MOTUL 300V old vs. new (estercore)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
20
Location
Austria - Vienna
Hallo everybody here.
cool.gif


I found some datasheets of the 300V series oils for racing cars (not the motorcycle 300vs)

I was surprised that the HTHS was set down in the new oils such from 4:51 to 4.1. for the 5W40.
What benefits has it?
I know that a low HTHS slightly reducing consumption but should not be the wear protection important?
Does anyone have information such as Motul practiced wear protection, I heard of boron.
 
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
Trust the formulator with this oil. It's good stuff.


What about the wear protection in the EsterCore 300v?
Motul has reduced the HTHS how they have improved wear protection?
Does anyone have more information about it?
 
Originally Posted By: riggaz
300V is a competition oil, it's done for power gain.


True, but it is one of the most 'streetable' of the pure racing oils out there, albeit not if one is worried about mfg. approvals, or very long drain intervals with it's also newly reduced starting TBNs in most weights.
wink.gif
 
Wear protection is a question of degree. As riggaz noted, 300V is a competition oil, so it's intended to give a competitive edge. And the old adage about as thick as necessary and as thin as you can get away with applies to competition as well.

If the HTHS of one of the XW40's for an application is too low, the 15W50 Competition can be blended in to get something more suitable. Google "Widman viscosity calculator" and start blending for your application (or until you are satisfied with UOA results, or teardowns or whatever your criteria is).

I noted this same "feature" with the 4T 300V oils that I UOAed, that the viscosity was near the lowest level for a specified range, and that was for the previous iteration before "ester core" called "double ester." I think the reason for this is Motul is confident 300V will not shear to a lower viscosity under abusive operating conditions.

My last UOA, which had the OCI run from May to August in Florida showed the viscosity of the 10W40 I ran was reduced @ 100°C from 12.15 cSt to 11.67 cSt. Was it a calculation error on Blackstone's part, or did the oil almost become an SAE 30? I don't know, but I was still pleased with the shifting and clutch action right up until I drained the crankcase.

In any case for next summer's fill I will blend in some 15W50 in the ester core variety, which I've already obtained, so any heat-related shearing still leaves me with about a 12.5+ cSt oil.
 
Originally Posted By: CentAmDL650
Wear protection is a question of degree. As riggaz noted, 300V is a competition oil, so it's intended to give a competitive edge. And the old adage about as thick as necessary and as thin as you can get away with applies to competition as well.

If the HTHS of one of the XW40's for an application is too low, the 15W50 Competition can be blended in to get something more suitable. Google "Widman viscosity calculator" and start blending for your application (or until you are satisfied with UOA results, or teardowns or whatever your criteria is).

I noted this same "feature" with the 4T 300V oils that I UOAed, that the viscosity was near the lowest level for a specified range, and that was for the previous iteration before "ester core" called "double ester." I think the reason for this is Motul is confident 300V will not shear to a lower viscosity under abusive operating conditions.

My last UOA, which had the OCI run from May to August in Florida showed the viscosity of the 10W40 I ran was reduced @ 100°C from 12.15 cSt to 11.67 cSt. Was it a calculation error on Blackstone's part, or did the oil almost become an SAE 30? I don't know, but I was still pleased with the shifting and clutch action right up until I drained the crankcase.

In any case for next summer's fill I will blend in some 15W50 in the ester core variety, which I've already obtained, so any heat-related shearing still leaves me with about a 12.5+ cSt oil.


Tear downs is the ONLY way to measure wear. A used oil analysis is made to see the condition of the oil.
How many times has it gotta be said. Wear cannot be determined by a used oil analysis.
The sooner that's understood the better.
 
Other than for well-funded race teams, teardowns are more work and expense than most people are willing to commit to.

So monitoring UOA trends can at least give clues to the rate at which an engine is wearing. It may not quantify that wear, but it will statistically show how it is trending.

Other than for excessive wear, the UOA should not be used as a guide for signs of impending failure in the engine. For instance an engine with a partially cracked connecting rod may still show an acceptable UOA, but may indeed fail the next time the engine runs to the redline. The crack would have likely been caught by magnafluxing or x-raying during a teardown, but just UOAing the oil might deceive one into believing everything is perfectly fine.

By the way Clevy, in other threads you have stated you have several GM LS pickups and/or SUV's with very high mileage that you believe are in fine condition with your 10k OCI and maintenance regimen. Without actually performing teardowns to observe and measure those engines, how do you really know they have not worn outside of acceptable tolerances?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top