High VI and Base Stocks

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: webfors
Interesting discussion. Now you got me all worried that my AFE 0w30 isn't "best" enough
grin.gif



Thats the whole point in this discussion. For a long time it has been claimed by some the TGMO is the "best", "the benchmark", the "be all and end all" based solely on its high VI and little else.
Many on the board have contended the premium synthetic oils don't need an ultra high VI to out perform TGMO and that this high VI maybe nothing nothing more than a way to better an otherwise lower quality base stock product.
 
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
What is this harman index anyway.

PAO doesn't a give a significant reduction in VII over group III. This is a myth that constantly gets banded about.

Vi of PAO6 base oil is ~135 and PAO4 Is 124 vs 126 of good group III 5cSt


That's exactly the point. PAO with the same VI as Grp III oils, still has better performance below and above the KV test points. Basically, the range of 40 to 100°C is too narrow to show the difference.

The Harman index is a tool to determine how much VII has been used. It doesn't give any indication about PPD though, but PAO based oils don't rely on these either.


Not for fresh oil maybe. Used oil PPD has a big impact on ROBO or ACEAs new LTPT test.

My point isn't about that index. More the myth that PAO allows less VII
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: webfors
Interesting discussion. Now you got me all worried that my AFE 0w30 isn't "best" enough
grin.gif



Thats the whole point in this discussion. For a long time it has been claimed by some the TGMO is the "best", "the benchmark", the "be all and end all" based solely on its high VI and little else.
Many on the board have contended the premium synthetic oils don't need an ultra high VI to out perform TGMO and that this high VI maybe nothing nothing more than a way to better an otherwise lower quality base stock product.


For sure. You can only get these high VI with PMA type VI. Those are not good for Diesel deposit tests though hence you will rarely find high VI oils with ACEA.
 
bobbydavro,
poster A Harman, was looking at the relationship between a hypothetical KV150, and the HTHS to gain an indication of how "newtonian" an oil is, or how far it deviates from Newtonian due to the action of VII.

Newtonian without VII don't have temporary shear, and the high shear rate viscosity is unchanged from the low shear rate viscosity.

So straight SAE grades should gave a ratio of one. Amsoil's SAE30/10W30, which does 10W without VII has a ratio of 1....TGMO has a ratio of 0.844, which means it's HTHS is 84% of the calculated KV150.

Doesn't take into account the actual in service stability of the additives used (although in the latter, a proponent reports it losing HTHS quickly), but gives us something else to muse about.

I think the measure is relevant, but it does cause (me at least) to wonder why the Japanese OEMs propping up KV100, when for a 2.6 HTHS they could drop the KV figures considerably, and lose less power in pumping losses.
 
Can someone do the comparison of dino 5W30 and 10W30 of a same brand, doesn't matter which brand.

May be there isn't much different for API SN, but I like to know to see if Honda is correct in recommending dino 10W30(instead of 5W30) for S2000.
 
Thank you Shannow.

I think all SN grades are much better than SH and older in term of shearing. But dino 10W30 SN is still somewhat better than 5W30 SN in term of shear stable. Since the engine in S2000 can rev to 8200 RPM for AP2 and 9200 RPM for AP1, it needs a good stable oil to sustain that high RPM for long period.
 
This model

Can someone explain the relevance of density when talking about shear stability ?

There are so many VII out there that it all seems too assume too much. Any oil with mb229.5 /51 will have real data to show it is shear stable. Especially 40 grades
 
As per the link I posted earlier to the guy who cam up with it...

density changes with temperature... and links kinematic and dynamic viscosity.

Like I said, it's an effort to compare what the Newtonian and non Newtonian viscosities are to see how "bumped up" an oil is with VII...not a dissertation on the various VIIs.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: bobbydavro

That table being quoted talks about group I and the chart on PAO vs group 3 ignores effect of ppd.


The 2nd chart in the image shows the effects of mileage on two different PPD's in an oil with a relatively narrow spread: 15w-40.

Question for you though: Given that we know VII's break down/shear and PPD's degrade or change with age, this would generally lead to the assumption that if you are using a lube with a primarily PAO base, that since you don't have to use PPD's, that low temp performance is going to be more consistent, and if the base oil blend has a relatively naturally high VI, less VII's as well. Other than the expense (and assuming the additive package we are using already deals with seal compatibility) I don't see a disadvantage
21.gif
So is cost the primary driver in all of this? (I think it is a safe bet to assume it is) And if yes, then are oils with high percentages of PAO (like M1 EP 0w-20) a "better deal" due to the cost of their formulation? At first glance, it certainly looks that way.

Obviously this is being intentionally over-simplified for the sake of the discussion but the topic of base oil selection for a finished product being safe to ignore due to the performance of the end product has been something of a newer thing on here; Trying to get people away from focusing on an oil having PAO or Esters and ignoring everything else and focusing more on the approvals and performance specs of the fully formulated lubricant.

Along with that we saw some of our favourite products evolve in various ways. GC's departure from being green, then from being German. M1 0w-40's cold temp performance taking a hit, PAO being swapped out for VISOM, then the SN formulation brought greater shear stability with it and the most recent change appears to be a switch back to PAO with a 50-60% PAO content.

There's no denying the performance of the end product being the most important thing. But I know for those of us that acknowledge that there is still a secret obsession with base oil composition, and that's what this discussion is about.

And some tangents from that would be:

1. Cold temp performance - AFE 0w-20, using the index discussed, has very little VII in it. We know it has a fair slug of PAO in it, so is its cold temp performance going to remain more consistent through your typical Canadian winter than its Group III-based counterparts like TGMO?

2. If #1 is true, then would EP 0w-20 be even better in that respect? Their indexes are extremely close, despite the fact that we know that the latter has almost 2x the PAO in it.

3. Chasing VI (in the manner in which has been depicted on here, you may have missed that party Bobby) far beyond the natural level of the base oil blend seems to be a game of chasing a characteristic that almost guarantees lower shear stability and greater performance degradation with age. Shannow gave a few examples of that earlier in the thread.

Comparing M1 AFE 0w-20 and TGMO for example, the one's MRV is a natural function of its base stocks, the other is a function of its PPD's, as we know it has zero PAO in it. The Index being discussed supports that. So despite the fact that the AFE product has a much lower VI (172 vs 2xx), it would seem, based on the current discussion, that it is going to be the more "stable" product. And its cold temperature performance that much more reliable.


Well though out overkill.


K so it's not that I am disagreeing here however I don't recall seeing any used oil analysis with TGMO that sheared in any significant way.
So what does that mean exactly?
I recall Caterham saying the VII used in tgmo were cutting edge and didn't break down as VII typically do but I think my question is why prop up a lesser base oil with more stuff that doesn't either lubricate or help the tribo chemical film in order to achieve a finished product that performs no better than a simpler formula?
I guess I'm asking why complicate things by adding this super duper viscosity index improver and use an arguably lesser basestock just to achieve equal performance to an oil I can just grab of the shelf that doesn't have all this special stuff in it.
Did that even make sense
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
As per the link I posted earlier to the guy who cam up with it...

density changes with temperature... and links kinematic and dynamic viscosity.

Like I said, it's an effort to compare what the Newtonian and non Newtonian viscosities are to see how "bumped up" an oil is with VII...not a dissertation on the various VIIs.


I think its flawed.

I just used a very shear stable oil with a HTHS of 2.65 and a real KV150 of 4.1

This gave an index of 0.835

What would the theoretical Kv150 be ? 8.5 kv100 and 42.12 kv40

How about this oil?
Kv100 7.72, kv40 42.42 (density 0.85) with a HTHS of 2.61

Tell me what you think of this one.
 
Last edited:
To add, i think what you are getting confused with is temporary shear and permanent shear. The shear rates that the KO shear test uses is a very different mechanism to the shear rates at 10^7 in HTHS (compared to KV150)

Different VII types will respond differently at 10^7 shear rate when compared to their effect on VI and the KV100 (and assumed KV150).

I see this ratio as a fator, but its certainly not to do with shear stability when in the context of ODI.

I agree that chasing high VI is a bad thing, some of the best most shear stable oils you could make haver very low VI as there is nothing to shear!
 
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Can someone do the comparison of dino 5W30 and 10W30 of a same brand, doesn't matter which brand.

May be there isn't much different for API SN, but I like to know to see if Honda is correct in recommending dino 10W30(instead of 5W30) for S2000.


From my UOA on my S2000 running 9k ODI, the engine doesnt appear to be excessive with its shear. There is some visc drop sure but half of this is due to fuel.

My car runs a 5W-40 with a KV100 of 13.5 fresh, end of drain is 12.74 but once fuel is stripped off its back up to 13.27 ( this is around 1.7% fuel dilution)
 
Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
To add, i think what you are getting confused with is temporary shear and permanent shear. The shear rates that the KO shear test uses is a very different mechanism to the shear rates at 10^7 in HTHS (compared to KV150)

Different VII types will respond differently at 10^7 shear rate when compared to their effect on VI and the KV100 (and assumed KV150).

I see this ratio as a fator, but its certainly not to do with shear stability when in the context of ODI.

I agree that chasing high VI is a bad thing, some of the best most shear stable oils you could make haver very low VI as there is nothing to shear!


I think I have some understanding of the difference between temporary and permanent shear, which is why I call the result of the calculation "Temporary Shear Ratio". It's a comparison between what the actual HTHS is to what the DV150 number should be if the oil were purely Newtonian. A relatively low TSR does not diminish the HTHS of the oil in question when it is fresh. The piece of the puzzle that's missing is how much the permanent HTHS loss would be for oils with varying TSR's.

Shannow provided a really good clue with this link in another thread:
ftp://ftp.astmtmc.cmu.edu/docs/diesel/hdeocp/minutes/2001/hdeocp.2001-05-25/052501ATT12.PDF

The graph of interest is on page 8 of the presentation. There is some spread in the data, but it does give some comfort that the higher the TSR, the lower the permanent viscosity loss will be. From the body of data that this graph represents, permanent shear would be about half of the temporary shear.

It would be still more educational to understand the relationship between the temporary shear that occurs in the HTHS rig with the permanent shear that occurs in the Kurt Orbahn rig.
 
Last edited:
Even after KO90, many good formulations maintain the HTHS of fresh oil. Anything over 5% KV shear after a KO30 is massive amounts of shear for a PCO oil. That slide deck is around PC-9 which is CI-4 technology and pretty old now. A strong VII as used in European oils can deliver less than 1% shear even after a KO90 (rather than a KO30)

Dispersants in the additive system may also have an impact on the viscosity change between gravity 'shear' and 10^7 shear rates.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Shannow provided a really good clue with this link in another thread:
ftp://ftp.astmtmc.cmu.edu/docs/diesel/hdeocp/minutes/2001/hdeocp.2001-05-25/052501ATT12.PDF

The graph of interest is on page 8 of the presentation. There is some spread in the data, but it does give some comfort that the higher the TSR, the lower the permanent viscosity loss will be. From the body of data that this graph represents, permanent shear would be about half of the temporary shear.


HTHS itself is temporary shear, any changes you see there are permanent shear of the VM effecting both HTHS and KV100, however the impact is less of HTHS but it is still permanent shear.


You would see this in the change in KV150 too.
 
Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
Originally Posted By: Shannow
As per the link I posted earlier to the guy who cam up with it...

density changes with temperature... and links kinematic and dynamic viscosity.

Like I said, it's an effort to compare what the Newtonian and non Newtonian viscosities are to see how "bumped up" an oil is with VII...not a dissertation on the various VIIs.


I think its flawed.

I just used a very shear stable oil with a HTHS of 2.65 and a real KV150 of 4.1

This gave an index of 0.835

What would the theoretical Kv150 be ? 8.5 kv100 and 42.12 kv40

How about this oil?
Kv100 7.72, kv40 42.42 (density 0.85) with a HTHS of 2.61

Tell me what you think of this one.


It's not a test of shear stability over an OCI (although not having VIIs helps), as I said, it's not comparing VIIS.

It's comparing the non-Newtonian fluid to the behaviour that its KV40 and KV100 would suggest.

Throw in a straight weight, and the ratio is one...it's Newtonian, and not bolstered by VIIs, it's HTHS IS it's KV150...throw in TGMO, and you can see that VIIs are a large part of what makes the viscosity characteristics of the oil.

Good, bad ?

Gives the customer another thing to look at in their oil choice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top