Shell Helix AF oil for ford: HX7 vs Ultra

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
17
Location
London, UK
I need to buy some ford oil for my mondeo (mk3 1.8 duratec he). Having used shell oil before I know the motor runs smoothly on it, so I looked at the options available:

there is
1. Shell Helix Ultra professional AF 5w-30
2. Shell Helix HX7 professional AF 5w-30

I understand the Lower the MRV value the better the oil is pumped at cold temperatures, and I also know that a higher Viscosity Index is better for protection and often associated with a better oil.

Can anyone hazard a guess at why the (fully synthetic) Helix Ultra AF has a higher MRV (worse) and a Lower Viscosity Index (worse) than the cheaper (semi-synthetic) HX7 AF ??

Has there been a mistake on the TDS PDF data sheets? ... it seems very strange that the cheaper semi-synthetic is outperforming the Helix Ultra synthetic on two key measures :s? Is it a better blend of oil?

Re:

HX7 AF

http://www.epc.shell.com/docs/GPCDOC_Local_TDS_United_Kingdom_Shell_Helix_HX7_Professional_AF_5W-30_(A1_B1_M2C-913A_B)_(en-GB)_TDS.pdf

Ultra AF

http://www.epc.shell.com/docs/GPCDOC_Local_TDS_United_Kingdom_Shell_Helix_Ultra_Professional_AF_5W-30_(A5_B5_M2C-913D)_(en-GB)_TDS.pdf



NB: Also using a viscosity index claculator the HX7 VI value (170) is accurate using the kinematic viscosity @ 40deg and @100deg, whereas the Ultra value (stated as 160) is calculated at 149 using it's kinematic values at 40 and 100!?

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

>> I've checked Liqui Moly, Mobil, and OTHER SHELL oils with this tool and it always delivers the correct VI value based upon the kinematic viscosities at 40 and 100 deg.

Could there be an error in their TDS pdf?

It seems strange that a premium fully synthetyic (albeit probably HC) oil would have a lower VI value and higher MRV value than a semi synthetic for the same application from the same manufacturer!

Advise/Opinions appreciated . . . ?
 
the synthetic will be oil + additives, but without (or substantially less) viscosity index improvers or pour point depressants. It'll stay in grade longer, and also contains more anti-wear additives (acea a1/b1 vs a5/b5)
 
Thanks Jet

I'm also questioning the importance of it meeting a ford spec such as M2C-913C or M2C-913D

All the ford spec really requires is an A5/B5 HTHS 2.9 and TBN greater than 10 (in the case of 913D, 8.5 for 913C)

The duratec-he engine is actually a Mazda L8 engine used in the MX-5 and Mazda 6 .... when you look at recommended oils for these A3/B4 oils are fine along with A5/B5.

I wonder if Ford have just recommended their 'standard' spec oil as it's what their dealerships use for all other fords?

Would the increase in HTHS using an A3/B4 oil really result in fuel consumption being much worse!?

What about a 0w-30 A3/B4 with a high tbn?

I only ask as I'd like a decent fully synth with high VI and there don't seem to be any like this meeting fords M2C913C or M2C913D. . .
 
high hths oils can in some cases even lead to less fuel consumption, depending on the driving conditions, as you're more likely to operate in the hydrodynamic/elastodynamic or mixed lubrication regime, than in the boundary lubrication regime which is bad for fuel consumption and wear.

I'd go with an A3/B4 myself, they're long drain oils anyway.

Search for the "Harman index" here on the site, and do some calculations with oils that interest you.

The ideal VI is probably somewhere in the 150-170 region depending on the basestock used, but then look also at a very low pour point and high flame point (suggesting high quality base stock)
 
Why do you think a high VI helps when the oil already has very good fuel economy. (Hence the 913C/D spec)

Interesting about MRV but it's largely irrelevant compared to actual performance in an engine. There has probably been a trade off between noack and low temp or a bad choice of PPD
 
Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
Why do you think a high VI helps when the oil already has very good fuel economy. (Hence the 913C/D spec)


The fuel economy is roughly related to the HTHS of an oil, not it's VI.

My understanding was that a high VI value indicated it resisted thickening at Low temperatures and thinning at High temperatures :S ?
 
Originally Posted By: Grace_Jones
Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
Why do you think a high VI helps when the oil already has very good fuel economy. (Hence the 913C/D spec)


The fuel economy is roughly related to the HTHS of an oil, not it's VI.

My understanding was that a high VI value indicated it resisted thickening at Low temperatures and thinning at High temperatures :S ?


There's a posit on BITOG that goes that:
* there's a High Shear Rate VI (naturally there is, and in a newtonian basestock, it's the VI);
* that follows the slope of the Kinematic VI (not necessarily, as IMO, and I'd like further information, as the second newtonian is "flattened" VIIs, so there's no "fluffing" with temperature change in high shear);
* and "massive" economy savings result from high VI.

I'd like more information on what the VIIs are doing at high shear and lower temperatures, because the only oils I've been able to find with (say) and HTHS100 seem to indicate that the high shear "VI" is closer to the basestock VI than the KV VI...

Hope my post makes sense.

Then you look at the likes of TGMO, which seem to have overly bolstered the KV100 for the HTHS, for the sake of VI, making pumping and frictional losses in the KV shear range more energy wasteful.
 
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
only between 0°C and 100°C, the VI can't be extrapolated beyond that.


VI is not stated at any temperature... it is an index. For a mostly Newtonian fluid you can confidently extrapolate and interpolate viscosity.
 
Originally Posted By: weasley
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
only between 0°C and 100°C, the VI can't be extrapolated beyond that.


VI is not stated at any temperature... it is an index. For a mostly Newtonian fluid you can confidently extrapolate and interpolate viscosity.


It is an index calculated from the 40C and 100C visc numbers. It doesn't correlate to actual viscosity below 0C however.
 
I contacted shell explaining how it was strange the premium oil came across worse than the semi-synthetic.

Their response;

Dear Xxxxx,


Apologies for the delay and thank you for your patience. We have been waiting for clarity from the Passenger Car Motor Oil (PCMO) Technology Team regarding the data on the current Technical Data Sheet. Please see the response provided by our second level support below:

Thank you for highlighting this. The Technology Team acknowledged the data is not correct and are putting a change request in to change the data on the Helix Ultra Professional AF 5W-30 data sheet. The values will be updated with the data points that we submitted to Ford as part of the Ford approval process. So for MRV, this will change to 17,500. Understand that this is still not lower than HX7 Professional AF 5W-30 but the difference between 17,500 and 17,300 is negligible, especially when you take into account repeatability and reproducibility. You have to keep in mind also that there will be batch to batch variations for formulations blended and also test method precisions that can lead to variations in data. The Viscosity Index will also be changed to 170 along with changes to other data points.

Best regards"




.....interesting!
 
coffee2.gif
Would this count as a "viscosity index improver" ?!?
crackmeup2.gif
 
Im left with choosing between the

1) Shell Helix ultra AF 5w-30
VI 170 (apparently)
PourPoint -45
Flash point 192

2) Liqui Moly Special Tec F 5w-30
VI 177
Pourpoint -33
Flash Point 228

3) Liqui Moly Special Tec V 0w-30
VI 180
Pourpoint -45
Flash Point 220

NB: I know The Special Tec V is for volvo, but its A5/B5 and the specs look good . . . would a 0w offer any less protection or 'slip past the rings' and burn ??

The engine has covered 90,000 miles.


I think
viscosity @ 100 should be approx 9-11
viscosity @ 40 should be approx 45-60

Any other recomendations? 5w30 or 0w30 ?
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
It is an index calculated from the 40C and 100C visc numbers. It doesn't correlate to actual viscosity below 0C however.


I know what it is and how it is calculated. It is perfectly fine to extrapolate some way above and below the 100°C and 40°C data points (contrary to what Jetronic [sort of] stated), as well as interpolating between them. The point at which the correlation strays from the reality is not defined and depends on the specific fluid in question.
 
You live in the UK. Why does fresh oil pour point and MRV concern you. It's never below -10C.

For ford they recommend Castrol Magnatec oils. Get one with 913D as this is higher performing than 913C or ACEA. A 5W-30 is the right oil for this engine.
 
Question to Grace_Jones - why do you specifically want a high VI? Why are you second-guessing the Ford recommendation? This is not a challenge, it is a curiosity as to your motives.

If it were me, I'd go for a 5W-30 A5/B5 type (ideally with the 913C spec as a minimum) and be happy. In fact when I did have a Ford (a 2006 Focus 1.6 TiVCT) that is what I did.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
For ford they recommend Castrol Magnatec oils. Get one with 913D as this is higher performing than 913C or ACEA. A 5W-30 is the right oil for this engine.


True, I guess I don't like the sound of the Castrol because their ford oil is a Castrol 'Magnatec' and not a fully synthetic like Castrol 'Edge'. They dont make a 913D or 913C 'Edge' oil.

Also reading on ford forums you read about Mk3 mondeos with the Mazda derived engines (Duratec 1.8 & 2.0) starting to burn lots of oil around this mileage. I'm assuming that they'd have unknowingly always used the oil used at ford dealerships which I believe is the Castrol. It's impossible to attach any blame to the ford spec castrol oil, but I've used shell oil before on other cars and it's always run more quietly/smoothly and never burned any.





Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
You live in the UK. Why does fresh oil pour point and MRV concern you. It's never below -10C.


I'm just trying to look for indicators to work out which is going to protect my motor best and allow it to cover 200k+ miles before it's worn out.
 
Originally Posted By: weasley
Question to Grace_Jones - why do you specifically want a high VI? Why are you second-guessing the Ford recommendation? This is not a challenge, it is a curiosity as to your motives.

If it were me, I'd go for a 5W-30 A5/B5 type (ideally with the 913C spec as a minimum) and be happy. In fact when I did have a Ford (a 2006 Focus 1.6 TiVCT) that is what I did.


Hi Weasley,

I'm just looking for the best. With a VW spec oil (504.00/507.00 aka prosche C30) there are loads of choices, whereas trying to find a true fully synthetic (or even ester synthetic) with the ford specs (913C or 913D) is difficult as there dont seem to be many.
 
Originally Posted By: Grace_Jones
Hi Weasley,

I'm just looking for the best. With a VW spec oil (504.00/507.00 aka prosche C30) there are loads of choices, whereas trying to find a true fully synthetic (or even ester synthetic) with the ford specs (913C or 913D) is difficult as there dont seem to be many.


What is your definition of the best ?

Even "best" is application specific, as if I had to start my car at -40C a couple of time per year versus -10C a couple of times per year, our "bests" will vary.

Because the best for either of our applications is an optimised compromise based on operating parameters.

Is Grace Jones a better singer, actress, or Bond Girl ???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top