Gibbs 5W-40 TD40 vs M1 0W-40 Lubrizol shear test

[CATERHAM]

Thanks to new member 67King for the following:
http://www.lnengineering.com/joegibbsracingoils.html

As a disclaimer it should be noted that Lubrizol formulates the Joe Gibbs Driven motor oils.

This shear test is obviously tougher than anything one could subject an oil to in an actual engine that I know of. I've never seen M1 0W-40 shear down to a 20wt but that's what it did in this test.
What impressed me, was how much the VI of both oils rose as they sheared; to 224 for M1!
That is the only thing that concerns me with high VI oils; namely, loss of VI in service.
Viscosity loss happens for a number of reason, fuel dilution, high oil temp's and oil shear but if you have an oil pressure gauge it's very easy to monitor and thicken up the oil if necessary by adding something heavier. But loss of VI you can do nothing about short of dumping the oil.

The other interesting aspect of this test was the loss of kinematic viscosity vs HTHSV.
For M1 the HTHS viscosity loss was 44% less than the KV100 loss and 34% less for the Gibbs oil. This makes sense since M1 is formulated with more polymer VIIs.

Some may think this is strike against M1 but I don't see it that way.
We know from the dozens of UOAs of M1 0W-40 that it doesn't shear anywhere near that much in actual service, and I consider it still to be the benchmark 0W/5W-40 from which all others are compared.

 

[supercity]

Which formulation of M1 0w40 is it?

 

[zloveraz]

I know it's a little off topic but don't think for a second any of this JGR oil is actually used in Nascar, this is just a side business to help pay for the investment JGR has made in oil formulations for his racing team.

Here is a great article in the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123932274269507173.html.html

 

[buster]

http://www.falex.com/pdf/FalexFourBallEP.pdf

Quote:
much in actual service


In service is huge. That's as real as it gets.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: supercity
Which formulation of M1 0w40 is it?

D
Originally Posted By: supercity
Which formulation of M1 0w40 is it?

I don't know.
The test sample had a KV100 of 13.88cSt which higher than the 13.5cSt of the SN oil from the PDS or the 13.40cSt from the following VOA:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2365762#Post2365762

So it could be the prior SM version that did have a higher KV value and was known to be more shear prone.

But as Buster has alluded, the KRL shear test is done with Four Ball EP test equipment. It is a bench test, and while interesting is not a substitute for how much shear actually occurs in service.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
What impressed me, was how much the VI of both oils rose as they sheared; to 224 for M1!


I think this is an artifact of the VI calculation and point spreads between the end points of the 100C verse 40C.

Notice for JG:
KV point spread for Initial = 63.78; VI = 172
KV point spread for EOT = 47.7; VI = 191

For M1
KV point spread for Initial = 62.8; VI = 188
KV point spread for EOT = 26; VI = 224


Use Widmans calculator and reduce the viscosity values and point spreads:

http://www.widman.biz/English/Calculators/VI.html

 

[CATERHAM]

Yes that is the reason, but the question is why?

Our good BITOG friend, Tom NJ, posited that the extreme shearing test may also be shearing some aromatic compounds converting then into high VI branched linear molecules; hence the higher VI of the sheared oils.

I like that possible explanation. It would appear that the KRL shearing test is too aggressive and doesn't appear to replicate what actually happens in an operating engine even under the most shear inducing conditions.

 

[dennishiip]

Flat 6 Innovations, LN Engineering,and Joe Gibbs Oil together formulated this oil(DT40) specifically for the flat 6 water cooled Porsche engines that produce excessive heat and are harder on oils with shorter oil life than other modern engines. Flat 6 Innovations and LN Engineering are Porsche engine specialists.

 

[Garak]

Perhaps, then, they should seek formal approval, right?

 

[jrustles]

Interesting thread.
Can't imagine what the temporary shear is like, seeing that permanent shear.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

Our good BITOG friend, Tom NJ, posited that the extreme shearing test may also be shearing some aromatic compounds converting then into high VI branched linear molecules; hence the higher VI of the sheared oils.



That is wild! Essentially it's like creating synthetic oil, in service!

 

[CATERHAM]

We know the viscosity after temporary shear. It's called HTHSV.

 

[A_Harman]

The more I read about Driven motor oils, the more I like them. Joe Gibbs seems to have put together a group of people who understand engine lubrication and has enough clout to bring new technologies into his niche market of motor oils.

 

[buster]

The KRL test (CEC L45-A-99) is used mostly for gear and hydrolic fluids, not oil.

http://www.mobilindustrial.com/IND/English/Files/tt-hydraulic-fluid-shear-stability.pdf


An experienced mechanical engineer pointed out to me that this test is not really relevant to engine oils. I'm not surprised actually.

 

[A_Harman]

Is the L45 test more relevant to hydraulic oils because of the higher operating pressures involved?

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
We know the viscosity after temporary shear. It's called HTHSV.


lol yes yes you're right, but it's @150C only.
I'm just saying, it's all in the spread man, it never comes for free.
This marketing piece test results are telling about the base needed for the M1 to achieve 0w status. Doubt its anything we all didn't suspect. That M1 sheared two grades out once most of the VM molecules were obliterated, and that's with rather advanced VII. Operating under the impression that the base oil is what provides the lubricating strength of the motor oil and not the VII, it raises concern regarding the wear protection one can expect at HTHS 180C-200C when it mosies on over to the rings, pin and under the crown & through the drain holes- the hottest places that oil will ever see, and the least place people ever see. It may be/seem fine but my concerns is latent problems like increased wear or deposit buildup could be more likely vs a straighter oil. If we graphed the HTHS viscosity of a wide-spread 0w40 vs a shear stable straight Xw40, between say 150C and 200C, what would it look like? Surely the rate of HTHS viscosity breakdown cannot be congruent, and I hypothesize the straight 40's graph would be more linear.

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Is the L45 test more relevant to hydraulic oils because of the higher operating pressures involved?


hydraulic pump shearing

 

[buster]

It seems the boutique oil companies often resort to using misleading tests to justify claims.

Royal Purple - Timken
Amsoil - 4-ball wear
JG - KRL

It's part of their marketing strategy. Redline stopped using the 4-ball wear test as they even acknowledged it doesn't mean much.

What does that tell you?

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
The more I read about Driven motor oils, the more I like them. Joe Gibbs seems to have put together a group of people who understand engine lubrication and has enough clout to bring new technologies into his niche market of motor oils.

Yes they make good oils, it's their advertising that one must take with a grain of salt; they exaggerate their advantages but that's marketing for you.

Do I still prefer M1 0W-40 to DT40? Yes and make that a big yes if you consider the price difference.
What does DT40 offer? More ZDDP if you need it.
And yes it is more shear stable but that would only be an advantage in mostly racing type applications if you can't maintain a certain minimum desired operational viscosity at very high oil temp's, in which case one can thicken up the oil with some M1 5W-50 (hard to get in the US) or even some M1 15W-50 (easy to get).

Extreme shear stability is an overrated attribute of an oil, particularly if it comes at the expense of an oil's VI. It's more a selling feature of boutique oil formulators that like to over emphasis that their oils are not formulated with polymer VIs.

 

[dparm]

Originally Posted By: buster
It seems the boutique oil companies often resort to using misleading tests to justify claims.

Royal Purple - Timken
Amsoil - 4-ball wear
JG - KRL

It's part of their marketing strategy. Redline stopped using the 4-ball wear test as they even acknowledged it doesn't mean much.

What does that tell you?



Curiously I don't see companies like Motul, Renewable Lube, Torco, and Maxima using any of those.

 

[buster]

True, not all of them do.