GTL base stocks better than PAO/POE?

[Art_Vandelay]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
Originally Posted By: A_Harman

Would my 2002 Camaro count at only 192k miles? It has 11 years of me grinding its guts out on road courses from Calabogie in the Canadian woods to Buttonwillow in the California desert.


You put almost 20K a year on that car? Wow. How has the reliability been over your ownership? I've always wanted one but was reluctant to consider it for year round daily driving.


I tell everyone that it's the best car I've ever owned. I use it as my daily driver in the winter, and I'm a fiend for doing thorough underbody flushes at the quarter car wash about every 3 days when salt is on the roads. In the summer, I put on big brakes and sticky tires and do track days. The track day stuff has forced me to do a lot of wheel bearing changes and brake jobs over the years.

I have burned up two rear ends in it, so I would say that is the weak point of the car.
Just had the transmission rebuilt. Had the clutch replaced, too. But it didn't need it.
The engine has been bulletproof. I always changed the oil according to the OLM up until about 160k miles, but have been extending them over the past few intervals. I resolved when I bought the car to not get inside the engine to make the car faster. I put on low restriction intake and exhaust systems, and that improved power above 5000 rpm. I change the spark plugs and wires every 90k miles, and the coolant every 75k.


It's really nice to hear that such a high performance vehicle can deliver that kind of dependability. When you factor in thrills per mile and decent fuel economy it's a tough car to beat. The LS1 is a gem of an engine.
Does the owner's manual for the Camaro specify synthetic oil as it does for the Corvette?

 

[Tom NJ]

At a given viscosity, the Noack volatility of GTLs are about the same as PAOs. The GTLs, however, often have a higher VI which allows a slightly more viscous base oil blend for a given W grade. This is what gives the finished oil the lower Noack.

With respect to seal compatibility, GTLs are only slightly better than PAOs, and PAO/ester blends can be well balanced for elastomer seals. The materials in head gaskets are not significantly affected by the base oils.

Tom NJ

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
At a given viscosity, the Noack volatility of GTLs are about the same as PAOs. The GTLs, however, often have a higher VI which allows a slightly more viscous base oil blend for a given W grade. This is what gives the finished oil the lower Noack.

With respect to seal compatibility, GTLs are only slightly better than PAOs, and PAO/ester blends can be well balanced for elastomer seals. The materials in head gaskets are not significantly affected by the base oils.

Tom NJ

Informative.
Thanks for posting

 

[CATERHAM]

Yes thanks for that Tom.
It just makes one scratch their head when contemplating why Shell then chooses to formulate finished oils with lower VIs than their GP III predecessors and with below average VIs compared to their competitors? The only conclusion I can come to that makes sense is that it is simply cheaper to do so.

 

[vinu_neuro]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Yes thanks for that Tom.
It just makes one scratch their head when contemplating why Shell then chooses to formulate finished oils with lower VIs than their GP III predecessors and with below average VIs compared to their competitors? The only conclusion I can come to that makes sense is that it is simply cheaper to do so.


Right, because there's no way Shell chemists and tribologists no more than you about what's necessary for an oil to perform well. And outside the VI, there's nothing else to an oil. The additive package of the finished product couldn't possibly affect the performance.

Keep scratching.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: vinu_neuro
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Yes thanks for that Tom.
It just makes one scratch their head when contemplating why Shell then chooses to formulate finished oils with lower VIs than their GP III predecessors and with below average VIs compared to their competitors? The only conclusion I can come to that makes sense is that it is simply cheaper to do so.


Right, because there's no way Shell chemists and tribologists no more than you about what's necessary for an oil to perform well. And outside the VI, there's nothing else to an oil. The additive package of the finished product couldn't possibly affect the performance.
Keep scratching.

And you think it's not about cost. Keep dreaming bud.

 

[BerndV]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Yes thanks for that Tom.
It just makes one scratch their head when contemplating why Shell then chooses to formulate finished oils with lower VIs than their GP III predecessors and with below average VIs compared to their competitors? The only conclusion I can come to that makes sense is that it is simply cheaper to do so.


There is another possible conclusion: the team of Shell chemists and engineers that designed PU, with virtually unlimited resources at their disposal, know a just a smidgen more than you about how to formulate a premier synthetic motor oil. For a petro-chemical giant like Royal Dutch Shell (co-owner of Infineum), material costs for VII's are virtually irrelevant. I've been quietly perusing BITOG for years and have never come across anyone else that is so obsessively fixated on one singular metric.

 

[CATERHAM]

I guess you have a problem with the facts as I stated them.
As for obsession in a single metric your's appears to be NOACK.

 

[buster]

CATERHAM, you should just stop now. You're embarassing yourself. JAG noticed your obsession too. Please, just stop and take a step back and realize you're not a formulator and VI is not the end all be all of what makes a great motor oil.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: BerndV
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Yes thanks for that Tom.
It just makes one scratch their head when contemplating why Shell then chooses to formulate finished oils with lower VIs than their GP III predecessors and with below average VIs compared to their competitors? The only conclusion I can come to that makes sense is that it is simply cheaper to do so.


There is another possible conclusion: the team of Shell chemists and engineers that designed PU, with virtually unlimited resources at their disposal, know a just a smidgen more than you about how to formulate a premier synthetic motor oil. For a petro-chemical giant like Royal Dutch Shell (co-owner of Infineum), material costs for VII's are virtually irrelevant. I've been quietly perusing BITOG for years and have never come across anyone else that is so obsessively fixated on one singular metric.


+1

 

[BerndV]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
I guess you have a problem with the facts as I stated them.
As for obsession in a single metric your's appears to be NOACK.


Nonsense. My posts run the gamut (225 posts in five years wouldn't qualify as obsessing about much of anything), yours are almost exclusively related to VI. Wanna guess how many times you have chimed in on a thread over the last year with something VI/TGMO/Sustina/0W-20 related? I am certainly not the only one to have noticed. Check it out for yourself. This is a thread about GTL vs PAO/POE, you chime in with VI. My M1 0W-40 thread was about SM vs SN, you chime in about VI. Do yourself a favor and review your last 500 posts. Then seek help.

 

[buster]

Everyone notices it and it's getting really old. It's borderline mental.

Quote:
Caterham, I think some people are annoyed by how often you bring up VI. I believe some would classify it as an obsession. I think this is why you are seeing a lot of resistance in this thread. I appreciate you being a member here and I think you obsess over VI. The reasons you give for why VI is important as you believe it is don't sway me. VI matters but it's overblown.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: BerndV
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM


This is a thread about GTL vs PAO/POE, you chime in with VI. My M1 0W-40 thread was about SM vs SN, you chime in about VI.

I'm by far not the only one to bring up VI in this thread.
Regarding M1 0W-40, you're the one that made the ridiculous argument than Mobil had reduced it's VI based on one 10 year old UK PDS. I pointed out that simply wasn't true.

And yes for the record, VI is the single most important viscosity characteristic of a base oil, it's not NOACK.
For a finished oil as far as viscosity is concerned, it is second only to HTHS in terms of importance at nonextreme cold oil temp's.

 

[threeputtpar]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
And yes for the record, VI is the single most important viscosity characteristic of a base oil, it's not NOACK.
For a finished oil as far as viscosity is concerned, it is second only to HTHS in terms of importance at nonextreme cold oil temp's.


I would be interested in knowing if MolaKule or anyone else in the field thinks the same thing. Not trying to single you out, just would really like to know.

BTW, I too think that maybe you've crossed a line at some point. In another thread that I posted in about having 10W-30 QSUD in my Audi, you suggested adding some TGMO to thin it out a bit. 0W-20 in an Audi twin turbo, even just a quart? That's taking your beliefs to the extreme.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: threeputtpar
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM


BTW, I too think that maybe you've crossed a line at some point. In another thread that I posted in about having 10W-30 QSUD in my Audi, you suggested adding some TGMO to thin it out a bit. 0W-20 in an Audi twin turbo, even just a quart? That's taking your beliefs to the extreme.

I don't recall that. Would you mind posting the link?

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
The higher the Viscosity Index, the less the oil viscosity will change with increasing temperature. Therefore, if two oils are formulated to have 10cSt viscosity at 100C, the oil with the higher VI will have lower viscosity at temperatures below that. The lower viscosity at ambient startup temperatures, and during warmup, means that the oil pump will absorb less power from the engine to pump the oil through the engine, saving a bit of fuel.

And to carry the explanation further, at oil temp's above 100C the higher VI oil will continue to thin out at a slower rate, ultimately have a higher HTHSV rating thereby providing more high temp' protection.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: threeputtpar
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
And yes for the record, VI is the single most important viscosity characteristic of a base oil, it's not NOACK.
For a finished oil as far as viscosity is concerned, it is second only to HTHS in terms of importance at nonextreme cold oil temp's.


I would be interested in knowing if MolaKule or anyone else in the field thinks the same thing. Not trying to single you out, just would really like to know.

BTW, I too think that maybe you've crossed a line at some point. In another thread that I posted in about having 10W-30 QSUD in my Audi, you suggested adding some TGMO to thin it out a bit. 0W-20 in an Audi twin turbo, even just a quart? That's taking your beliefs to the extreme.


Fwiw we have a member here named AE Haas who runs some very thin oils in some very exotic,very expensive sports cars so I believe there is some merit to Caterham's argument/point.
I was a thicker is better guy however I've come to the conclusion that volume and temperature is the key to using thinner,high VI oils.
Keeping the oil in its ideal temp range via oil cooler and pushing the max volume,while maintaining adequate pressure,to dissipate heat from parts quickly.
Once temp gets to high then oil film may be compromised,thicker oils have that headroom whereas thin ones don't,but if you can keep oil temps optimal then go as thin/highest VI possible is the ideal choice.
Just my opinion

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Yes thanks for that Tom.
It just makes one scratch their head when contemplating why Shell then chooses to formulate finished oils with lower VIs than their GP III predecessors and with below average VIs compared to their competitors? The only conclusion I can come to that makes sense is that it is simply cheaper to do so.


Maybe the people who actually make the stuff realise that VI is one parameter only of the oil, it's not the most important factor of an oil, and isn't their fundamental focus when formulating an oil.

How many API, ACEA, and manufacturer specifications include VI as a pre-requisite (of course other than xW-Y) ?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Clevy


Fwiw we have a member here named AE Haas who runs some very thin oils in some very exotic,very expensive sports cars so I believe there is some merit to Caterham's argument/point.


Yes, except that the oils he runs aren't quite as thin as you think they are, AND, he doesn't drive the cars hard, meaning that oil temps never get elevated to the point that the manufacturer-spec'd viscosity would become relevant.

Quote:
I was a thicker is better guy however I've come to the conclusion that volume and temperature is the key to using thinner,high VI oils.
Keeping the oil in its ideal temp range via oil cooler and pushing the max volume,while maintaining adequate pressure,to dissipate heat from parts quickly.
Once temp gets to high then oil film may be compromised,thicker oils have that headroom whereas thin ones don't,but if you can keep oil temps optimal then go as thin/highest VI possible is the ideal choice.
Just my opinion


There are many sides to this debate, all of them having good points. I'm of the opinion that there is no single characteristic that makes a lubricant exceptional. It is the combination of traits that results in a lubricant standing above its peers. An oil could have a stratospheric VI but horrific deposit control characteristics that could lead to ring coking for example. A properly formulated lubricant's value rests on the sum of its components, not some individual trait that somebody singles out for whatever reason, be it PAO or POE content, how much ZDDP it has, whether it has moly or not, or whether it has a super high VI. It is the overall PERFORMANCE of the product, which can, I would argue, be measured through how many hard to obtain certs/approval an oil has that truly speaks to its spot on the totem pole.

 

[BerndV]

The various M1 grades have all of the certification bases covered. IMO M1 makes for an impossible value to beat for the jug price at Wal Mart.