heaviest oil that's on the Porsche A40 list.
As I've said, Millers make some fine lubricants but criticizing falsely other formulators when you don't even have a comprable product to offer is not the best way to promote the Millers line of lubricants.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
That Lubrizol test comparing Gibbs vs M1 is interesting but is of course biased since Lubrizol makes the Joe Gibbs oil; nevertheless I'm prepared to believe it. But this bench KRL shear test obviously doesn't represent what goes on in an engine.
I mean M1 0W-40 shearing down to 20wt oil! That's never happened in an actual engine; down to 30wt sure.
There is no shortage of available UOAs of M1 0W-40 and in most cases the SN version has proven to be reasonably shear stable in service. In fact M1 0W-40 hold up very well compared to other 0W/5W-40 oils that have even lower VIs.
I would like to see the HTHS of the used oil, which I have never seen. Static viscosity through a viscometer doesn't necessarily equate to holding HTHS.
And Mobil lists the KRL test as valid for hydraulic fluids:
http://www.mobilindustrial.com/IND/English/Files/tt-hydraulic-fluid-shear-stability.pdf
That Lubrizol test comparing Gibbs vs M1 is interesting but is of course biased since Lubrizol makes the Joe Gibbs oil; nevertheless I'm prepared to believe it. But this bench KRL shear test obviously doesn't represent what goes on in an engine.
I mean M1 0W-40 shearing down to 20wt oil! That's never happened in an actual engine; down to 30wt sure.
There is no shortage of available UOAs of M1 0W-40 and in most cases the SN version has proven to be reasonably shear stable in service. In fact M1 0W-40 hold up very well compared to other 0W/5W-40 oils that have even lower VIs.
I would like to see the HTHS of the used oil, which I have never seen. Static viscosity through a viscometer doesn't necessarily equate to holding HTHS.
And Mobil lists the KRL test as valid for hydraulic fluids:
http://www.mobilindustrial.com/IND/English/Files/tt-hydraulic-fluid-shear-stability.pdf
Originally Posted By: 67King
Very few manufacturers pay to meet the Porsche approval list. Just like with API, they aim to meet the spec.
While I don't doubt that many manufacturers do not pay to meet the Porsche approval list, I'd not compare that to API approvals. You're in the States. How many oils out there simply meet API? Go to any major retailer or parts store and take a look at the oil aisle. Just about everything in sight has an API donut, and the Starburst if the correct grade. That goes for the cheapest Supertech and Supertech HDEO up to the Royal Purple API line.
Those oils that lack the API certifications fall into one of two camps. The first camp are those that specifically don't seek approval for formulation reasons (Red Line, for instance, Amsoil top end stuff). The others can't get it because they're garbage.
And you do have to understand skepticism about claims to meet certain specifications. Even some rather reputable boutique oils have conflicting and mutually exclusive claims on the label. The problem is that very few consumers have the slightest idea what the difference is between an A1/B1 and LL01, for instance, and that they are totally different specifications that do not belong on the same bottle.
Very few manufacturers pay to meet the Porsche approval list. Just like with API, they aim to meet the spec.
While I don't doubt that many manufacturers do not pay to meet the Porsche approval list, I'd not compare that to API approvals. You're in the States. How many oils out there simply meet API? Go to any major retailer or parts store and take a look at the oil aisle. Just about everything in sight has an API donut, and the Starburst if the correct grade. That goes for the cheapest Supertech and Supertech HDEO up to the Royal Purple API line.
Those oils that lack the API certifications fall into one of two camps. The first camp are those that specifically don't seek approval for formulation reasons (Red Line, for instance, Amsoil top end stuff). The others can't get it because they're garbage.
And you do have to understand skepticism about claims to meet certain specifications. Even some rather reputable boutique oils have conflicting and mutually exclusive claims on the label. The problem is that very few consumers have the slightest idea what the difference is between an A1/B1 and LL01, for instance, and that they are totally different specifications that do not belong on the same bottle.
Garak, fair point, just stating that a great many don't seek approval due to the costs, but meet the spec. They are legally allowed to say they meet it if they are. More folks in the States are familiar with the API situation (i.e. meeting versus approved) than OEM ones, that's all.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: 67King
Garak, fair point, just stating that a great many don't seek approval due to the costs, but meet the spec. They are legally allowed to say they meet it if they are. More folks in the States are familiar with the API situation (i.e. meeting versus approved) than OEM ones, that's all.
I don't think that verbiage is consistent.
Please check out this Mobil 1 5w-30 PDS:
http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil1_5W-30.aspx
Quote:
Mobil 1 5W-30 meets or exceeds the requirements of:
ACEA A1/B1, A5/B5
API SN, SM, SL,SJ
ILSAC GF-5
vs Redline's wording:
http://www.redlineoil.com/product.aspx?pid=2&pcid=21
Quote:
Recommended for API SN/SM/SL/SJ/SH/SG/CF and ACEA A3/B3/B4
The companies that don't meet the API spec use the term "recommended for", whilst Mobil, who of course does meet the API and ACEA specs is using the term "meets or exceeds" here.
Garak, fair point, just stating that a great many don't seek approval due to the costs, but meet the spec. They are legally allowed to say they meet it if they are. More folks in the States are familiar with the API situation (i.e. meeting versus approved) than OEM ones, that's all.
I don't think that verbiage is consistent.
Please check out this Mobil 1 5w-30 PDS:
http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil1_5W-30.aspx
Quote:
Mobil 1 5W-30 meets or exceeds the requirements of:
ACEA A1/B1, A5/B5
API SN, SM, SL,SJ
ILSAC GF-5
vs Redline's wording:
http://www.redlineoil.com/product.aspx?pid=2&pcid=21
Quote:
Recommended for API SN/SM/SL/SJ/SH/SG/CF and ACEA A3/B3/B4
The companies that don't meet the API spec use the term "recommended for", whilst Mobil, who of course does meet the API and ACEA specs is using the term "meets or exceeds" here.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
That Lubrizol test comparing Gibbs vs M1 is interesting but is of course biased since Lubrizol makes the Joe Gibbs oil; nevertheless I'm prepared to believe it. But this bench KRL shear test obviously doesn't represent what goes on in an engine.
I mean M1 0W-40 shearing down to 20wt oil! That's never happened in an actual engine; down to 30wt sure.
There is no shortage of available UOAs of M1 0W-40 and in most cases the SN version has proven to be reasonably shear stable in service. In fact M1 0W-40 hold up very well compared to other 0W/5W-40 oils that have even lower VIs.
I would like to see the HTHS of the used oil, which I have never seen. Static viscosity through a viscometer doesn't necessarily equate to holding HTHS.
You're right, HTHSV loss is at about half the rate as the kinematic measure.
So if in a UOA you have a 10% KV100 loss, you can rightly assume the HTHSV loss will be not much more than 5%.
Better still, if you have an oil pressure gauge, the reading of which correlates with HTHSV, then you'll know precisely how much viscosity loss is occurring, and more importantly how much viscosity reserve you have at all times.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
That Lubrizol test comparing Gibbs vs M1 is interesting but is of course biased since Lubrizol makes the Joe Gibbs oil; nevertheless I'm prepared to believe it. But this bench KRL shear test obviously doesn't represent what goes on in an engine.
I mean M1 0W-40 shearing down to 20wt oil! That's never happened in an actual engine; down to 30wt sure.
There is no shortage of available UOAs of M1 0W-40 and in most cases the SN version has proven to be reasonably shear stable in service. In fact M1 0W-40 hold up very well compared to other 0W/5W-40 oils that have even lower VIs.
I would like to see the HTHS of the used oil, which I have never seen. Static viscosity through a viscometer doesn't necessarily equate to holding HTHS.
You're right, HTHSV loss is at about half the rate as the kinematic measure.
So if in a UOA you have a 10% KV100 loss, you can rightly assume the HTHSV loss will be not much more than 5%.
Better still, if you have an oil pressure gauge, the reading of which correlates with HTHSV, then you'll know precisely how much viscosity loss is occurring, and more importantly how much viscosity reserve you have at all times.
- Status
Similar threads
