Honda Ultra NEXT JDM oil VOA

Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
54
Location
California
I posted about this oil recently in the PCMO section. This is a Japanese-market HGMO spec'd for certain kei cars, hybrids, and newer "Earth Dreams" engine-equipped Hondas. A friend in Japan - who happens to own the same model Fit with the same L15B engine - turned me on to it and offered to send me a sample (in the form of a 4L standard container, no less).

Researching the oil on the Japanese side of the internet yielded some interesting results. What piqued my interest the most was speculation that this oil boasted a super-high VI of 250+. Well, that doesn't appear to have been accurate. Sorry guys
blush.gif


One thing is for sure: the stuff is thin. It also contains pretty high moly, and its VI came out at a respectable 191. Here's the VOA:

105zm6v.jpg


This stuff is currently in my car. Although I haven't had much time with it, I can say that if there is any change in the way the car runs, sounds, and in its fuel efficiency, it's all been positive. Of course, there's the possibility that it's all in my head. With the MPG stuff, I'll certainly be keen to see in the coming weeks how much better consistently it seems to be versus the factory fill that was in my car.

I plan on running my OCI out to about 5K. In about a month I should put on 1K or so, and then I'll be taking a 4,000 mile round trip to the Midwest. I figure that will be a relatively safe test. I'll keep you guys posted!
 
Last edited:
No need to be embarassed about the VI reading. You didn't formulate the oil. We've been disappointed before by supposedly super-high-VI oils on other VOA's. Its KV100 falls well below the bottom of the old 20-weight range, and is even below the bottom of the new 16-weight range.

Are you running this oil 100% in your car, or did you mix it? With all the Moly, it may be good as a mixer for lower friction.
Do you know what the HTHS of this oil is? Since the UOA viscosity falls below the KV range of the 16 grade, I'm thinking it's less than 2.3.
The new viscosity grades have the following ranges:
SAE 8; KV100 is 4.0-6.1, HTHS is 1.7
SAE 12; KV100 is 5.0-7.1, HTHS is 2.0

Hopefully it's a 12. That KV100 overlap of grades makes it impossible to tell what grade an oil is unless you know the HTHS.
 
Last edited:
I think you're most likely right on that. I don't have an HTHS number for this. Most of what's available online in Japanese is speculative (thus, the incorrect VI prediction) but the consensus does seem to be that it's around SAE 8.

At the moment I'm running the oil 100% unmixed, so that I can do a UOA shortly and get an idea of its performance without the help of other oils.

Jeff Jetter mentioned several years back that Honda was experimenting with a "0w-10" oil in the Japanese market and that they even had used this as the FF in some USDM Hondas. I'm wondering if this is what he was referring to.

Jeff Jetter on 0w-20/0w-10
 
If you have an oil temperature gauge, monitor it carefully. Based on the DV150, and the Temporary Shear Ratio of other oils with similar VI's, I would not want to run it at a temperature over 235F. This is where I estimate that its HTHS would go below 2.6 cP. (I was assuming here that your engine is designed for 20-weight.)

And watch the oil level carefully. Maybe it evaporates quickly, and will thicken up as the lighter stuff goes away.

But you said in your original thread on NEXT that that it's the same engine as used in the Japanese market, so maybe it's OK.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Unless I'm missing something, I don't see KV40 on the sheet, so how is VI being calculated?


They mention the KV40 reading in the comments section.

Yeah, this is the same engine as in certain trim levels of the Fit in Japan, and all of the Fits/engines are approved for this oil, so it should be a relatively safe test.
 
The KV40 is 20.844cSt that's mentioned in the text.

OP thanks for posting this; very interesting.
Since this is what's spec'd for the Fit in Japan I wouldn't be concerned about it being too light
but as A_H suggested I would keep an eye on your oil level maintaining it at the full level.

As discussed this oil is lighter than the proposed 0W-16 that Honda is to be the first to specify outside of Japan including NA although the release date keeps getting delayed and we likely won't see it until 2017.
 
Originally Posted By: fourside
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Unless I'm missing something, I don't see KV40 on the sheet, so how is VI being calculated?


They mention the KV40 reading in the comments section.

Yeah, this is the same engine as in certain trim levels of the Fit in Japan, and all of the Fits/engines are approved for this oil, so it should be a relatively safe test.


Ahhh, yes, I didn't read the comments, that would do it, LOL!
 
BTW, the VI may be "only" 191 but it's "real VI" is actually higher than the 229 of Sustina 0W-20. There is a VI penalty that applies to lighter oils. So if you want to compare the actual rate of viscosity change with temperature
at operating temp's look at the KV40/KV100 ratio. Sustina has the lowest ratio of any SAE oil at 4.12 but NEXT is lower at 4.06.
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
BTW, the VI may be "only" 191 but it's "real VI" is actually higher than the 229 of Sustina 0W-20. There is a VI penalty that applies to lighter oils. So if you want to compare the actual rate of viscosity change with temperature
at operating temp's look at the KV40/KV100 ratio. Sustina has the lowest ratio of any SAE oil at 4.12 but NEXT is lower at 4.06.


Caterham, thanks for the reply. I won't pretend that I'm not a newbie with this stuff, but I actually did wonder about something like this with regards to calculating the VI of a 0w-20 compared to something like this which may well be an SAE 8, but didn't know how to put it in to words. Maybe that explains the speculation on Japanese websites of a VI higher than Sustina.

I'll be sure to keep an eye on the oil level of course. I may take an oil sample before changing the oil to send to Blackstone for a UOA, to see whether I even need to change the stuff out as early as I had planned. Either way, expect a UOA with about 5K on the oil in about a month. I'm not concerned with running the oil here in California, as even the gasoline should be similar in quality to Japan's with low sulfur content.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
BTW, the VI may be "only" 191 but it's "real VI" is actually higher than the 229 of Sustina 0W-20. There is a VI penalty that applies to lighter oils. So if you want to compare the actual rate of viscosity change with temperature
at operating temp's look at the KV40/KV100 ratio. Sustina has the lowest ratio of any SAE oil at 4.12 but NEXT is lower at 4.06.


Jeez you talk some rubbish.

The VI is calculated comparing the rate of change to reference oils of nominally 0, and 100 vi ... these were extracted from naturally occurring deposits...i.e. each reference oil was from the same source.

An ISO15, ISO22, ISO32, ISO46 all have a VI of about 100...There is no conspiracy to rate your 0W20s worse than others, in spite of your posits.

Using your KV40/KV100, applied to hydraulic oils all of 100VI, from the same base-stock source.
ISO 46 has a CATERHAM VI of 7.4
ISO 68 has a CATERHAM VI of 8
ISO 100 has a CATERHAM VI of 9.

Clearly rubbish.
 
laugh.gif
Well I'll let you guys sort this one out, as it's beyond my knowledge level clearly.

However, the speculated VI of this oil on Japanese websites was just that - speculation, as the sources themselves even said. The estimates were based on a (flawed) belief that the KV40 was 16.72 and the KV100 was 5.070. My results with Blackstone were 20.844 cSt @40C and 5.13 @ 100C, resulting in the 191 VI result. That said, I'm still very keen to see how this oil fares in my car.
 
Last edited:
Was there any hint that the Moly used in the oil was MoS2 as suggested by Blackstone ?

MoS2 is a black/gray solid, that should make the oil looks dark.

I'm very sure that Honda aren't using MoS2...
 
Nah, it isn't. The Honda oil has the look and nearly the consistency of gold water.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
BTW, the VI may be "only" 191 but it's "real VI" is actually higher than the 229 of Sustina 0W-20. There is a VI penalty that applies to lighter oils. So if you want to compare the actual rate of viscosity change with temperature
at operating temp's look at the KV40/KV100 ratio. Sustina has the lowest ratio of any SAE oil at 4.12 but NEXT is lower at 4.06.


Jeez you talk some rubbish.

The VI is calculated comparing the rate of change to reference oils of nominally 0, and 100 vi ... these were extracted from naturally occurring deposits...i.e. each reference oil was from the same source.

An ISO15, ISO22, ISO32, ISO46 all have a VI of about 100...There is no conspiracy to rate your 0W20s worse than others, in spite of your posits.

Using your KV40/KV100, applied to hydraulic oils all of 100VI, from the same base-stock source.
ISO 46 has a CATERHAM VI of 7.4
ISO 68 has a CATERHAM VI of 8
ISO 100 has a CATERHAM VI of 9.

Clearly rubbish.

Yes more typical obfuscating rubbish from heavier is better Shannow.

There is no conspiracy, but there is a common misunderstanding that VI means a set fixed amount of viscosity change with temperature regardless of the oil grade but that simply isn't the case. Heavier oil has an inherently greater viscosity temperature delta. The VI number has a log relationship with temperature which compensates for that.
So looking at the KV40/KV100 ratio is one way to
put a particular oil's viscosity change with temperature into perspective over that temperature range.

But I do appreciate where you're coming from
 
I'm wondering if there's any chance of inaccurate results due to not shaking up the oil a bit before taking a sample? I have another virgin sample I may send in at a later date to see how it compares.

I also may test the Ultra "Green" 0w-16 next, unless the Ultra NEXT performs so well that I see no need. I've definitely seen good results MPG-wise.
 
Back
Top