SynGard High VI's with a Type III Oil

[pbm]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Dan, first welcome to BITOG?


These oils appear to be formulated to be very light on start-up at more typical start-up temp's as their extreme cold CCS figures just average. Pennzoil Platnium for example is better with the exception of their 10W-30 grade.




I find the above quote interesting.
Which readily available 5w30's and 5w20's are "formulated to be very light on start-up at more typical start up temps"?
The average guy doesn't need an oil that is light at 50 below zero but rather in the single digits to teens F*?

I have an aversion to Castrol GTX in cold weather because I remember reading that their low temp. properties aren't great (this may have changed).
Which major brands are best in this regard?

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Undoubtedly SynGard is using one of these advanced very high VI PMA polymers to acheive their very high final VI's with just GP III base oils.


Which begs the question;

Do the boutique oils which start with a high percentage of group 4/5 basestocks have to use VERY much less of even these supposedly GREAT PMA VIIs to achieve the same VI levels as the group 3/3+ basestocked oils??

No current boutique oils that I know of have broken into the 200+ VI area. RL is close with their 0W-40 (VI 197) but they are starting with a natural VI of at least 166 before the addition polymer viscosity modifiers. I'm sure they are likely using the olefin copolymers (OCP) that most use.
Besides the very high VI PMA polymers have a low molecular weight so they are most effective in working with very light base oils to formulate 200+ VI 20wt and light 30wt oils.
As you can see with the heavy SynGard 10W-30 (HTHSV 3.3cP) the VI is "only" 198.
The Sustina 0W-20 has a VI of 229 but their 0W-50 has a VI IIRC of "only" 206 and I think that oil needs to use a naturally higher VI PAO base to acheive that. As a result the 0W-50 is a couple of bucks more per quart over their 0W-20 I believe.

 

[Sam_Julier]

Is it correct that a higher class base oil will have a naturally higher viscosity index? For example: will a Class III base oil such as Syngard need more VII than a Class V base oil such as Redline to achieve the same VI?

 

[DanMiller]

My understanding is that most Synthetic Oils are Base Type III or Type III+ or Type IV or a combination of multiple types it is rare to use just a Type V as the main type of base oil. I think that if the base type is III it would have to have more of the VMs to attain the higher VI my concern is that VMs tend to breakdown over time so the higher the VI of the base oil(s) the better the oil. I have recently read that one way to tell the quaility of the oil is a lower NOACK number.

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: Sam_Julier
Is it correct that a higher class base oil will have a naturally higher viscosity index?


No, the VI of the base oil depends on its chemical structure, which may vary within a family.

Group V esters run from about 60 to 180
Group V ANs run from about 75 to 105
Group IV PAOs run from about 125 to 140
Group III+ run from about 135 to 145
Group IIIs run from about 120 to 130

Also most oils use blends of base oils.

Tom NJ

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Undoubtedly SynGard is using one of these advanced very high VI PMA polymers to acheive their very high final VI's with just GP III base oils.


Which begs the question;

Do the boutique oils which start with a high percentage of group 4/5 basestocks have to use VERY much less of even these supposedly GREAT PMA VIIs to achieve the same VI levels as the group 3/3+ basestocked oils??

No current boutique oils that I know of have broken into the 200+ VI area. RL is close with their 0W-40 (VI 197) but they are starting with a natural VI of at least 166 before the addition polymer viscosity modifiers. I'm sure they are likely using the olefin copolymers (OCP) that most use.
Besides the very high VI PMA polymers have a low molecular weight so they are most effective in working with very light base oils to formulate 200+ VI 20wt and light 30wt oils.
As you can see with the heavy SynGard 10W-30 (HTHSV 3.3cP) the VI is "only" 198.
The Sustina 0W-20 has a VI of 229 but their 0W-50 has a VI IIRC of "only" 206 and I think that oil needs to use a naturally higher VI PAO base to acheive that. As a result the 0W-50 is a couple of bucks more per quart over their 0W-20 I believe.


OK, let me ask this another way;

GIVEN that there are no group 4/5 boutique oils with the stratospheric VIs of the PMA VII-laden group 3s/3+es, but IF one of those high end companies wanted to make an 0W-20/30 oil with a 225+ VI number, would they have to add LESS OF THE PMA VIIs than the group 3/3+ oils do to achieve this end, or do the PMAs ONLY work with the light, 0W-xx group 3/3+es?

My thinking (and yes it could VERY WELL be WRONG!) is that the less VIIs one needs to add in order to get the same (or even a greater) VI, the better. EVEN the supposedly excellent, shear-proof(??), PMA varieties.
Just more room in the mix for anti-wear, friction reducing, and TBN-boosting add packs (not to mention more PAO/POE/etc. basestock), I would think.

 

[DanMiller]

I am supprised that Grp III+ are higher than PAO I thought PAO's had the edge. I have read there are new PAOs that have a much higher VI than 145, I will have to look for the links. I believe
Mobil was one of the companies and Chevron ? I will update if I can find them.

Update: Mobils new PAO http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Chem-E...datasheets.aspx

 

[DanMiller]

I would agree with your comments but I am not an expert, an one else care to comment ?

 

[DanMiller]

This is a link to an Eneos 0W20 with 10,000+ miles on the oil
I calculated the VI and it is 113, so my concern is that after a while your VI will drop as the additives shear that is why I think it is important to start with a base oil that has a high VI. It would be interesting to see a long drain UOA for Syngard to see how the VI holds up over time.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2757797&Searchpage=1&Main=182612&Words=0W-20+%2BToyota+UOA+&Search=true#Post2757797

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Undoubtedly SynGard is using one of these advanced very high VI PMA polymers to acheive their very high final VI's with just GP III base oils.


Which begs the question;

Do the boutique oils which start with a high percentage of group 4/5 basestocks have to use VERY much less of even these supposedly GREAT PMA VIIs to achieve the same VI levels as the group 3/3+ basestocked oils??

No current boutique oils that I know of have broken into the 200+ VI area. RL is close with their 0W-40 (VI 197) but they are starting with a natural VI of at least 166 before the addition polymer viscosity modifiers. I'm sure they are likely using the olefin copolymers (OCP) that most use.
Besides the very high VI PMA polymers have a low molecular weight so they are most effective in working with very light base oils to formulate 200+ VI 20wt and light 30wt oils.
As you can see with the heavy SynGard 10W-30 (HTHSV 3.3cP) the VI is "only" 198.
The Sustina 0W-20 has a VI of 229 but their 0W-50 has a VI IIRC of "only" 206 and I think that oil needs to use a naturally higher VI PAO base to acheive that. As a result the 0W-50 is a couple of bucks more per quart over their 0W-20 I believe.


OK, let me ask this another way;

GIVEN that there are no group 4/5 boutique oils with the stratospheric VIs of the PMA VII-laden group 3s/3+es, but IF one of those high end companies wanted to make an 0W-20/30 oil with a 225+ VI number, would they have to add LESS OF THE PMA VIIs than the group 3/3+ oils do to achieve this end, or do the PMAs ONLY work with the light, 0W-xx group 3/3+es?

My thinking (and yes it could VERY WELL be WRONG!) is that the less VIIs one needs to add in order to get the same (or even a greater) VI, the better. EVEN the supposedly excellent, shear-proof(??), PMA varieties.
Just more room in the mix for anti-wear, friction reducing, and TBN-boosting add packs (not to mention more PAO/POE/etc. basestock), I would think.

No argument. The higher the natural base oil VI the higher the VI of the finished oil for a given amount of VMs used. But keep in mind there are limiting factors such as the VI of the polymer VMs used.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: DanMiller
This is a link to an Eneos 0W20 with 10,000+ miles on the oil
I calculated the VI and it is 113, so my concern is that after a while your VI will drop as the additives shear that is why I think it is important to start with a base oil that has a high VI. It would be interesting to see a long drain UOA for Syngard to see how the VI holds up over time.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2757797&Searchpage=1&Main=182612&Words=0W-20+%2BToyota+UOA+&Search=true#Post2757797

I wasn't able to find that Eneos 0W-20 UOA but I suspect you have calculated the used VI incorrectly.
The following is a 10,407 mile UOA of the Sustina 0W-20 and it suffered zero oil shear:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2741091#Post2741091
The used KV100 was 7.61cSt and the VOA also posted of the same oil had a KV100 of 7.60cSt. In my book you can't get better results than that. Now for the record KV40 tests weren't done so we don't know if they were unaffected but with no shear at 100C you can pretty much conclude that the VI has been unaffected.
Originally Posted By: DanMiller
I am supprised that Grp III+ are higher than PAO I thought PAO's had the edge. I have read there are new PAOs that have a much higher VI than 145, I will have to look for the links. I believe
Mobil was one of the companies and Chevron ? I will update if I can find them.

Update: Mobils new PAO http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Chem-E...datasheets.aspx

Yes very thick PAOs intended for use in gearlubes and synthetic greases can have higher VIs but not the light PAOs that are used to formulate motor oils.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: DanMiller
I calculated the VI and it is 113, so my concern is that after a while your VI will drop as the additives shear that is why I think it is important to start with a base oil that has a high VI.


^^^If this is true, and what is actually happening, then maybe a super high starting/static/VOA VI derived from ANY VIIs (no matter how phenomenal) is NOT as important as a decent VI level due to a great, naturally fairly high VI basestock (regardless of how much, nor how great/type of the VIIs added to it)?
In other words; will a GREAT, ALL group 4 and 5 mix basestock oil, with a naturally higher VI sustain it's decent VI longer than a group 3/3+ basestocked oil with a lower natural VI, but much added (even PMA) VIIs?

Do VIIs actually deplete (due to shearing) over the course of an OCI (especially a LONG DRAIN OCI), the same way TBN boosters/add packs do, lowering the TBN to starting TBN which lasts longer than some of the sky-high ones???

 

[CATERHAM]

First it's not true that ENEOS 0W-20 sheared so much that it's VI dropped to below the level of the base oils used. Even the cheapest 5W-20 dino on the market won't shear that much.

VMs are not depleted over time and use like TBN.
Any shearing that does occur usually happens soon after the oil has been put into service and then stabilizes.

It is indeed old school thinking to snub viscosity modified oils in favour of VII free oils. If you want the advantage of a high VI oil you simply have no choice but to use VMs.
Even the most advanced race oils used today use VMs and the most advanced VMs used to day are very shear stable.

As I've already mentioned, the highest VI oil on the market today, Sustina 0W-20 (229 VI), did not shear at all in over 10,000 miles. Using an even higher VI ester base oil wouldn't improve upon that.