So then why not just one oil???

[ArthurArgentum]

Conspiracy theories about the ID of the poster.

lol

 

[Shel_B]

In before everything that is coming including but not limited to:

Bickering.
Heads blowing off.
Conspiracy theories about the ID of the poster.
Lock.
Etc.

Make him show his papers!

 

[Yourhomiematt]

I do basically what the op implies. I run mobil euro 0w40 in everything(3.6 pentastar, 2.7 ecoboost, 5.7 sbc, 5.0sbc, 5.3ls, all the ope) except my 12v cummins

It's cheap in the 12qt boxes at wally. I keep 3 on hand

Adding to this. I live in south west Pennsylvania and the temperature swings from -20 to 105 degrees F

 

[chris719]

Mobil 1 (1975) had HTHS about 2.6-2.8 cP..

Still insufficient for high performance applications.

 

[ArthurArgentum]

Still insufficient for high performance applications.

listen, I just want to make it clear that I wasn't the one recommending this. (C.P. Gilmore did) Take a moment to revisit "the picture" and see for yourself. It'll give you a good chuckle!

 

[kschachn]

listen, I just want to make it clear that I wasn't the one recommending this. (C.P. Gilmore did) Take a moment to revisit "the picture" and see for yourself. It'll give you a good chuckle!

Yeah it’s funny.

 

[TiGeo]

lol

It's a BITOG classic!

 

[OVERKILL]

It's not merely a matter of the base oil type; the crucial factor lies in the viscosity itself. In the case of 0W-20, both the amount of PAO and, more significantly, the viscosity are reduced. As viscosity increases, the capacity for effective dissolution diminishes.

But it IS a matter of the base oil type, that's why carrier oils are used for the additive package because PAO and Group III, regardless of the viscosity, have poor solvency. Pointing out that Yubase 4 has better solvency than Yubase 8 is like pointing out that .223 has lower penetration than 5.56mm, ignoring the fact that the difference is so minute that it's immaterial. They both suck.

This fact can be easily verified by consulting the documentation on the aniline point of any base oil. While PAO4 may still exhibit some dissolving capabilities, PAO8 falls short in comparison. PAO6 typically resides at the border, representing a transitional variant.

They all suck, all the PAO's, it doesn't matter which one you are looking at, hyper-focusing on the aniline point and ignoring this fact is bordering on trolling. That's why oils leveraging PAO as the primary base will use AN's and or Esters to not only deal with the seal shrink issue, but also add sufficiency solvency.

Similar principles apply to group III base oils, albeit with an initial advantage in terms of dissolving power (owing to a higher presence of naphthenes in III). However, for 0W-20 oil, a less viscous base and a reduced amount of polymers are employed, ensuring optimal performance.

Again, Group III solvency is extremely poor, this is why carrier oils are used, to provide sufficiency solvency for the additive package and sometimes we STILL see settling out in the finished product, like with certain Shell products. This is also why your typical ILSAC oils, blended to a price point, are not good at cleaning. You need something highly polar, or with good solvency (esters or AN's) to actually solve deposits.

Important to note:

As the base stocks change, additive selection must change accordingly. For example, the same antioxidant package critical in a Group I petroleum lubricant formulation will not remain soluble in the new Group III base stocks produced today.

There is a huge spectrum of 0W-20's on the market ranging from minimal VII content to considerable VII content and this can be inferred from the VI of the finished product. If you've got two 0W-20 and one has a VI of 160 and the other one 212, you can be certain that the one with the higher VI has considerably higher VII content and lower viscosity base oils. This is very common with the Japanese OE 0W-20's like TGMO.

Here's a relatively low VI 0W-20 blended with Yubase, has 6.2% OCP VII. Note the 0W-30 has 9.2% VM:

Here are a number of them with VII content of 7.0%, also employing Yubase:

And another Yubase 0W-30, this time with 10% VM:

Here are some XOM examples, now note the 0W-30 has much lower VII content than the Yubase one, and the 0W-40 has lower VM content than the above Yubase 0W-30:

 

[OVERKILL]

Still insufficient for high performance applications.

From what I recall, it was more around the 3.0cP or higher mark, more similar to the HTHS for HPL's current Euro "No-VII" 5W-20, which has an HTHS of 3.2cP. I think @Shannow posted a picture or something that showed it at one point.

You can blend a 5w-20 using PAO and no VII (hence HPL doing it).

 

[OVERKILL]

This is sort of tangential to your comment: I am continually amazed at the concoctions folks put together in order to improve or modify a fully formulated oil. How have these concoctions been determined? What's the basis for using, as in this example, a 0W-20 mixed with a thickening agent, like boat mineral 4T-outboard oil, such as 25W-40. How was it determined that this is a good and beneficial choice?

It wasn't, somebody dreamed it up.

 

[TiGeo]

Still insufficient for high performance applications.

Which is the vast majority of users on the road (NOT high-performance apps).

 

[ArthurArgentum]

Again, Group III solvency is extremely poor, this is why carrier oils are used, to provide sufficiency solvency for the additive package and sometimes we STILL see settling out in the finished product, like with certain Shell products.

To be perfectly accurate, this claim holds some inaccuracies. When we compare the aniline points of group III and PAO base oils, an interesting trend emerges. Due to the elevated naphthene content in group III oils, their aniline points tend to be consistently 5-10 degrees Celsius lower (at the same comparable viscosities), indicating superior solubility characteristics. It's important to note that the aniline point consistently decreases (goes better) within a particular series of substances as viscosity decreases.

In the case of 0W-20 oil, the primary base utilized generally possesses a viscosity KV100 of 4, occasionally reaching 6. Conversely, in the context of 0W-40 oil, a predominance of base oils with viscosities of 6, and occasionally 8, can be observed.
In real-world scenarios, it's fascinating to note that some manufacturers actually choose to utilize group III base oils as carrier oils. What's even more intriguing is that they tend to lean towards oils with a substantial presence of naphthenes, usually 20% or more. These observations from practical experience shed light on the diverse approaches within the industry.

There is a huge spectrum of 0W-20's on the market ranging from minimal VII content to considerable VII content and this can be inferred from the VI of the finished product. If you've got two 0W-20 and one has a VI of 160 and the other one 212, you can be certain that the one with the higher VI has considerably higher VII content and lower viscosity base oils. This is very common with the Japanese OE 0W-20's like TGMO.

In formulations where the viscosity index of 0W-20 oil surpasses 200, a special type of polymer called methacrylate takes the stage. This polymer shares a structural resemblance with esters and possesses remarkable solubility, all without burdening the solution like the mechanically stable polymers found in 0W-40 oils. While a generous amount of this particular polymer may be incorporated, it belongs to a different breed that maintains the solubility of base oils, setting it apart from its counterparts in 0W-40 formulations.
In the current American market, oils containing methacrylates for 0W-20 applications are relatively rare to come by.

Generally, 0W-20 oils that adhere to ILSAC specifications tend to prioritize other factors over mechanical polymer-resilience, resulting in a higher thickening power, particularly when compared to European formulations within the 0W-40 range. The demand for more mechanically stable polymers (ASTM D7109 test) becomes more pronounced in 0W-40 oils, on average, this doubles the amount of polymer in "average 0W-40". This discrepancy can be attributed to the lower requirements set forth by ILSAC and the inherent ability of simpler OCP polymers to thicken more effectively. Additionally, market trends reveal an average viscosity index that aligns with these observations.

 

[CKN]

Why not indeed.

New cars have warrantees. In the unlikely event of a motor failure-manufacturers have been know to ask for all kinds of documentation. I know of very few NEW vehicles that spec the oil the OP mentioned.

However-per my recent thread the vast majority of members on this forum drive cars older than 5 years old. So-it's not applicable to them.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

If you want one oil to rule them all, we need @High Performance Lubricants to add a 5w40 to their No VII product lineup. You could still get Euro or d1G3 add packs, and have an ideal all-fleet oil for gas and diesels.

 

[TiGeo]

If you want one oil to rule them all, we need @High Performance Lubricants to add a 5w40 to their No VII product lineup. You could still get Euro or d1G3 add packs, and have an ideal all-fleet oil for gas and diesels.

How can you do that spread without VII? I don't see the big thing with the no-VII oils here. Their 5W40 shoudl be good enough for anyone.

 

[ZeeOSix]

listen, I just want to make it clear that I wasn't the one recommending this. (C.P. Gilmore did) Take a moment to revisit "the picture" and see for yourself. It'll give you a good chuckle!

The beginning of the "thin oil crusade".

 

[ZeeOSix]

Mobil 1 (1975) had HTHS about 2.6-2.8 cP..

Unfounded claim unless someone has actually tested an old can of 1975 Mobil 1 oil. SAE J300 didn't even define the HTHS spec for motor oil until the Feb 1992 version of SAE J300.

Automotive - Lubes'N'Greases

Steve Swedberg clarifies the ambiguity of SAE engine oil viscosity classifications.

www.lubesngreases.com

 

[OVERKILL]

To be perfectly accurate, this claim holds some inaccuracies. When we compare the aniline points of group III and PAO base oils, an interesting trend emerges. Due to the elevated naphthene content in group III oils, their aniline points tend to be consistently 5-10 degrees Celsius lower (at the same comparable viscosities), indicating superior solubility characteristics. It's important to note that the aniline point consistently decreases (goes better) within a particular series of substances as viscosity decreases.

But they are still poor, as CLEARLY illustrated in the graph provided. Having the least stinky crap in the outhouse doesn't make it any less crap. You can dress it up, but Group III still has relatively poor solubility compared to other bases. Yes, PAO is worse, as noted, but they are both bad.

In the case of 0W-20 oil, the primary base utilized generally possesses a viscosity KV100 of 4, occasionally reaching 6. Conversely, in the context of 0W-40 oil, a predominance of base oils with viscosities of 6, and occasionally 8, can be observed.

I've provided blending examples of both, I can provide more if you like? The 0W-20 was primarily blended with 4cSt Group III, with one of them using some 6cSt (and 1% less VII), the 0W-40 was primarily blended with 4cSt PAO and 4cSt Group III. Even the all-PAO 0W-40 from Mobil's blending guide uses no 8cSt bases, being 34.1% PAO4, 40% PAO6 and 2% Esterex NP343.

In real-world scenarios, it's fascinating to note that some manufacturers actually choose to utilize group III base oils as carrier oils.

Do you have any examples of this? I'm not discounting it, but would like to see some proof. That might explain Shell having some additive precipitation issues with some of their products.

What's even more intriguing is that they tend to lean towards oils with a substantial presence of naphthenes, usually 20% or more. These observations from practical experience shed light on the diverse approaches within the industry.

You mean like this?

This is plucked from a Shell presentation about the continued relevance of Group II with the shift to Group III, and one of the points was about the better solvency of Group II.

Of course now Shell has shifted mostly to GTL.

In formulations where the viscosity index of 0W-20 oil surpasses 200, a special type of polymer called methacrylate takes the stage. This polymer shares a structural resemblance with esters and possesses remarkable solubility, all without burdening the solution like the mechanically stable polymers found in 0W-40 oils. While a generous amount of this particular polymer may be incorporated, it belongs to a different breed that maintains the solubility of base oils, setting it apart from its counterparts in 0W-40 formulations.
In the current American market, oils containing methacrylates for 0W-20 applications are relatively rare to come by.

These oils seem to be primarily produced by/for Asian OEM's, TGMO is probably the best known/most discussed example on here, but there are others. And yes, they are generally lower availability in the US market.

Yes, PMA3 would be one such example of a methacrylate VII, though it uses methyl methacrylate, which has less solubility as noted here, but yielded a VI of 207 with YUBASE 4. OCP2 yielded a VI of 179 in comparison.

However, you generally use more PMA VII, so the concentration of VII in the finished product is higher.

Generally, 0W-20 oils that adhere to ILSAC specifications tend to prioritize other factors over mechanical polymer-resilience, resulting in a higher thickening power, particularly when compared to European formulations within the 0W-40 range. The demand for more mechanically stable polymers (ASTM D7109 test) becomes more pronounced in 0W-40 oils, on average, this doubles the amount of polymer in "average 0W-40". This discrepancy can be attributed to the lower requirements set forth by ILSAC and the inherent ability of simpler OCP polymers to thicken more effectively. Additionally, market trends reveal an average viscosity index that aligns with these observations.

"Average" and "Generally" are doing a lot of work here
- Yes, ILSAC oils tend to be less shear stable, meaning less of more effective (at increasing viscosity) but less stable VII.
- Yes, due to European shear stability standards, 0W-40's tend to use more shear stable VII's, which are less effective and need a higher treatment rate.

Despite that, some of the blending guide examples show not much of a difference in VII content (7% for the 0W-20, 9.4% for the 0W-40) and some of the 0W-30's having higher VII content than the 0W-40's. The high-VI PMA-based 0W-20's have even higher VII concentrations.

We also see use of AN's and esters to improve solvency and mPAO gets used as a VM, which is of course incredibly stable, not being a polymer. Some of this is driven by OEM approvals in the Euro space, certainly, but we are seeing 0W-40's becoming more common in North America as well with GM's Corvette program switching over to it now.

 

[ArthurArgentum]

Unfounded claim unless someone has actually tested an old can of 1975 Mobil 1 oil. SAE J300 didn't even define the HTHS spec for motor oil until the Feb 1992 version of SAE J300.

Rest assured, the situation is not as daunting as it may seem. In fact, unopened cans of 5W-20 M1 can still be found, offering reassurance regarding the availability of such HTHS probes even today. It's fascinating to note that the first HTHS metering devices were already in development between 1981 and 1983. On a related note, I highly recommend immersing yourself in the pages of James A. Spearot's exceptional book, which delves into the captivating history of High-Temperature High-Shear (HTHS).

 

[ZeeOSix]

Rest assured, the situation is not as daunting as it may seem. In fact, they (unopened cans with 5W-20 M1) can still be found, providing a sense of reassurance of such HTHS probe even now

Yes, as I mentioned above, an old can of Mobil 1 5W-20 from 1975 would have to be tested for KV100 and HTHS. Until then, nobody knows what it was, because it was never published since HTHS specs didn't exist in 1975. Post up the official test data on that 1975 oil, when we'll know.