Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
I've mentioned recently that the API allows up to a 30% base oil interchange with GP III or PAO without the need for retesting.
As always, it's worth checking your statements of "facts"...
APPENDIX E—API BASE OIL INTERCHANGEABILI...SEL ENGINE OILS note "base oil "interchange", and not "fully finished lubricants testing" guidelines.
Anyway, what does it say ? (and I'll limit it to your III IV case)
Table 3E - sequence III testing
Code:
Original Basestock Replacement Basestock Testing Requirement
GrIII GrIII required (*)
GrIII GrIV not required
GrIV GrIII not required
GrIV GrIV not required if chemically and physically the same as the original.
(*) isn't that one interesting ???
Sequence IVA - you know the one, it's the warmup wear one.
Code:
Original Basestock Replacement Basestock Testing Requirement
GrIII GrIII required if blend KV100< original
GrIII GrIV required if blend KV100< original
GrIV GrIII not required
GrIV GrIV not required if chemically and physically the same as the original.
Interesting again on a couple of fronts, the GrIII with GrIII issues, and that you generally only have to redo the Sequence IVA (cold start/warm-up wear test remember) if the KV100 is less than the original...i.e. "the blend" doesn't by it's nature meet Sequence IVA, even if the two constituents DO in their own right.
Sequence VE/VG - sludge and varnish
Code:
Original Basestock Replacement Basestock Testing Requirement
GrIII GrIII not required
GrIII GrIV required
GrIV GrIII required
GrIV GrIV not required if chemically and physically the same as the original.
Interesting in that your quoted 30% absolute interchangeability isn't interchangeable ... without testing ... again making promises that the Standard expressly DOESN'T ???
Sequence VIA - that's the economy test.
Code:
Original Basestock Replacement Basestock Testing Requirement
GrIII GrIII not required if CCS, HTHS, and VI are the same as the original
GrIII GrIV required
GrIV GrIII required
GrIV GrIV not required if chemically and physically the same as the original.
hmmmm...interesting yet again, where's the absolute 30% interchangeability that you have ascribed here ?
Table E26...interchange for TEOST (would have thought you all over this one)...
etc...again, making claims regarding ASTM tests that are not promised by the test regimes, and using an incorrect generalisation to promote your POV.
Quote:
E.2.3.12 Example 11
In this example, a marketer wants to add 30 percent more Group IV base stock to a licensed API SL/Energy
Conserving SAE multi-viscosity grade made with a mix of 20 percent Group IV base stock, 60 percent Group II
base stock, and 20 percent DI/VM additive treat. The new formulation contains 50 percent Group IV base stock,
30 percent Group II base stock, and 20 percent DI/VM additive treat.
According to the tables, Sequence IIIF and VIB engine testing is required when the total Group IV content is
increased to 50 percent. If the total Group IV content were increased to above 50 percent, complete engine testing
except for the Sequence VIII would be required for the new formulation.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
And finally I've noticed you've dropped the blended oils in one of your cars that was part of your signature. Now why would that be, not that you're hypocritical in the slightest.
The last one in my sig ?
The Briggs Quantum ?
That's my mower. Used 5W20 over winter, did a test with 20W60 to see the difference in measured oil temperature, ran a blend for a few weeks, and back at SAE30...what's hypocritical about that ?
