5w30 vs SAE 30. Does SAE 30 have better chemistry?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 5, 2013
Messages
131
Location
Maryland
Maryland summers are pretty hot and I feel comfortable using straight 30 oil. Though I do use 5w30 starting in fall. I was curious if SAE 30 had better chemistry than 5w30 and if it's worth using it. I know liquids have a limit on how much chemical can be dissolved in them. Since SAE 30 oil does not have VII's is that room taken up with extra detergents and anti wear additives or are those still the same? If you're wondering, I put my truck through the hoops in the summer and I've been thinking about using either SAE 30 or SAE 40 in it, since I feel that these will protect against wear better. I do offroading, and we go slow in hot summers. I generally use 15w40 in the summers since in these circumstances the engine runs hotter than when driving on the road(High RPM + slow speed).
 
Single grade oils have no place in a modern engine. If that trooper has the 3.5 those are really prone to the oiling holes on the piston sludging up which results in it burning lots of oil, I'd use a synthetic 5w30 of your preference.
 
With modern base oils, they don't have to add nearly as many VIIs as they used to. Even 0w30 oils of today probably have less VII than 10w30s of the 90s. To get a truly GOOD 30-weight oil, IMO, you're going to have to spend for a boutique oil brand (Redline, Amsoil, etc.) The 30-weights you can buy in the mass retail outlets tend to fall into one of two categories- either really cheap oil I wouldn't run in my worst enemy's car, or outdoor power equipment / heavy duty engine oils that have additive packages not really best suited for gasoline street vehicles made since the 70s.

In contrast, you can buy any number of very high quality 5w30 and 0w30 oils, either synthetic, semi-synthetic, or conventional.
 
Originally Posted By: 2000Trooper
I was curious if SAE 30 had better chemistry than 5w30 and if it's worth using it.


I think you are right. However, they are going to parse your definition of "better" for sure. I know what you mean, though. Less (or no) VI's = a "purer" oil, IMO.
 
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Originally Posted By: 2000Trooper
I was curious if SAE 30 had better chemistry than 5w30 and if it's worth using it.


I think you are right. However, they are going to parse your definition of "better" for sure. I know what you mean, though. Less (or no) VI's = a "purer" oil, IMO.


I would say as well that the multi-viscosity oils are more appropriate for modern engines.

Straight grade oils do not have better PI chemistry than the multi-viscosity oils, they just have a different mix of base oil viscosities.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Would you agree the straight wts. and the multi's have essentially the same add pack? Essentially the same TBN, ppm Na. etc?


Not always.
 
Using the correct oil for your engine is not about your comfort level, but what's best for your engine. Use the wt that's on the oil fill cap for best results.
 
Originally Posted By: snowflake
Single grade oils have no place in a modern engine.


I love arbitrarily authoritative comments like this. Yes, and children should be seen and not heard.


Originally Posted By: snowflake
you mean we can't out smart engineers?


What engineers? Even if there was one grade alone mentioned in this old Isuzu's manual (which I doubt), how do you know what the exact criteria and intentions of these unidentified engineers were? Do engineers edit owners' manuals? Do different engineers write the different manuals depending on the product's destined market? Do the different groups of engineers have coffee together before they each write their own respective manuals? I must know.

Surely, it's got nothing to do with mandates or perceived ease/cost of ownership, removing any type of grade selection discernment (guesswork) from the consumer and making it super-simple with one catch all grade that meets all of the requirements, including cold viscosity control, does it?
how could a vehicle owner/operator dare to make a grade selection based on his knowing of his own operating conditions, knowing full well he will not experience the "W" territory?! he much be so delusional and arrogant, trying to out smart .... "the engineers".

life isn't a 'garanimals' affair for many people out there- who are only entrusted by some factions (ie not nec. engineers) to match the shapes and colours. some people like to think and discern and I take personal exception to anyone who tries to imply that they have no right to, because it's not their place- or whatever.

2000trooper, if you want to use SAE30 over a mineral 5w30 in the summer, go for it! keep us posted on your nvh/economy impressions if you do! i predict smoother, quieter running with no observable change in FE
 
Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Would you agree the straight wts. and the multi's have essentially the same add pack? Essentially the same TBN, ppm Na. etc?


Not always.


The specs I see indicate the oils across a brands line (except for cst's) are essentially all the same. Maybe "not always" but "most always", for sure.
 
Originally Posted By: jrustles2000trooper
, if you want to use SAE30 over a mineral 5w30 in the summer, go for it! keep us posted on your nvh/economy impressions if you do! i predict smoother, quieter running with no observable change in FE


I have run SAE weights for the last year in my truck. Zero observable changes. Even in the winter, its starts with seemingly no hesitation or starter drag.
 
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Arn't most SAE30 a group 1 while dino 5W30 will be group 2 or 2+?


that is common, but isn't necessarily comprehensive.
for example, the sae30 will be a true newtonian SAE30 fluid@all temperatures.

the mineral 5w30 will be much lighter base blend, achieving a SAE30 kv @100C by way of vii's. when it temporarily shears in service, it can present an immediate working viscosity closer to it's base oils, unlike the straight SAE30. yes, realistically that's not a critical point of failure for consumer grade engines doing consumer grade duty- any deficiencies of the multi present themselves very slowly ie ring coking, varnish and any increase of part wear (imperceptible to the operator) caused by any immediate viscosity deficiency vs a newtonian oil.

major operating differences? well the 'terrible, horrible' group 1 straight oil will not likely temporarily or permanently shear, and will 'degrade' in typical newtonian fashion in the hths areas rather than suddenly and non-linearly like the mineral multi.

i mean, in military and industrial applications, the captains of industry must be real gamblers with their and others' livelihood, since they don't choose the lightest, widest spread stuff there is.... and choose gross caveman syrup like 15w40 and straight grades. what are they missing, by not focusing only on ccs pumpability for a summer fill?
 
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: snowflake
Single grade oils have no place in a modern engine.


I love arbitrarily authoritative comments like this. Yes, and children should be seen and not heard.
vehicle I'm all ears.
Originally Posted By: snowflake
you mean we can't out smart engineers?


What engineers? Even if there was one grade alone mentioned in this old Isuzu's manual (which I doubt), how do you know what the exact criteria and intentions of these unidentified engineers were? Do engineers edit owners' manuals? Do different engineers write the different manuals depending on the product's destined market? Do the different groups of engineers have coffee together before they each write their own respective manuals? I must know.

Like the one you just made.
If you can show me how a straight 30 protects an engine better for a daily driven passenger
Surely, it's got nothing to do with mandates or perceived ease/cost of ownership, removing any type of grade selection discernment (guesswork) from the consumer and making it super-simple with one catch all grade that meets all of the requirements, including cold viscosity control, does it?
how could a vehicle owner/operator dare to make a grade selection based on his knowing of his own operating conditions, knowing full well he will not experience the "W" territory?! he much be so delusional and arrogant, trying to out smart .... "the engineers".

life isn't a 'garanimals' affair for many people out there- who are only entrusted by some factions (ie not nec. engineers) to match the shapes and colours. some people like to think and discern and I take personal exception to anyone who tries to imply that they have no right to, because it's not their place- or whatever.

2000trooper, if you want to use SAE30 over a mineral 5w30 in the summer, go for it! keep us posted on your nvh/economy impressions if you do! i predict smoother, quieter running with no observable change in FE


Considering I've owned about 6 different isuzu's and own the Isuzu shop manuals for every engine in between 1987-2000 I can tell you what isuzu recommended, for the old ones back in the 80's they recommended a 10w30, after about 95 they switched to 5w30 "no other oil is needed" They also back speced to 5w30 for all the older stuff around the same time too.


You sound an awful lot like the people who say 5w20 won't work in Ford modulars because its not thick enough when Ford punishes the engines in extreme heat on just that, 5w20, and determined that it is adequate.

If you really want to run a straight 30 weight, go right ahead, I really don't care, its your vehicle. But it is not going to provide superior protection over a 5w30, and still won't provide superior flow at cranking.

Do you really think a company would make a suggestion on a lubricant that wasn't adequate? They have (had) in this case to warranty it.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: snowflake

If you can show me how a straight 30 protects an engine better for a daily driven passenger


the criterion in the case of your question, is "protect", presumably the best protection.

Quote:

Do you really think a company would make a suggestion on a lubricant that wasn't adequate? They have (had) in this case to warranty it.


see how quickly it turns into an issue of adequacy?
smile.gif
we're not arguing that to achieve a suitable cold pump rating will yield less than adequate viscosity or deposit protection, it clearly is adequate- but not necessarily 'the best'.


Quote:

If you really want to run a straight 30 weight, go right ahead, I really don't care, its your vehicle. But it is not going to provide superior protection over a 5w30, and still won't provide superior flow at cranking.

Do you really think a company would make a suggestion on a lubricant that wasn't adequate? They have (had) in this case to warranty it.


I haven't run SAE30 in about a decade, but certainly would, particularly in an aftermarket turbo engine- or any engine in a warm/hot climate, really. Although a minimally vm'ed synthetic 10w30 (like a sopus gtl 10w30) would be my premier choice. you bet if i had a DI engine, it'd be something like that, barring frigid temperatures.


Quote:

You sound an awful lot like the people who say 5w20 won't work in Ford modulars because its not thick enough when Ford punishes the engines in extreme heat on just that, 5w20, and determined that it is adequate.


first, 5w20 is perfectly fine for modulars. 'punishing' a low power density engine isn't really punishment in my opinion, and 5w20 mineral oils are among the "straightest" of the multi-vis oils, akin to 10w30 straightness!.
wink.gif
modulars were designed for longevity, have you seen the size of a modular sohc camshaft base circle? it's huge. now how about a high power density ford v8 like the boss or even the 5.0gt without the oil squirters? 5w50 is a pretty big jump from 5w20, is it not?
wink.gif


and yes, i know what i sound like. i know the kind of ideologies that some people immediately associate simply because i'm not bad talking straight grades and worshipping vi, but that's my prerogative to not be blinded by dogmatism, to maintain a balanced and as bias-free view on the issue, not because i balk at modern lubes. no matter how i or anyone else romanticizes of interprets a type of engine oil; their respective pros and cons will not change because of it.

for example, out of the fleet that i maintain, none currently have anything thicker than a 20grade in applications that call for 5w30, with the exception of a synthetic 40 grade in a supercharged Jaguar V8. why? with the exception the 0w20 filled, 8K redlining v6 engine, the rest are relegated to light duty in colder canadian climates.

i've been running 0w20 in an all original atmospheric engine, designed in the late80s, early90s that was manufactured in 1994 that sees 8k rpm regularly. why? because of the way it specifically was manufactured. back then, heavy-duty rolled, high frequency hardened bearing fillets and mirror finishes on forged steel crankshafts wasn't too common on standard production engines, as they are now. plateau honing and precise robotic engine assembly wasn't so popular yet. further, the bearing journal on this engine are larger in diameter and shorter in width than average, so the shear speed is higher for a given crankshaft rpm, while allowing a decent 'leakage/refresh rate'; perfect for low vis oils IMO. with the exact same crankshaft utilized in a supercharged version of the engine series, the larger than average bearings and quality finishes are kind of 'overkill' for an NA engine. also, the #6 bearing can see a higher pressure drop than the other, IMO, if the resistance to flow is too high.
i had to draw all these conclusions myself- no one is going to personally optimize my lube choices for me.

interesting note, the last straight grade i ran was Esso XD-3 20w20 SJ in a toyota 2.2, maybe 5-6 years ago. it ran great, quiet with no hit on fuel economy. no issues. it seems like forever ago, but you'd never know just because i'm not pushing the highest VI "EC" (HTHS limited) oils as the panacea or the end all and be all- those aspects already have plenty of representation here
laugh.gif
 
The oil cap doesnt specify anything. If you look in the workshop manual or the manual that comes with the car this photo illustrates what comes up.

So the question so far has not really been what does Isuzu recommend or if anyone here thinks they are smarter than the engineers. According to Isuzu all the oil weights I've been using are OK given the ambient temp. I was simply asking if flat weight oils have better chemistry than multi grade.

LhTIIJm.jpg
 
Problem would be finding a comparable straight to multigrade, as others have mentioned outside boutique suppliers.

Most of the straights that I have access to top out at SG, so would have to be a compromise back in that direction...

e.g.
http://products.lelubricants.com/item/straight-weights-sae-30/monolec-gfs-engine-oil-8420-8450-2/8430?bc=100|1250|1252|1668&forward=1#PhysicalCharacteristics-Typical

demonstrates the HTHS benefits, but "older" add pack.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top