Delo 400 15W16 home brew SM/GF-5?

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

userfriendly

Joined
Jun 3, 2003
Messages
4,435
Location
BC, Canada
Delo 10W
40C 45
100C 7.0
HTHS 2.5
Flash 226C
SA .95
TBN 6.3
Phos .069
Zink .076

Delo SAE 20
40C 61
100C 8.5
HTHS 2.7
Flash 236C

50/50
40C 52.3
100C 7.7
HTHS 2.6
Flash 231C

Both additive packages are identical
and represent a recent formula change.
 
As one would expect when mixing straight grades, VI is 112. I think to be considered a multigrade, VI has to be above 120. It still has the HTHS of a 20 grade. I think its just a borderline straight 20 grade. Unknown if it would pass cold flow tests to get a W-rating.
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
As one would expect when mixing straight grades, VI is 112. I think to be considered a multigrade, VI has to be above 120. It still has the HTHS of a 20 grade. I think its just a borderline straight 20 grade. Unknown if it would pass cold flow tests to get a W-rating.


Checked the 2013 J300 standard, and VI isn't a part of being a multigrade. Straight weights (no polymeric VIIs) can be rated either as a straight or multigrade.

e.g. PetroCanada's SAE20 posts pumpabilityies that would make it a 15W20, but they don't confuse things.

I think the 2.5 HTHS for the 10W is a bit high, but I get what the OP is doing here as a mental exercise.
 
The 2.5 HTHS is a typo. I may have used 2.4 for the calculation
to keep the total at 2.6>.
Because of Chevron's high SAPS in SAE 30 and SAE 40, I opted to use
Petro-Can's Duron for the 15W30 home brew.

To arrive at either 5W16 or 10W16, substitute 0W20 or 5W20,
which may or may not contain VII.
I'm not assuming the W number to be correct in home brews.
The first to go is cold performance, followed by NOACK when
trying to re-invent the wheel mixing and matching.

We might as well start looking at SAE 16 numbers.

The low saps in a mono-grade Delo 400 is interesting
to say the least.
 
The PDS specifically calls out that the Delo 400 Monograde is NOT recommended for DDC two strokes.
For that, you want Delo 100 SAE 40.
 
Last edited:
Well, then the puzzle remains, why such an "environmentally lean" oil in an old monograde?
wink.gif
 
Garak, as it's been explained to me, there's only so many unicorns that you can stuff into a bottle before it's automatically a "0W" even if you didn't want that rating.

Although I DO agree with that proponent that the OEMs are chasing lower KV40 for economy reasons (Conversely they are having artificially high KV100s for their HTHS which doesn't make the greatest sense).

Some of the straight weights COULD be labelled 10W16 under the new J300...I doubt that they will, given that it's like to lead to confusion.
 
I'm finding a non-linear relationship between engine oils that have identical KV100 numbers, but different HTHS.
The viscosity index scale does not take this into account.
If HTHS is the last word on minimum engine protection, and failure
ocures at the point of highest wear,
then HTHS is the first and cold performance the last specification of a lubricant we should concern ourselves with.
Why chase a lower "W" number than needed for local ambient than required
if high temperature performance is compromised as a result?
Why believe the HTHS number attached to a lubricant if it is reduced by temporary shear when needed the most?
Personally I'm not adverse to experimenting with the SAE 16 grade,
as long as it is home brewed from mono-grade engine oils that advertise a high flash point,
pre-emission additive package and proceed from there.

I may blend Petro-Can's Produro SAE 10 and 30 together to achieve HTHS of (With the understanding that Caterpillar TO-4 lubricants
when used as an engine oil carry no guarantees)
If an engine does not consume oil, would high saps still potentially harm emission equipment?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The SAPS restrictions are included in the specs by car manufacturers who want "1qt/1000 miles" to be considered "normal" oil consumption for the purposes of warranty, while keeping the emissions system longevity compliant...lower consumption, less need to control SAPS (see 40 grades...much less strict on SAPS).

NOACK is the basic predictor/test for phosphorous transport, and I'd imagine that an actual 7 or 8 cst oil rather than a 4cst oil VIIed up to viscosity is going to be sound in that regard.
 
Originally Posted By: used_0il
I'm finding a non-linear relationship between engine oils that have identical KV100 numbers, but different HTHS.
The viscosity index scale does not take this into account.


Missed that bit.

A Harman's shear calculator is a really handy thing to mess with.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3552113/Re:_Viscosity_spread_&#Post3552113

Straights (naturally) get close to 1.

CATERHAM has stated that there's a high shear rate viscosity index, that responds to VII the same as the KV does. I can't agree, as the high shear "second Newtonian" period under high shear rates is when the polymers line up to vastly reduced effect (KV versus HTHS).

Haven't been presented with, nor found any proof, nor opposition papers, so am keeping an open mind.

However, I HAVE used the Walmart Supertech PDS, which has a High shear rate 100C... here KV100 is 11.2, HTHS 100 7.26, HTHS 150 3.17

With Widman's operational viscosity calculator, using the HTHS 100 and 150 viscosities to "calculate" an HTHS 40 of 45.11 (KV40 64.33).

Gives a "High Shear" Viscosity Index of 123 (versus the Kinematic 165 of the finished oil) which while being an estimation off a calculation would support my belief that the VII doesn't modify the high shear Viscosity Index...123 is pretty darned close to what the "synthetic" basestocks would bring to the table in the first place.

Your "high shear" viscosity index in your blend could be comparable to TGMO...maybe.
 
I'm bending the rules a little using two mono-grades
and playing close to HTHS 2.6 which is SAE 20 minimum.

Playing it safe also by using a CD high saps GL-3 lubricant.

There is grade overlap with SAE 20 and SAE 16.

How low can I go?
When lead starts showing up in the uoa's
then back up a grain or two?
The only two vehicles in my care and that specify 5W20,
are two 2013 Toyota Matrix that I bought for my "kids in their 30's".
Both cars are driven 3,000-4,000 Km per month.
Matrix-Pestrix went 18,500 km on 15W40 with zero oil consumption.
Amytrix went 18,200 km with 5W30 pcmo and used 1.5 liters.

Pestrix shifts at least 2,500 rpm higher than Amytrix, and insists on
225/45/18 tires on 8" wide wheels.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Garak, as it's been explained to me, there's only so many unicorns that you can stuff into a bottle before it's automatically a "0W" even if you didn't want that rating.

That certainly does make sense. I've also hypothesized before that just because an oil lists "older" specs doesn't mean that it doesn't take advantage of modern lubricant chemistry.
 
Your right Garak.
I'm sure when oil companies blend lubricants with obsolete
specifications, they don't use an additive packaged stashed
away in the basement for those applications.

The new Delo 400 single grades with the low saps has raised
my curiosity.
My concoction using a CD type additive package would only prove
what we already know.
An emission equipment friendly 15W16, or 2.6>/15W as Shannow likes
to express the grade, blended from mono-grade engine oils would
far more applicable.
TBN levels for gasoline PCMOs hit a low point and look to have
rebounded a little in the last year.
Perhaps Diesel engines burning ULSD are less demanding on TBN levels
than gasoline engines burning ethanol blends.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
The best XW20 is a mono-grade (!)
2
Replies
27
Views
7K
userfriendly
Back
Top