M1 AFE 0w-30?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Neither will pretending.

Got any reference documents on that, or just "the word"?

Search is your friend,you do know how to do that right?
smirk2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
It's ACEA A1, not A5 like synth oils should be.

It's also thicker than PP 5w-30 at ALL temps that can be demonstrated.




It will also be lighter at some point below freezing since it is a 0W oil.


I bet it takes a very very cold temperature before M1 0W30 is lighter than PP 5W30.
 
I don't think so, in fact upon further reflection I think the AFE will have a lower operational viscosity at all temps.
I posit that we know it's lighter at 100C because of it's lower HTHS vis spec' dispite it's higher 100C k'vis spec.
But both oils has the same VI of 169, consiquently the same 100C k'vis vs HTHS vis relationship should apply at temps' at least down to 0C. At temps below 0C the presumably advanced PAO chemistry of the AFE will begin to show it's cold flow advantages.
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
I don't think so, in fact upon further reflection I think the AFE will have a lower operational viscosity at all temps.
I posit that we know it's lighter at 100C because of it's lower HTHS vis spec' dispite it's higher 100C k'vis spec.


Caterham you are a better man than I re all things oils as you are able to incorporate the HTHS stat along with the traditional 40C and 100C visc #s to make the very interesting assertion that M1 0W30 AFE is lighter than PP 5W30 at all temps. This is of course not supported by Widmans viscosity charts/graphs that we so often have made reference to in the past. [censored] this HTHS #
56.gif
 
I've used this oil the past couple of winters in the '99 Accord, and will use it again this winter.
Seems pretty decent, and the M1 Os are generally thought to be mostly Grp IV/V basestock oils, although only XOM knows for sure, and they aren't posting here.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
the M1 Os are generally thought to be mostly Grp IV/V basestock oils, although only XOM knows for sure,


So we are confident that M1 0W30 is a significantly different formulation than the ubiquitous M1 5W30? I guess most noticeably it having different basestocks?
 
Widman's viscosity graphs are of course 100% kinematically based and therefore prone to inaccuracy when comparing oils of markedly different base oil chemistry and VII levels.

Keep in mind it is still just an extrapolation based on two set points and has always been a problem when you get much below freezing. Now if we could figure something out between the HTHS vis at 150C in cP and MRV at -35C in cP or CCS at -40C in cP, now we would really have something.
 
Audi Junkie, what you don't understand is that the kinematic meathod of measuring viscosity is flawed and therefor inaccurate.
The much more accurate HTHS viscosity measure takes precident over the K'vis 100C spec' when the k'vis spec's differ.

Read the following thread and it might help, in particular the link the was referenced:


http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1858023&page=1

Since we're talking about M1 I'll give you one example.
AFE 0W-30 has a HTHS vis of 2.99 cP and a 100C k'vis of 11.0 cSt
M1 10W-30 has a HTHS vis of 3.14 cP and a 100C k'vis of 10.0 cSt

Which of the two oils is the more robust with the higher operational viscosity in an engine at temps of 100C and even lower. The answer is of course the 10W-30. Anyone with an oil pressure gauge in their car will know that since the oil pressure will be noticeable higher with the 10W-30.

To put it succinctly, the HTHS vis spec' trumps the 100C vis spec'.
 
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
It's pretty easy stuff people...


So you are saying that PP 5w30 is thinner at all temps than M1 0w30? It would be interesting to see the viscosity curves under 40C. Mobil 1 5w30 is 11cSt at 40C so it would be my assumption that under 40C is where a 0w30 oil would start to divert from a 5w30. We have to see the real curves not the estimates that the wiseman site generates.
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Widman's viscosity graphs are of course 100% kinematically based and therefore prone to inaccuracy when comparing oils of markedly different base oil chemistry and VII levels.

Keep in mind it is still just an extrapolation based on two set points and has always been a problem when you get much below freezing. Now if we could figure something out between the HTHS vis at 150C in cP and MRV at -35C in cP or CCS at -40C in cP, now we would really have something.



You know that CCS and MRV are the least accurately reported specs there are, as many mfgs, like Castrol, simply list the spec minimum and other mfgs don't list any data at all.

Lacking a ~theoretically~ more accurate way to measure cold visc, I'll base my analysis on the crude extrapolation method. Seeing how most base oils and add packs are similar anyway, FOR COMPARATIVE PURPOSES, the visc calc is reliable. That is, it may not deliver a singly accurate number for any given oil, but it can easily project and compare a few products.

Anyone want to bet against PP 5w-30 being thinner than M1 0w-30 from 0c to 0f?

I didn't think so.
 
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Seeing how most base oils and add packs are similar anyway, FOR COMPARATIVE PURPOSES, the visc calc is reliable. That is, it may not deliver a singly accurate number for any given oil, but it can easily project and compare a few products.


Well that is your assumption that they are similar. And you are basing your argument on the premise that your assumptions are correct. Kind of hard to argue with that sort of circular reasoning.
 
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Widman's viscosity graphs are of course 100% kinematically based and therefore prone to inaccuracy when comparing oils of markedly different base oil chemistry and VII levels.

Keep in mind it is still just an extrapolation based on two set points and has always been a problem when you get much below freezing. Now if we could figure something out between the HTHS vis at 150C in cP and MRV at -35C in cP or CCS at -40C in cP, now we would really have something.



You know that CCS and MRV are the least accurately reported specs there are, as many mfgs, like Castrol, simply list the spec minimum and other mfgs don't list any data at all.

Lacking a ~theoretically~ more accurate way to measure cold visc, I'll base my analysis on the crude extrapolation method. Seeing how most base oils and add packs are similar anyway, FOR COMPARATIVE PURPOSES, the visc calc is reliable. That is, it may not deliver a singly accurate number for any given oil, but it can easily project and compare a few products.

Anyone want to bet against PP 5w-30 being thinner than M1 0w-30 from 0c to 0f?

I didn't think so.


Much like the HTHS vis trumps the 100C k'vis spec', the MRV and CCS spec's are much more useful than PP.

Between 0C and 0F(-18C) I'd put my money on AFE being thinner at 0F although I think it's a rather pedantic discussion, as I don't think there's much between these two oils.
About the only practical way of knowing would be to test in a vehicle with an oil pressure gauge and an oil pump that doesn't go into by-pass at those cold temps'.
 
Easy:

At 0f

Pennzoil 5w-30 1858cSt

Mobil 0w-30 2144cSt

Mobil 1 is thicker at +100c and +40c, but you're surprised it's thicker at 0f?


I like how "theories" of "inaccuracy" prevents some people from accepting valid data as fact. "oh, it's inaccurate", so I guess that means the results are REVERSED?

Bzzt. What kind of science if that?
 
Even Richard Widman would not agree with you on how you're using his graph.

What you don't understand or won't accept is that kinematic viscosity correlates poorly with the operating viscosity in an engine.
When comparing oils with different base oil chemistry and VII levels y6ou can be off by the equivalent of a full SAE grade at 100C and undoubtedly more at lower temps. You obviously didn't read or didn't comprehend the Spearot paper I referenced previously.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Fu-99Mc8G0IC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=HTHS+%2B+friction&source=bl&ots=oczChFl7bF&sig=N17_3mFPKJfJJLrppNmYedmkyqg&hl=en&ei=KzGlS4CfF8eUtgeil-3UDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
 
Below is an actual conversation between myself and Widman, not paid actors.

Me: How accurate is your visco calculator from -20C to 100C?

Widman: With most oils it should be accurate until you factor pour point modifiers

Me: Hm OK, how would a PP modifier affect the visco calculator results?

Widman: It flattens out the expected results at low temperatures.
 
Duh. Nicely coached. All that conversation references is "accuracy" of the calc not "COMPARISON" of two oils by it. Hello, are we on the same page? I'm not trying to produce an exact "measurement" by extrapolating, rather to COMPARE TWO OILS. See the difference?

The question actually is, can the visc calculator predict which of 2 oils, (exotic or not) is thicker or thinner at freezing by the method of extrapolation? I say it can and does.

Thankfully, for the sake of this discussion, the SAE standard unit is in fact kinematic viscosity. To understand correctly, you say the oil companies own published +100c spec is "off by as much as (+/-) full grade"? It would be interesting to see some documentation on that.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
kinematic viscosity correlates poorly with the operating viscosity in an engine


Too bad again, we're talking about cold static oil in a pan, with cSt doing a fine job of modeling it....not HT/HS that you keep bouncing back to. CCS and MRV? I've seen only a few PDS with it that appear complete and accurate. Worth collecting a few for comparison to the graphic calculator. I suspect a strong correlation when genuine CCS is compared to the calc results.

That is (brace yourself), the oil with a lower projected cSt visc *may actually have* a lower tested CCS visc as well!!!

Call it common sense.
 
We are as confident as we can be based upon the lack of any real information from XOM.
Reading the tea leaves has led many folks who know more than I (two of whom are having a peeing contest in this thread) to conclude that the Os have more Grp4/5 than either the 5W or the 10W.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top