HTHS data question

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi,
it should be noted that the likes of Porsche for instance do extended duration HTHS testing (ACEA programme's criteria)

This is to ensure the temporary/permanent shear aspects are well understood for each lubricant that they Approve and List

This has a lot to do with the use of multiple oil pumps in their dry-sumped engine families
 
Originally Posted By: JAG
Originally Posted By: jpr
Independent tests results would be quite interesting, but in the meantime I don't know of any reason not to take Redline's HTHS statements at face value.

Did what I say make no sense? Calculate the ratio of KV@100C to HTHS for Redline. Do same for other straight weight oils and non-straight weight oils. Do it for other high ester content motor oils like Silkolene and Motul 300V. See how the data compares. I'd do it and post it but am too busy today. I did calculate the ratio for pure 8 cst PAO from XOM and it was 3.1. That's like a straight weight oil without any additives so the ratio is on the low end. Having VIIs makes the ratio increase because they increase kinematic viscosity more so, percent wise, than HTHS. Oils like Mobil 1 0W-40 have ratios on the high end due to high VII content.

As a note, when oils are permanently sheared, the percent change in HTHS is about 1/2 the % change in kinematic viscosity at 100C. This is from a study done in the 1980's.
Actually, I just kind of glossed over it at first - but here's some results of Kv100/HTHS based on what I've got handy at the moment. It doesn't include any straight weight or pure race oils, but I see you point about Redline sticking out:
** 10W30 **
Redline Synthetic 10W-30 2.82
Mobil Mobil 1 10W-30 3.18
Mobil Mobil 1 High Mileage 10W-30 3.22
Shell Quaker State Peak Performance 10W-30 3.28
Shell Pennzoil Multigrade 10W-30 3.35
Mobil Mobil 1 Extended Performance 10W-30 3.45

** 10w40 **
Redline Synthetic 10W-40 3.11
Fuchs Titan GT1 10W-40 3.38
Mobil Mobil 1 High Mileage 10W-40 3.62
Shell Pennzoil Multigrade 10W-40 3.68

** 5w30 **
Redline Synthetic 5W-30 2.79
Fuchs Titan GT1 5W-30 3.18
Fuchs Titan GT1 Longlife III 5W-30 3.24
meguin megol Motorenol Quality 5W-30 3.29
Fuchs Titan Supersyn (SL) 5W-30 3.31
Castrol Syntec 5W-30 3.32
Shell Pennzoil Platinum 5W-30 3.32
Shell Pennzoil Platinum European Formulation Ultra 5W-30 3.34
Amsoil ASL 100% Synthetic 5W-30 3.34
Shell Helix Plus S 5W-30 3.37
Shell Quaker State Peak Performance 5W-30 3.39
Fuchs Titan Supersyn Longlife 5W-30 3.4
Castrol SLX Professional LLIII Powerflow 5W-30 3.4
Fuchs Titan Supersyn F 5W-30 3.41
Shell Q High RPM 5W-30 3.42
Shell Q European Formulation Ultra Diesel 5W-30 3.43
Shell Pennzoil Platinum European Formulation Ultra Diesel 5W-30 3.43
ConocoPhilips Phillips66 TropArtic Synthetic Blend 5W-30 3.48
ConocoPhilips 76 Super Synthetic Blend 5W-30 3.48
ConocoPhilips Conoco Syncon All Season Synthetic Blend 5W-30 3.48
Shell Helix Ultra 5W-30 3.49
Shell Pennzoil Multigrade 5W-30 3.5
ConocoPhilips Phillips66 TropArtic Full Synthetic 5W-30 3.5
ConocoPhilips 76 High Performance Full Synthetic 5W-30 3.5
ConocoPhilips Conoco Syncon High Performance Synthetic 5W-30 3.5
Shell Q Advanced 5W-30 3.51
Shell Q Horsepower 5W-30 3.51
Mobil Mobil 1 Extended Performance 5W-30 3.55
ConocoPhilips 76 Super High Mileage Synthetic Blend 5W-30 3.6
ConocoPhilips Kendall GT-1 High Mileage Synthetic Blend 5W-30 3.6
Royal Purple Royal Purple 5W-30 3.66
Mobil Mobil 1 Truck & SUV 5W-30 3.66
Mobil Mobil 1 5W-30 3.66
ConocoPhilips Kendall GT-1 High Performance Synthetic Blend 5W-30 4.08

** 5w40 **
Redline Synthetic 5W-40 3.28
Shell Q Horsepower 5W-40 3.56
Fuchs Titan Supersyn Plus (SL PD) 5W-40 3.59
ChevronTexaco Havoline Synthetic (2) 5W-40 3.63
Mobil Mobil 1 5W-40 3.64
meguin megol Super Leichtlauf 5W-40 3.7
Amsoil AFL European Car Formula 5W-40 3.7
ChevronTexaco Havoline Synthetic 5W-40 3.71
Shell Pennzoil Platinum European Formulation 5W-40 3.72
Shell Q European Formulation 5W-40 3.72
ConocoPhilips 76 Pure Synthetic 5W-40 3.76
ConocoPhilips Kendall GT-1 Full Synthetic 5W-40 3.76
Fuchs Titan Supersyn (SL) 5W-40 3.81
ChevronTexaco Havoline Ultra 5W-40 4
Shell Helix Plus S 5W-40 4

** Others **
Amsoil SSO Signature Series 0W-30 3.22
ChevronTexaco Havoline Synthetic 0W-30 3.24
Fuchs Titan Supersyn (SL) 0W-30 3.4
Shell Helix Ultra 0W-40 3.7
Mobil Mobil 1 0W-40 3.78
 
Originally Posted By: BarkerMan
It can be included, just pay for it. A lot of places that do UOA's don't have the equipment to do it. In fact a lot of these labs are not ISO9000 certified and have no plans to expand their services to include such tests.
I'm sure people would be happy to do most anything for money, it's just that I've never seen it, or even a blank spot for it, on the reports I've seen from Blackstone, Dyson, Butler, Oil Analyzers, Wearcheck, Schaeffer's, Stavely, Fluidlife, or Carquest. Which seems surprising if the HTHS degradation curve is to be considered a key performance parameter.

But perhaps a better way to consider the question would be to turn it around and ask "under what conditions is the HTHS degradation curve become a key performance parameter?"
 
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
it should be noted that the likes of Porsche for instance do extended duration HTHS testing (ACEA programme's criteria)

This is to ensure the temporary/permanent shear aspects are well understood for each lubricant that they Approve and List

This has a lot to do with the use of multiple oil pumps in their dry-sumped engine families

Which ACEA test is that or is it one of the Porsche special tests?
 
Originally Posted By: TallPaul
So, jpr, you're telling us that Redline HTHS is consistently lower than off the shelf motor oils?
No - sorry for the confusion - that number you see there is the result of Kv100 divided by HTHS as you sugested. Neither Kv100 or HTHS is shown.
 
Last edited:
Hi,
jpr - It is an extended duration test using the A3/B3 CEC-L-36-A-90 (2nd Ed.) - (Ravenfield) criteria as I understand it

Porsche were anxious that the 100C viscosity never went below 11.3cSt after their prolonged testing at both temperature rest points (100C & 150C)

In the minds of some, temporary shear is confused with permanent shear!
 
Originally Posted By: jpr
Originally Posted By: TallPaul
So, jpr, you're telling us that Redline HTHS is consistently lower than off the shelf motor oils?
No - sorry for the confusion - that number you see there is the result of Kv100 divided by HTHS as you sugested. Neither Kv100 or HTHS is shown.
Whew! Thanks.
 
To take jpr's good work and take the info back about a dozen posts, it is clear that Red Line lubes have uniquely high HTHS viscosities relative to kinematic viscosities, exactly as expected. The question is still, why?

My suggestion would be that the obvious explanation would be base stocks that do not break down under high shear conditions, which seems perfectly in line with everything else we presumably are told about Red Line and in line with Red Line's high-shear viscosity chart and with BarkerMan's presumed confirmation of their uniquely good high shear performance.

The possibility that additives are the cause seems unlikely to me. To take BarkerMan's comment, additives can't help, they can only get in the way. VIIs that artificially raise the kinematic viscosities of many oils have less effect as shear increases, and it's worth noting that the Red Line grade that performs worst in this metric is the only one that is said to need VIIs: 5W-40. The rest do not use VIIs and are therefore in effect straight-weight high-VI oils - right?

If the numbers are to be trusted, and it seems everybody thinks they are, it seems to me to be clear evidence of the toughness of the Red Line oils.
 
My hunch is the high HTHS is directly related to the ester content of the basestocks, specifically the polarity. The same components that make Redline "special" when it comes to UOA performance. When I say special I mean, "different"-it's UOA performance has never been stellar here as compared to other oils, but I've always contributed this to my own lack of understanding as opposed to any deficiency of the oil. Maybe as far as UOA's go Redline CAN'T be compared to other oils. Maybe Redline should be held to a different standard because it is different and there is more to the story than meets the eye.

Just my theory, I have no facts to base this on-for that matter I've never even used the product.

Great discussion-really got me thinking. Whether I'm thinking correctly, I'm not sure.
 
Wow, thanks jpr.

fwiw, Terry had posted independent test data from SWRI I believe on the shear stability of several synthetics. RL 5w-30 came in at 3.45.

Some labs will test for this.

Redline does not use any VII's in their oils except for the 5w-40. This along with the ester base oils could potentially make RL's shear stability greater.
 
For a given viscosity grade Red Line oils always show the least thinning when HTHS conditions are reached. Yet UOA results have not shown that Red Line oils have less wear. If anything, according to UOA, Red Line oils consistently have greater wear.

This once again reinforces my notion that HTHS numbers in todays formulations are not an indicator of wear potential.

aehaas
 
Some more RATIOS of KV@100C to HTHS:
The Motul's below are all high ester content.
Motul 300V 10W-40: 3.34
Motul 300V 5W-40: 3.06
Motul 300V 5W-30: 3.05
Motul 300V 0W-20: 2.99

Amsoil ACD SAE 30 (straight weight): 3.09

Could not find any dino straight weight oil's HTHS data or HTHS for Silkolene. It may be available though.

So with all the data so far I still think that Redline's HTHS data is "off". Either incorrect or the method used does differ (doubt it).
 
Originally Posted By: AEHaas
For a given viscosity grade Red Line oils always show the least thinning when HTHS conditions are reached. Yet UOA results have not shown that Red Line oils have less wear. If anything, according to UOA, Red Line oils consistently have greater wear.

This once again reinforces my notion that HTHS numbers in todays formulations are not an indicator of wear potential.

aehaas


It also says, IMHO, HTHS ≠ Film strength and film strength can and does come from the additive package not the base oil.
 
Good points. I wasn't aware that the film strength comes from the additive package.

Notice on Amsoil ACD 30wt, they claim it's suitable for ACEA A3, which would have to have a min of 3.5 HT/HS.
 
Originally Posted By: buster
Good points. I wasn't aware that the film strength comes from the additive package.

Notice on Amsoil ACD 30wt, they claim it's suitable for ACEA A3, which would have to have a min of 3.5 HT/HS.


Well not 100%. I should have said film strength is really enhanced by a good additive package or can't be base oil alone......

As for HTHS of ACD, JAG is saying "RATIOS of KV@100C to HTHS" (3.09). I think the HTHS is right at 3.4-3.5....
 
We have seen high wear numbers in oil on extended dyno runs and low wear on tear down. We have also seen lower wear numbers in oil in the same conditions and lots of wear on tear down. I have no idea what that means except that better oil may be picking up wear particles and they show up in the uoa more. That's why beyond trouble shooting for obvious problems one other value in uoa's is trends. A rising trend might be of more immediate interest than a slightly different/higher value that is flat.
 
Courtesy of Google Books - Lubricant Additives: Chemistry and Applications By Leslie R. Rudnick Published 2003
http://books.google.com/books?id=QbF67SV...hl=en#PPA310,M1
Quote:
HTHS viscosity can be adjusted by increasing viscosity of the base oil or by increasing the viscosity modifier concentration, as shown in Figure 14. Since the formulation also has to meet kinematic viscosity and cold cranking simulator viscosity limits, there is often only limited flexibility to adjust HTHS viscosity within the bounds of a given set of base oils and additives.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
Motorcraft synthetic blend vs full synthetic
Replies
7
Views
2K
Rinspeed
L
Low Kinematic high hths?
Replies
12
Views
2K
CR94
Mugen_fn2
Civic FN2 oil choice
Replies
19
Views
643
Mugen_fn2
P
2022 Mustang GT Oil Recommendation
Replies
10
Views
450
StumblingElk
Gokhan
Convergence of the API SP/RC (ILSAC GF-6) and ACEA-2021 specs
2
Replies
35
Views
11K
CarfriendXX
Back
Top