High V.I. oils, on purpose, or consequence??

[Solarent]

Originally Posted By: SR5
Just say we have three 40 weight oils from the same name brand manufacturer.

The first is a top shelf, full synthetic, 0W-40, MB229.5, BMW LL-01 etc

The second is a middle level, semi-synthetic, 10W-40, A3/B4

The third is a economical to purchase, mineral, 15W-40, SN

What would be the differences in VII's used (type and dose rate)?

Would there be a big difference in the quality of the VII's that is reflected in the purchase price of the product. Or is it more base stock and marketing ?

For me a full synthetic is about 250% more expensive than a name brand mineral.


0W40 & 10W40 - odds are something like this would use a Styrenic Polymer but the treat rates would vary depending on the base oil choice. For example the 10W40 could have as low as 6-8% and the 0W40 as high as 18%. These VII's are generally more shear stable (5 SSI) but require more product to get the same level of thickening (polymeric efficiency). These polymers get chosen typically for shear stability, deposit control and dispersency are the main issues. Remember VII is only one part of the entire formula - so the formulator has to balance the VII needs with the rest of the DI package involved.

The 15W40 would most likely contain an OCP. probably something in the 25-35 SSI range. These polymers typically have good efficiency (meaning you get the required thickening at smaller concentrations) but they don't have the same level of shear stability and some would say that higher concentrations contribute to deposits in certain engine tests. OCP's are generally the cheaper of the two, so the final price of the product may reflect that.

There are lots of reasons why a formulator or oil marketer would choose to use different VII/VM packages - sometimes it's a performance requirement, sometimes its for reduced manufacturing complexity, sometimes its price. When you think about all the little details that go on to get to that final formula just right - you can probably see why formulators get annoyed when internet gurus and aftermarket companies thinks it's ok to mix in their own "special ingredients" as a way to improve on the formula - especially when there is no standardized testing involved.

 

[Joe90_guy]

Solarent,

Today, most oils (the 95%+ that's not absolute top-tier) are formulated primarily by the additive companies. It's certainly not always the case, but for the most part, the individual AddCo will by preference, use their own in-house VII.

In the first instance, Infineum will use Shellvis, Lubrizol will use Lz 7067C OCP & Oronite will use their Paratone high-ethylene OCP. Although most of the big AddCo's have access to a secondary VII technology that can be wheeled out as and when needed (eg Infineum will have OCP in it's back pocket and Lz has Styrene) the general idea is, if you can, you build the DI pack around the primary VII because that way you build a greater, inter-related depth of coverage for your AddCo's products.

I'm only saying this to flag up that whilst in theory, a formulator will be be able to chose a VII (as is Mark's case), the reality is that the choice of VII is pre-determined by other factors.

 

[Solarent]

Yes you are right. It's funny that on BITOG we get excited when any kind of formulator (or someone who has some intimate details about the process) contributes their opinions.

There are the formulators that work for the additive companies - both the ones that develop the additive strategies and the ones that work in partnership with the oil marketers for their products. And its true - it's usually easier to match the DI and VM with your additive supplier because that's how they work.

There are also the formulators that work directly for oil marketers - these are the ones that may choose different ingredients or maybe buy components - but most of the certifications come from the additive companies unless of course you are Shell or XOM. I would bet that the bulk these formulators have a partner of some kind at whichever of the additive companies they work with.

Then there are the independent formulators like Molakule - who pick and choose options based on what their clients need. He can do whatever he wants. Of course licensing does become an issue if you are going too far outside the box drawn around your formula by the likes of your additive supplier.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: Solarent



0W40 & 10W40 - odds are something like this would use a Styrenic Polymer but the treat rates would vary depending on the base oil choice. For example the 10W40 could have as low as 6-8% and the 0W40 as high as 18%. These VII's are generally more shear stable (5 SSI) but require more product to get the same level of thickening (polymeric efficiency). These polymers get chosen typically for shear stability, deposit control and dispersency are the main issues. Remember VII is only one part of the entire formula - so the formulator has to balance the VII needs with the rest of the DI package involved.

The 15W40 would most likely contain an OCP. probably something in the 25-35 SSI range. These polymers typically have good efficiency (meaning you get the required thickening at smaller concentrations) but they don't have the same level of shear stability and some would say that higher concentrations contribute to deposits in certain engine tests. OCP's are generally the cheaper of the two, so the final price of the product may reflect that.

There are lots of reasons why a formulator or oil marketer would choose to use different VII/VM packages - sometimes it's a performance requirement, sometimes its for reduced manufacturing complexity, sometimes its price. When you think about all the little details that go on to get to that final formula just right - you can probably see why formulators get annoyed when internet gurus and aftermarket companies thinks it's ok to mix in their own "special ingredients" as a way to improve on the formula - especially when there is no standardized testing involved.


Excellent synopsis!

 

[Shannow]

^+1

 

[OVERKILL]

+2

 

[bbhero]

+3

This has been a great thread that has been very educational and very well done.

 

[SR5]

Thanks Solarent ! Excellent !

Thanks all for a great thread.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: zeng
Over here, it's far easier to procure a 10W40 A3/B4 (like Helix 7;Magnatec;Quartz 7000 ; L Moly etc....... than 0W40 or 5W40 or 10W30 A3/B4.

And I did a typo; I had meant a 10w-40 A3/B4. But, the point still remains. We have four Castrol A3/B4 varieties (aside from OE stuff), being 0w-30, 5w-30, 0w-40, and 5w-40. Mobil has their 0w-40 and Shell has something, but finding it is another issue. We do get some of the "import" oils for independent European mechanics, like LM and the like, but they tend to stick to one or two options only, usually the ones with the most certifications possible, to cover all the bases, and they usually will charge for it, too. Then there are boutiques, but that's another matter.

Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
10W30 A3/B3 is big in China for whatever reason...

Here, we have such a bizarre oil market, such a product would have difficulty taking off. I don't think an A3/B3 A3/B4 synthetic blend would be even worth the effort here, without builder approvals and a significantly discounted price. There are plenty of oils with builder approvals at "regular" prices, plus boutiques at higher prices, and enough cheap ILSAC 10w-30 available that a generic A3/B3 10w-30 would have a tough time. Then again, Canadian Tire yanked almost all of the ILSAC 10w-30 synthetics off their shelves, so one never know.

Now that it's in my mind from another thread, Bobby, Joe, Mola, Solarent, how do the stay in grade requirements in API/ILSAC compare to those for ACEA, and how about stay in grade requirements for cold pumping? Are there differences between A/B, C, and E sequences?

 

[turtlevette]

When bought my turbo regal in 86 the dealership was so scared of multigrade oils, I guess the vii coking, that they made me sign a paper that I would use 30hd. I signed the contract then went home and put M1 15w 50 in it. Thinking that synthetic would be better. Oh and that 20 below zero Colorado temps would be a problem for conventional 30.

 

[Garak]

Geeze, you would have thought GM would have been all over 10w-30 for that vintage!

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Geeze, you would have thought GM would have been all over 10w-30 for that vintage!


Yes, was there not an M1 10W-30 (with hopefully very little 'sub-par' VII added) at the time??

 

[dailydriver]

So, in summation, would I be just as well off, from a cold, winter start-up perspective, with the very low VI Red Line 0W-30, as I am with the higher VI, Pennzoil Platinum Euro LX 0W-30??

Yes, I know that the Red Line product is specced at least .2 less on HTHSV, and has a MUCH MUCH more 'stout' AW/AF/detergent add pack.

So then, WHAT other factors/currently available specs need to be looked at (since the general consensus here seems to indicate that VI is USELESS in this regard), given a -5*F to 30*F start up ambient temp?

 

[zeng]

Other than relevance of ACEA C2/C3 of PP vs A5/B5 of RL in relation to your engine applications, I would look at their CCS viscosity/MRV viscosity and pour points .......... and they are quite similar.

I would say you are just as well off with RL at cold start of -5*F ambient ,if your engine doesn't require ACEA C2/C3 , IMHO.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Yes, was there not an M1 10W-30 (with hopefully very little 'sub-par' VII added) at the time??

That's a very good question, and we still don't get M1 HM up here, only Mobil Super HM.