Mixed Messages From BITOG

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Bailes1992
So if we were to summurise...
A quality Group III+ basestock will have a very good viscosity index and very little VII's are needed to give a wide range such as a 0w30 or 0w40.

If you are looking at Group II or II+ oils then it's worth only getting the 'range' you really need.


Nope, there's no way that a GrIII+ or GrIV can have a 175=180 VI without VII...


 
If you extrapolate the numbers in the Exxon table, you might conclude that a full PAO/Ester 5W20 is the widest cross-grade you can get that is VII-free. Given that normal Group IIIs (ie not GTL) tend to have a slightly lower VI than PAOs, you might expect a full Group III 5W20 needs a small splosh of VII to make the viscometric balance work. A Group II 5W20 will on the other hand definitely need a significant amount of VII (7%-ish?) in it.

One last thing. The Exxon oils contain 12% of DI which is probably on the high side because these oils will target top-tier. If you drop the DI treat rate to make oil to target the lower end of the market, you will need to back fill with a bit more VII. At the extreme, even a full PAO/Ester 5W20 containing absolutely no DI, might need a bit of VII to get the viscometrics to work out.
 
Perhaps she can explain noack to the handful of people on this board that truly know oil !
The rest of the world already knows the importance of noack.
 
SoJ: so in these wide spread viscosity oils - the technical team must know there is some "mortality rate" where VM molecules "rupture" (or whatever happens wrt permanent damage) - but does that propensity sometimes offset the oxidation and solids surface tension that thickens oil as it ages - keeping the overall viscosity somewhat in grade.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
The problem is that virtually no one on this board knows enough to make a proper decision to deviate from what the manufacturer specifies. Even then it would be appropriate only under extreme circumstances, not day-to-day operation.

We see evidence of this everywhere on BITOG. People focusing on oil properties that are not representative of what is important under operation, use of UOA (and VOA) to draw completely unwarranted conclusions about current and future performance, and most frequently the extrapolation of a little knowledge (usually obtained on the Internet) to make generalizations that are invalid.

That is what I see here the majority of the time.


This is an excellent post. There are so many "experts" on this forum that give very bad advice based on the invalid generalizations you have noted. Many of these "advisors" are members who seem to dedicate their lives to getting the last day and mile out of an oil change without regard to the potential risk to their expensive machinery. I am always amused at the posts by those that just bought a new vehicle and immediately question the lubrication specifications/requirements and change intervals listed in the owner's manual. Many think that these requirements or recommendations have to be some sort of conspiracy by the vehicle manufacturer's and oil companies to cheat the customers.
 
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
There are effectively two philosophical schools of thought when it comes to formulating engine oil.

The first revolves around the concept of 'extremes'. With this you get good performance at extremely low and extremely high temperatures. Your oil won't shear or oxidise under the most extreme conditions. This philosophy is illustrated by things like top-tier, full synthetic 0W40 oils.

The second philosophy says, the first philosophy is total bunk! Under normal conditions oils never ever see the extreme conditions set out in the first philosophy. That being the case, why not built an oil around what is likely; not around what is conceivably possible. This philosophy is reflected in stuff like 10W30s, monogrades and my own personal favourite; 10W16!


I love some 10w-30 in FL. I'm being told I don't know anything about oil because I stick to 10w-30. But you know what? If the oils have improved so much, then the 10w-30 improved with it as a result of better additives and base stocks, so I'm still getting a bit better protection than the 5w-20 or 0w-20

I'm withholding judgment on the 0w-16 and 0w-8 until I see some real world UOA
 
Originally Posted By: 4WD
SoJ: so in these wide spread viscosity oils - the technical team must know there is some "mortality rate" where VM molecules "rupture" (or whatever happens wrt permanent damage) - but does that propensity sometimes offset the oxidation and solids surface tension that thickens oil as it ages - keeping the overall viscosity somewhat in grade.


If I'm honest, as we sit here in 2017 I do think that the fear of shear is somewhat overdone.

Do VIIs permanently shear? Yes, a little bit initially, but under normal driving conditions, nothing like as much as you might think. Can VIIs shear a lot? Yes, this is exactly what the European KO30 cycle shear test does but it only manages to do what it does by repeatedly blasting the oil through a fuel injector nozzle. Is anyone seriously suggesting this is representative of what happens to oil in an engine?

When oils do shear, even in real life, the level of shear tends to depend on how much polymer the oil contains. The more polymer you have, the more likely you are to notice the effects of shear. So for example, shear might be very apparent in a Group I 10W40 but not particularly apparent in a Group II/II+ 5W20 oil.

Finally it's worth noting the direction of travel on VIIs. OCP VIIs have sort of taken over the world and have largely displaced PMA VIIs (except in Japan) and HDS VIIs (apart from in very top-tier oils). OCPs are so much more resistant to thermally induced shear than PMA & HDS VIIs. Also, with the advent of things like dexos, VIIs are becoming more shear stable as the US moves closer to the European position.

Hope this helps...
 
Originally Posted By: SilverSnake
Originally Posted By: kschachn
The problem is that virtually no one on this board knows enough to make a proper decision to deviate from what the manufacturer specifies. Even then it would be appropriate only under extreme circumstances, not day-to-day operation.

We see evidence of this everywhere on BITOG. People focusing on oil properties that are not representative of what is important under operation, use of UOA (and VOA) to draw completely unwarranted conclusions about current and future performance, and most frequently the extrapolation of a little knowledge (usually obtained on the Internet) to make generalizations that are invalid.

That is what I see here the majority of the time.


This is an excellent post. There are so many "experts" on this forum that give very bad advice based on the invalid generalizations you have noted. Many of these "advisors" are members who seem to dedicate their lives to getting the last day and mile out of an oil change without regard to the potential risk to their expensive machinery. I am always amused at the posts by those that just bought a new vehicle and immediately question the lubrication specifications/requirements and change intervals listed in the owner's manual. Many think that these requirements or recommendations have to be some sort of conspiracy by the vehicle manufacturer's and oil companies to cheat the customers.


Oh dear! There are none so blind as those that refuse to see...

Of course it's a conspiracy! It always has been and probably always will be. The idea that the engine oil business is run primarily for the benefit of the OEMs but at the same time, benefitting the oil companies, AddCo's and test houses, was first explained to me over 30 years ago by a lovely guy called Eric Lewis. I think anyone who's ever worked in the industry would accept this as 'just the way it is'. Unlike most businesses, the one significant group that has almost no say or power or influence in the engine oil business is the final consumer; the people that actually PAY for everything. This is particular true in the US where in effect, you get what you are given whether you like it or not. Be it GF-2, GF-3, GF-4 or GF-5, within say a year of a new category being launched, the old oil category has disappeared from the shelves. Where is the choice it that? If this was happening in Soviet Russia, you guys would castigate this as a terrible example of The Planned Economy at work yet because it's happening in America in 2017, you accept it as 'normal'!

One other thing for you to ponder on. The quality of oils has improved beyond all recognition in the last couple of decades. Yet actual OCIs, particularly in the US, have moved at a glacial pace. It's not as if the oil companies actively discourage this as they are the prime beneficiary of this wasteful practice. And where OEMs have upped the recommended OCI, how many of them have removed the rider that 'change at XXXX miles OR AFTER ONE YEAR, whichever comes sooner'. Oils don't self destruct when they get to 12 month old so why don't the OEMs remove the rider or say change the rider to 18 months or 2 years? Might it be that if they ever did, it would significantly reduce the sales of engine oil and hurt an industry that so ably provides assistance, in manpower, expertise and money, to the OEMs in everything they do?
 
Last edited:
Much appreciated - I'm thinking some products or single parameters are being criticized here with unneeded drama - rather than the application being questioned.
CAFE aside - it's easy enough to see what grade gets run in Europe in the same/similar engine that has known fuel diluted oil tendency etc - being referred to as "sheared" this or that - judgemental reflex may be to go up a grade.
On the other hand we see amazing results with thinner oils that stay in grade and provide protection
The UOA's only provide parameters at the end of run - but obviously the R&D guys must plot them in shorter bites - especially knowing folks are seeing 10k+ runs.
Good to hear your perspectives ...
 
Originally Posted By: SilverSnake
I am always amused at the posts by those that just bought a new vehicle and immediately question the lubrication specifications/requirements and change intervals listed in the owner's manual. Many think that these requirements or recommendations have to be some sort of conspiracy by the vehicle manufacturer's and oil companies to cheat the customers.

That might be true, but there are many BITOGers that are quite capable of reading between the lines, as it were, on various pieces of equipment, especially ones that have what we'd call legacy OCI recommendations. Take a look at my G37's recommendations, for instance. It simply calls for an SM 5w-30, not even SM/GF-4, with a severe service interval of 3750 miles. Obviously, that OCI and service category combo is tailored to running the most basic 5w-30 out there, and one gets the good and the bad with that. One gets the benefit of being able to run just about anything in it, without having to buy something expensive, but, on the flip side, is expected to keep fresh oil in it. Obviously, there's room for prudent extension of an OCI.

The same applies to the early 7.3 Powerstrokes, with 15 L sumps and 3,000 mile OCIs. On the other hand, the old Audi had a 12,500 km severe service interval, and that's with ordinary, SJ conventional. That seemed a tad optimistic, and that wound up being quite true, with some of those matters creating a rather large Charlie Foxtrot for VW/Audi, which led to proprietary oil specifications based upon ACEA sequences.

In the end, OEM OCI recommendations aren't always as well engineered as we think them to be. We might have a company looking to extend OCIs on the basis of reducing maintenance costs, or we might have a company following the glacial pace of change, as Joe mentioned.

I'd be watching Nissan/Infiniti over the next few years with interest. They're beginning to promote more 0w-20s, but keep 5w-30 conventional as a distinct, approved option in their manuals, with OCIs ramping up to 10,000 miles in some cases. With respect to the new Q60 with the 400 hp 3.0 turbo that Infiniti desperately wants me to buy, I'm not exactly sold on the idea of 10,000 mile OCIs with 5w-30 conventional, which falls within their warranty requirements.

3750 miles with Mobil 1 EP would be almost certainly overkill. 10000 miles on Mobil Super conventional is almost certainly overly optimistic, and I gather that Infiniti is banking on a lot of people using premium oil and going to the dealer for early, frequent, upsold oil changes.
 
No bitog member should belittle other bitog members. Some people buy a new car and if they want to talk about oil on bitog then that is great.
If you have nothing to add then just stay silent or just say please follow the owners manual. As they say people who live in glass houses dont throw rocks !

I have learned a great deal from bitog but the negativity sometimes makes me want to logout forever since my noack appetite has been filled
smile.gif
smile.gif



And i also believe that car industry and oil industry are there to Maximize profit as much as they can. Its only the owner that has to make choices to Maximize the longevity of a vehicle with limited $$$ .

Dealers usual response is oh you got 150k miles out of it. Thats was excellent and now its time for a new one !
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: merconvvv
And i also believe that car industry and oil industry are there to Maximize profit as much as they can.


Really? And I suppose the company you work for is there to minimize profits as much as they can.
 
Originally Posted By: SilverSnake
Originally Posted By: merconvvv
And i also believe that car industry and oil industry are there to Maximize profit as much as they can.


Really? And I suppose the company you work for is there to minimize profits as much as they can.


Did i say that was bad ?

If it came across that way i apologize.

Whereas the owner has to try to maximize the longevity of vehicle with limited $$$.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top