A1/B1-A5/B5 "Low Vis" (vs) A3/B3-B4 LL01-MB 229.5
- Thread starter BritGerCarLuvr
- Start date
- Status
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
The data is provided by the oil companies themselves.
0w-30 is thinner in cold than 0w-40 by definition. Show me some oils which aren't.
Where in the SAE specification is this defined?
The data is provided by the oil companies themselves.
0w-30 is thinner in cold than 0w-40 by definition. Show me some oils which aren't.
Where in the SAE specification is this defined?
Who said anything about SAE J300?
I guess I'm wrong.
0w-20 and 0w-40 are the same in the cold....right?
I'm still waiting to hear precisely what I'm so utterly mistaken about.
This thread is a lot of hot air.
I guess I'm wrong.
0w-20 and 0w-40 are the same in the cold....right?
I'm still waiting to hear precisely what I'm so utterly mistaken about.
This thread is a lot of hot air.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
0w-20 and 0w-40 are the same in the cold....right?
0W20 and 0W40 both exceed the measurement baseline to be labeled "0W". That's all we can tell - we don't know by how much they exceeded the threshold, nor what the characteristics are at various temperatures other than the test temperature. In general the information oil companies publish is insufficient to determine anything more in-depth than that. Perhaps that's the point of the contrary posts.
0w-20 and 0w-40 are the same in the cold....right?
0W20 and 0W40 both exceed the measurement baseline to be labeled "0W". That's all we can tell - we don't know by how much they exceeded the threshold, nor what the characteristics are at various temperatures other than the test temperature. In general the information oil companies publish is insufficient to determine anything more in-depth than that. Perhaps that's the point of the contrary posts.
Last edited:
Maybe the experts can explain how/why 0w-20 and 0w-50 are the same in the cold, if that's their assertion....hard to tell.
A simple freezer test can show a lot to us amatauers.
I'll stand on the general principle of A5 being thinner than A3.
A simple freezer test can show a lot to us amatauers.
I'll stand on the general principle of A5 being thinner than A3.
Hi,
Audi Junkie - You said this:
"I guess I'm wrong."
Thank you
and;
"This thread is a lot of hot air."
Correct again - most of it from PA I suspect considering the OP's Thread has been mutilated!
Audi Junkie - You said this:
"I guess I'm wrong."
Thank you
and;
"This thread is a lot of hot air."
Correct again - most of it from PA I suspect considering the OP's Thread has been mutilated!
Oh Doug, you say so much by saying nothing.
So, I'm right that I'm wrong, you'll give me that? Wow, thanks!
What about the important part, the part that 2000 viewers are tuning in for? The part about viscosity and temperature? I say it's more like, I'm standing on firm ground. A5 in winter and A3 in summer makes perfect sense.
Just because it's not some guy in a white labcoat telling you, doesn't make it untrue. If you did you own homework instead of constantly quoting outside sources, YOU would understand. What was your last original idea anyway???
From the very beginning, in a sad pathetically childish way, some people want to make this thread about me rather than the physics and facts of the matter, for obvious reasons.
On one hand we have figures facts and graphs, on the other we have a bunch of guys all but hurt over something only they can explain.
So, I'm right that I'm wrong, you'll give me that? Wow, thanks!
What about the important part, the part that 2000 viewers are tuning in for? The part about viscosity and temperature? I say it's more like, I'm standing on firm ground. A5 in winter and A3 in summer makes perfect sense.
Just because it's not some guy in a white labcoat telling you, doesn't make it untrue. If you did you own homework instead of constantly quoting outside sources, YOU would understand. What was your last original idea anyway???
From the very beginning, in a sad pathetically childish way, some people want to make this thread about me rather than the physics and facts of the matter, for obvious reasons.
On one hand we have figures facts and graphs, on the other we have a bunch of guys all but hurt over something only they can explain.
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
the OP's Thread has been mutilated
Originally Posted By: BritGerCarLuvr
I'll keep my question simple.
If your car called for either oil "type", but preferred A5/B5, knowing that the A3 is higher HT/HS and Vis, would you run them in your car, and why?
Is there an advantage to running high HT/HS high Vis in a car that runs just fine with the A5 stuff.
Now running A5 in both Jags and A3 in the BMW and the Benz.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
I run thick in summer and thin in winter.
Yeah, I really did a number on it.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Maybe the experts can explain how/why 0w-20 and 0w-50 are the same in the cold, if that's their assertion....hard to tell.
Just explain it to me like I'm an 8th grader, I can take it.
the OP's Thread has been mutilated
Originally Posted By: BritGerCarLuvr
I'll keep my question simple.
If your car called for either oil "type", but preferred A5/B5, knowing that the A3 is higher HT/HS and Vis, would you run them in your car, and why?
Is there an advantage to running high HT/HS high Vis in a car that runs just fine with the A5 stuff.
Now running A5 in both Jags and A3 in the BMW and the Benz.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
I run thick in summer and thin in winter.
Yeah, I really did a number on it.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Maybe the experts can explain how/why 0w-20 and 0w-50 are the same in the cold, if that's their assertion....hard to tell.
Just explain it to me like I'm an 8th grader, I can take it.
Hi,
Audi Junkie - No need to resort to personal attacks!!
But misinformation is just that - misinformation!
What you do is your business - great!
"Multigrade" lubricants were developed to avoid the seasonal change requirement. Seasonal changes were easy when OCIs were 1k or 1.5k and average annual usage was low. That is not the case today usage has increased by at least a factor of 10!
When multigrades really hit the scene around the early 1950s (and in 1959 for 20W-50 - BMC Mini mandated) it was a gradual change. The US Motor Industry (incl API) drove this and by about the late 1970s the change to multigrade lubricants was about as complete as it could be
There is nothing wrong in changing lubricants according to the season - it is just not needed if the correct lubricant is chosen in the first place. And any increase in engine life if it could be measured would be minor to say the least!
I use my cars in the Tropics in temperatures ranging from freezing (-10C) to >40C and have never seen the need for seasonal changes over several decades
I do not in any way condemn those that wish to operate differently - including you!
Audi Junkie - No need to resort to personal attacks!!
But misinformation is just that - misinformation!
What you do is your business - great!
"Multigrade" lubricants were developed to avoid the seasonal change requirement. Seasonal changes were easy when OCIs were 1k or 1.5k and average annual usage was low. That is not the case today usage has increased by at least a factor of 10!
When multigrades really hit the scene around the early 1950s (and in 1959 for 20W-50 - BMC Mini mandated) it was a gradual change. The US Motor Industry (incl API) drove this and by about the late 1970s the change to multigrade lubricants was about as complete as it could be
There is nothing wrong in changing lubricants according to the season - it is just not needed if the correct lubricant is chosen in the first place. And any increase in engine life if it could be measured would be minor to say the least!
I use my cars in the Tropics in temperatures ranging from freezing (-10C) to >40C and have never seen the need for seasonal changes over several decades
I do not in any way condemn those that wish to operate differently - including you!
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
Audi Junkie - You said this;
"The requirements for a 0w-30 are lower than for a 0w-40 as far as cold visc goes."
Where are these "requirements" to back up your statement? Love to see them!
Looks like that isn't going to happen.
Hi,
Audi Junkie - You said this;
"The requirements for a 0w-30 are lower than for a 0w-40 as far as cold visc goes."
Where are these "requirements" to back up your statement? Love to see them!
Looks like that isn't going to happen.
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
There is nothing wrong in changing lubricants according to the season - it is just not needed if the correct lubricant is chosen in the first place.
Oh, I see....the "correct lubricant". What is that exactly? 5w-40 from the notoriously flawed VoA owner's manual, calling for 10k changes??? How about the other VW 502s in 0w grades....or even GC, the semi-unofficial VW 502 oil that happens to also have been a factory-fill oil?
Why not VW504 oils like is supposed to be in this engine, some "substitute" for VW 502 like M1 ESP, but wait, they are 5w-30s with low or unknown additives that won't work well with our fuels....no wait, how about an otc oil that I got FREE, that's state of the art, plenty of additives, happens to be 5w-30, proven in other turbo VAG engines....a product made for the N.A. market....like the ACEA A5 Edge 5w-30 I'm using in the first place...in winter, with a test, like I should. 5w-40 is simply too thick for my winter app, doesn't anyone get it?
Doug, you and the forum would be best served by confining your directions to the market you know best.
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Hi,
There is nothing wrong in changing lubricants according to the season - it is just not needed if the correct lubricant is chosen in the first place.
Oh, I see....the "correct lubricant". What is that exactly? 5w-40 from the notoriously flawed VoA owner's manual, calling for 10k changes??? How about the other VW 502s in 0w grades....or even GC, the semi-unofficial VW 502 oil that happens to also have been a factory-fill oil?
Why not VW504 oils like is supposed to be in this engine, some "substitute" for VW 502 like M1 ESP, but wait, they are 5w-30s with low or unknown additives that won't work well with our fuels....no wait, how about an otc oil that I got FREE, that's state of the art, plenty of additives, happens to be 5w-30, proven in other turbo VAG engines....a product made for the N.A. market....like the ACEA A5 Edge 5w-30 I'm using in the first place...in winter, with a test, like I should. 5w-40 is simply too thick for my winter app, doesn't anyone get it?
Doug, you and the forum would be best served by confining your directions to the market you know best.
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Doug Hillary said:
Hi,
Audi Junkie - You said this:
"Doug, you and the forum would be best served by confining your directions to the market you know best."
Well I try to and that is why I have 3944 Posts and you have 11228! You must know more than I do so I defer to you Sir......
Audi Junkie - You said this:
"Doug, you and the forum would be best served by confining your directions to the market you know best."
Well I try to and that is why I have 3944 Posts and you have 11228! You must know more than I do so I defer to you Sir......
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Maybe the experts can explain how/why 0w-20 and 0w-50 are the same in the cold, if that's their assertion....hard to tell.
Just explain it to me like I'm an 8th grader, I can take it.
Maybe the experts can explain how/why 0w-20 and 0w-50 are the same in the cold, if that's their assertion....hard to tell.
Just explain it to me like I'm an 8th grader, I can take it.
The criteria for winter viscosity grades for motor oil are set forth in SAE J300. J300 is therefore the only relevant source of information. Opinions, intuition, and beliefs don't really apply.
A 0W rated oil must have a viscosity of less than 6200 cP at -35C AND less than 60,000 cP at -40C AND greater than 3.8 cSt at 100C. It does not matter whether it is 0W20, 0W30, or 0W40. The scale is codified, not a law of physics (nor physical chemistry). As such it is not open to debate, though it is open to future change. It is also worth noting that the viscosity is measured by a different method at each specified temperature.
All 0W rated oils can be classified as 5W rated oils because both ratings have the same minimum rating at 100C. Since the minimum viscosity at 100C begins to scale upwards at the 10W classification, not all 0W nor 5W oils can be rated as 10W. However, some could be rated as 10W.
The following linked document may be interesting to some:
http://www.opieoils.co.uk/pdfs/viscosities.pdf
Asking AJ to prove his position on criteria for the 0W rating is like asking a driver to prove that the posted speed limit is different from the speed limit that is posted on the sign beside him. Perhaps AJ is suggesting that the actual speed limit for most drivers is lower than the posted speed limit because the sign happens to be on a very steep hill. Perhaps he is suggesting that in general, oils that are based on similar base stocks and have different viscosity grades will also have different winter ratings.
A 0W rated oil must have a viscosity of less than 6200 cP at -35C AND less than 60,000 cP at -40C AND greater than 3.8 cSt at 100C. It does not matter whether it is 0W20, 0W30, or 0W40. The scale is codified, not a law of physics (nor physical chemistry). As such it is not open to debate, though it is open to future change. It is also worth noting that the viscosity is measured by a different method at each specified temperature.
All 0W rated oils can be classified as 5W rated oils because both ratings have the same minimum rating at 100C. Since the minimum viscosity at 100C begins to scale upwards at the 10W classification, not all 0W nor 5W oils can be rated as 10W. However, some could be rated as 10W.
The following linked document may be interesting to some:
http://www.opieoils.co.uk/pdfs/viscosities.pdf
Asking AJ to prove his position on criteria for the 0W rating is like asking a driver to prove that the posted speed limit is different from the speed limit that is posted on the sign beside him. Perhaps AJ is suggesting that the actual speed limit for most drivers is lower than the posted speed limit because the sign happens to be on a very steep hill. Perhaps he is suggesting that in general, oils that are based on similar base stocks and have different viscosity grades will also have different winter ratings.
JHZR2
Staff member
Problem is that there are multiple inconsistencies.
1) Are we really serious that we are going to have PROOF of one oil being thinner than another at -20, -30, -40C, based upon only TWO points that are at 40 and 100C? We are extrapolating 60 to 80C away from TWO points that only have a 60C spread?!? While the spirit of wanting to figure out cold performance is good, the method by which it is done is suspect at best, and without some real data proving the soundness (plus typical error), the "curves" shown are totally irrelevant.
2) I have yet to see what A3/A5 have to do with cold low temperature pumpability and flow characteristics. Sure, they specify HTHS, drain longevity, deposit formation, etc., but IS there any mention in the A3/A5 spec with respect to cold flow differences? Sure, we can SPECULATE that since the A3 is a bit more robust at TEMPERATURE, that it may be a but thicker at cold conditions. But this is just speculation. And since our curves are suspect per #1, we don't have a good way to discern, unless we have run the experiments or pulled mfr data from a statistically significant number of samples to show a relative trend across basestocks.
3) Apparent flow characteristics from a freezer test may or may not be indicative of any real results. These oils with VIIs, pour point depressants, etc. may not be newtonian, and so the characteristics of viscosity under shear conditions may not always behave the same. It would be one thing if we did this in a heated/cooled rheometer, but these tests too are suspect.
4) The point that a 0w-40 will be "thicker" at the cold spec temperature than a 0w-30 is merely an artifact of the suspect curve fit processes that are not validated experimentally. Does it make physical sense based upon our limited knowledge? Sure. But is it true? Could depend upon VIIs, and how the oils use pour point depressants and whatnot.
5) Do we have any indication that the oil pressure and oil temperature under operating conditions varies that much for typical US use when the temperature is 20F versus 90F? I know that the real oil pressure gauges in my chevy indicate the same pressure under load regardless of temperatures, and the oil temperature gauges in both of my BMWs both show the same steady-state temperatures regardless of ambient. Sure, under absolute high load conditions, there is a reason for protection reasons, but under gentle use, is there a real reason to vary viscosities based upon ambient? Maybe, maybe not. Using that logic, the selection of A3/A5 may be based upon driving style rather than temperature conditions. There is a lot here that we do not know, and it IS a risk to deviate from manufacturer specifications.
There are a LOT of variables here both in lube designs and physical parameters. There is a LOT of speculation here which may or may not be correct. Posting some suspect curves as rule/law and stating that it is so, and that everyone else is wrong because they are questioning points that are totally suspect is just poor tact and a diversion tactic to take focus away from the lack of correctness in the original assumptions.
Some of the points may have validity, but unless the speculations have been experimentally validated, they are suspect. There is a LOT of suspect stuff here and we should be wary of accepting any of it without at least a bit of additional data to back it up.
1) Are we really serious that we are going to have PROOF of one oil being thinner than another at -20, -30, -40C, based upon only TWO points that are at 40 and 100C? We are extrapolating 60 to 80C away from TWO points that only have a 60C spread?!? While the spirit of wanting to figure out cold performance is good, the method by which it is done is suspect at best, and without some real data proving the soundness (plus typical error), the "curves" shown are totally irrelevant.
2) I have yet to see what A3/A5 have to do with cold low temperature pumpability and flow characteristics. Sure, they specify HTHS, drain longevity, deposit formation, etc., but IS there any mention in the A3/A5 spec with respect to cold flow differences? Sure, we can SPECULATE that since the A3 is a bit more robust at TEMPERATURE, that it may be a but thicker at cold conditions. But this is just speculation. And since our curves are suspect per #1, we don't have a good way to discern, unless we have run the experiments or pulled mfr data from a statistically significant number of samples to show a relative trend across basestocks.
3) Apparent flow characteristics from a freezer test may or may not be indicative of any real results. These oils with VIIs, pour point depressants, etc. may not be newtonian, and so the characteristics of viscosity under shear conditions may not always behave the same. It would be one thing if we did this in a heated/cooled rheometer, but these tests too are suspect.
4) The point that a 0w-40 will be "thicker" at the cold spec temperature than a 0w-30 is merely an artifact of the suspect curve fit processes that are not validated experimentally. Does it make physical sense based upon our limited knowledge? Sure. But is it true? Could depend upon VIIs, and how the oils use pour point depressants and whatnot.
5) Do we have any indication that the oil pressure and oil temperature under operating conditions varies that much for typical US use when the temperature is 20F versus 90F? I know that the real oil pressure gauges in my chevy indicate the same pressure under load regardless of temperatures, and the oil temperature gauges in both of my BMWs both show the same steady-state temperatures regardless of ambient. Sure, under absolute high load conditions, there is a reason for protection reasons, but under gentle use, is there a real reason to vary viscosities based upon ambient? Maybe, maybe not. Using that logic, the selection of A3/A5 may be based upon driving style rather than temperature conditions. There is a lot here that we do not know, and it IS a risk to deviate from manufacturer specifications.
There are a LOT of variables here both in lube designs and physical parameters. There is a LOT of speculation here which may or may not be correct. Posting some suspect curves as rule/law and stating that it is so, and that everyone else is wrong because they are questioning points that are totally suspect is just poor tact and a diversion tactic to take focus away from the lack of correctness in the original assumptions.
Some of the points may have validity, but unless the speculations have been experimentally validated, they are suspect. There is a LOT of suspect stuff here and we should be wary of accepting any of it without at least a bit of additional data to back it up.
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
Trajan said:
JHZR2
Staff member
Ive verbalized a counterpoint. Why not prove your points with data, preferably from peer-reviewed journals? Otherwise your points are worth the value of free advice, which is what was paid for it...
Let's start with this - your math is wrong and so the curves are speculative. Let's nip that one in the bud first, OK?
Let's start with this - your math is wrong and so the curves are speculative. Let's nip that one in the bud first, OK?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked