AAA Conventional vs Synthetic Oil Study

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Would it be fair to say that you mean that we should just say no to ILSAC oils?
You make a compelling case for avoiding them and it can certainly be done.


I can read the headlines already... Bolshie Brit Starts American Revolt!!

Should ILSAC have a serious rethink about what they're doing to US engine oil? IMO, yes. Will they ever? IMO, never. Given that ILSAC would rather drink poison than acknowledge that they're doing anything wrong, then as a consumers, the only recourse is to avoid buying ILSAC oils. Simples...
 
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
...then as a consumers, the only recourse is to avoid buying ILSAC oils. Simples...

Darn, I just love how ENEOS Sustina flows in one of my vehicles.
 
Originally Posted By: Y_K
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
...then as a consumers, the only recourse is to avoid buying ILSAC oils. Simples...

Darn, I just love how ENEOS Sustina flows in one of my vehicles.



If you're talking about the ENEOS Sustina 0W20, then yes, it will be very thin at say 40°C almost certainly because the oil is based on PMA VII. This was discussed in a recent TGMO thread. These oils are okay but not without their own set of issues. The price for that high Viscosity Index is a shed load of rubber in the oil.
 
Last edited:
Reading between the lines, are you also advocating against very high VI oils, since very high VIs can only be achieved with high VII treat rates?
I've still got some HGMO API SM and it does boast a VI of 197 IIRC as well as a shed load of moly.
Is this Idimetsu oil something I would have better left for someone else to have bought?
 
Originally Posted By: HouseTiger
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Artem
The only proof I've ever needed on the synthetic vs Dino oil was the frozen pour test done many many years ago (you can find a bunch on YouTube) where Synthetic CLEARLY pours quicker and better then conventional.


In florida ????


Yeah, it gets cold in florida . . . 50 degrees (F) is cold (to them)


What does living in FL have to do with the topic of this thread? You guy are both silly and jealous of my beautiful weather and everyday beach access, that's what it boils down too. Hahahaha.

And yes, 50F is cold.

Back to Topic
 
Invariably someone in these threads:
* talks about frozen oil tests; or
* brings up the superior "flow" that synthetics provide; and/or
* digs out the Esso -35C tests.

To justify either synthetic, or 0W something...

My point was that the above are meaningless in Florida, where SAE30 could be used any day of any week, and "flow" just as good as the PD oil pump needs.

(haven't seen the muffin pan boil off tests for a while, they might be coming).

I've used 25W70 down it 18F...I'm not advocating it as a sound oil choice...but it flowed, to the top end, and took no longer to get oil pressure than anything else I used in that engine.
 
What does living in FL have to do with the topic of this thread? You guy are both silly and jealous of my beautiful weather and everyday beach access, that's what it boils down too. Hahahaha.

Beautiful beaches and year round golf, what's not to like. Jumping in a pond then getting eaten by an alligator, not so much. Only joshing, we've got bears up here.
laugh.gif


Back in the day in my neck of the woods with carburation and thicker than now 10w30 oil cars would generally start fine with temps above -15c.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Reading between the lines, are you also advocating against very high VI oils, since very high VIs can only be achieved with high VII treat rates?
I've still got some HGMO API SM and it does boast a VI of 197 IIRC as well as a shed load of moly.
Is this Idimetsu oil something I would have better left for someone else to have bought?



You don't need to read between the lines. I have been positively advocating on BITOG for some time now for 10W20 (which would be by definition be low VI).

For me, it's simply a question of logic. No disrespect to the Canadians and the Finns but most sensible people chose to live in places that are not life threateningly cold. This being so, most people don't need 0W or even 5W oils. There was a time when 10W30 was the norm in the US and the climate hasn't really changed much since then.

What has changed is people's perception of how thick oils need to be. When I started driving in 1978, 20W50 was very much the norm in the UK. Then 15W40 became the norm. We skipped 10W30 (it's tricky to make a 3.5 min HTHS Group I 10W30) but now 5W30 is the de facto choice. We're a bit behind the US in adopting 20-weight oils but they are here now (I use one in my engine). I think the technical case for saying thin oils don't cause excessive wear has been made and largely accepted.

My point is, if you don't need ultra thin or ultra thick then just buy what you do need which for the sake of argument is a 10W20. No (or very little) VII so less deposits. Less Ashless Dispersant to counter the effects of VII. Inherently lower Noack volatility and less need for expensive base oils. Overall you get a better oil at lower cost that still gives you a decent amount of fuel economy, which gives very little wear and importantly stays in the crankcase!

One of my big criticisms of modern oils is that they are formulated around the concept of 'extremes' (very low temperatures, very high temperatures, very severe oxidation conditions, very high shear conditions, etc). What they are positively NOT designed for is everyday use where 99% of the time, things are not that extreme. I for one think that should change.
 
SAE 20s are getting hard to find. Possibly a 15w20, Chevron's Delo 400 looks a lot like a PCMO:

Density .875
40C 61
100C 8.5
VI 111
Flash 236C
PP -30C
SA .95
TBN 6.3
P .069
Z .076

HTHS is not published, I'll guess >2.8 and I'll bet the NOACK is the lowest of any xW20.
Couldn't find the "glug" test results either.
 
I was thinking about 10W20's in the bath. This is what I came up with...

You start off with Chevron 220R Group II base oil. According to what I see on Google, this stuff has the following properties...

KV100 6.6 cst
KV40 43.7 cst
CCS-25 5600 cP
VI 105
Noack 10%

So straight away I see a base oil which almost meets the basic KV100 (>6.9) and CCS-25 (2.6 HTHS though).

At 10%, the Noack isn't especially low but when you consider that Chevron 100R, the next lightest base oil, has a Noack of 26%, then 220R looks a very good starting point to build a 10W20. Also note you have 1400 cP worth of CCS 'headroom' to play with.

Okay so as a very minimum you will need to add about 0.9% of ZDDP to the oil to give you 800 ppm of Phos (for wear control). You also need to add 2% of 400 TBN Mg Sulphonate to put 8 TBN into the oil (for rust & acid control). I would also put say 0.1% of PPD in the oil (for MRV control) as this 10W oil will be borderline in winter.

Now the thing about ZDDP, detergent and PPD, is that whilst they're all thicker than 220R, and will push up the oil's KV100 & CCS-25, the effect will be modest with say the KV100 hitting 7.0 cst and the CCS-25 say 6100 cP.

The oil will clearly need some VII polymer. A typical high SSI OCP might have a Thickening Power of 10 (1% of neat rubber gives a 10 cst uplift in KV100). We might need an uplift of 1.5 cst (from 7.0 to 8.5 cst) so we might need 0.15% of solid rubber (or 2% of liquid VII). I'm guessing this might get you to 2.6 HTHS.

I'm not sure where everything would end up property-wise but I suspect with a bit of playing about, maybe with a splosh of Chevron 110RLV Group II+ and 600R Group II you could keep the oil's Noack the right side of 10%.

The one thing that this oil DOESN'T contain yet is any Ashless Dispersant (a typical US oil might contain 5-6%). The reason why I hesitate to add it is for say a 5k OCI, I'm not overly convinced it does anything. If the oil doesn't massively oxidise, then you don't dump sludge and if you aren't reaching that point, then why put ashless in the oil in the first place? On the other hand, if you do add ashless, as well as adding cost, Noack takes a huge jump upwards which is the one thing you're wanting to avoid in a 10W20.

Okay, so in short you have a 10W20 with (possibly) a Noack of 10%, a 2.6 HTHS, a combined DI/Liquid VII/PPD treat of 5% (vs say 17% for a GF-5 5W30), it's based on cheap Group II/II+ and it's probably good for 5k miles of everyday driving. It wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea but it does have a certain appeal...

PS - this is for gasoline engines only. Diesels dance to a different tune entirely.
 
Last edited:
Eh, that's all good and all but I've got 200+ quarts of synthetic oil @ $2 a quart. The word conventional oil isn't even in my dictionary for many many years to come.
 
Originally Posted By: Artem
Eh, that's all good and all but I've got 200+ quarts of synthetic oil @ $2 a quart. The word conventional oil isn't even in my dictionary for many many years to come.


Interesting...

One US quart is 0.946 litres so you're paying about $US 2.11 per litre for synthetic. A few days ago I noticed that the Petronas Synthium 0W20 (the oil I have in my car) was on special offer at £20.05 for 5 litres (so $US 5.13 per litre). It has since returned to it's 'normal' price of £37.52 (so $US 9.60 per litre). I can't buy any oil for what you're paying in the US.

Bulk Group III in the US is currently running at $US 1482/Tonne or $US 1.16 per quart. That's before additive addition, blending, canning, distribution, etc. Basically you bagged yourself a bargain!

Maybe you guys don't need cheap oil but some of us less fortunate types might!
 
Your job would be easier if 15W20 was the target. CCS -20C (-4F )no problem even with ashless, but the cold flow and pumping aspect would likely pass either 10W or maybe two grades better @ 5W. I need a 12,000 km engine oil, 7k miles give or take. 15W20 would be a 3 season oil in Canada, March 15th to November 1st.
 
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
Your job would be easier if 15W20 was the target. CCS -20C (-4F )no problem even with ashless, but the cold flow and pumping aspect would likely pass either 10W or maybe two grades better @ 5W. I need a 12,000 km engine oil, 7k miles give or take. 15W20 would be a 3 season oil in Canada, March 15th to November 1st.


True but I think most Americans would baulk at a 15W oil whereas they might accept a 10W oil because of past familiarity with 10W30.

Also if you're going to attempt to sell 10W20 as a poor man's fuel economy oil, you do need the KV40 to be reasonably low and a 15W20 might have a KV40 that looks unreasonably high.

The final thing I'd say is that plant yields of heavy Group II are far less than you would get off a Group I plant and I'm guessing that most/all off it gets absorbed in to 15W40 HDDO. A tightly formulated 15W20 would contain maybe 30 to 40% Chevron 600R so it would probably be constrained but heavy base oil availability. A 10W20 would be a better fit to what US Group II refineries throw out.
 
would it kill you (or the final price of the product) to use some groupIII oil and reduce the VI, or completely take it out? And with that the ashless dispersant.
 
I was thinking Delo did just that to get the cold performance on target with their 15W30.
The same price point should be achievable for 10W20.
Also, when KV100C specs are thrown into the discussion, it opens up a can of worms that suggest VI plays a fuel economy roll that trumps HTHS.
Edit.... Oops, make that 40C viscosity specs.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
would it kill you (or the final price of the product) to use some groupIII oil and reduce the VI, or completely take it out? And with that the ashless dispersant.


Yes, you could put in say 30 - 40% Group III and take out all the VII. To keep the tight viscometrics, you would have to add an appreciable amount of 600R. As a result, not only would the oil be VII free, you would substantially drop the Noack of the finished oil (I'm guessing to about 7%-ish). Furthermore, you can drop the KV100 a tad more (8.3-ish?) and still be fine on 2.6 min HTHS.

The problem of course is you are going down the philosophical path of every single oil out there on the market which is 'more is better'. Not only does it make the oil more expensive (VII is dirt cheap vs Group III which isn't) but you end up with something that's 'too good' for 5k's worth of ordinary driving. The thing is that whilst I might think 14.9% Noack is way to high for a modern oil and 10% is much better, there's probably not a great deal of genuine benefit to going to 7%.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top