0W-20 in Winter and 5W-20 in Summer?

[OpelFever]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan



No, Total Quartz 10W-40 is a full synthetic. That was already discussed elsewhere. Please read it first before you claim otherwise.

Mobil 1 0W-40 is probably a combination of Group III+, IV, and V -- with no Group III. Group III is used in 5W-40 HDEOs, which are significantly cheaper.

The tests they did are actually quite similar to "hot-tube tests," which are standard for testing expected performance in a turbocharger-equipped engine -- the most demanding kind of engine. It's the crucial part of the Honda/Acura HTO-06 etc. tests.


The MRV value for M1 0w-40 increases with every re-formulation which leads to believe they are removing PAO from the formulation. This also has been discussed elsewhere.

Total Quartz 7000 is their mid-range product, often labelled as "synthetic-based". As the term synthetic is used so loosely, it's not really relevant wheather its group II+, III or III+.

If base oil quality reflects on the hot-tube test results, why did Motul 300V and Redline race oil do so badly? Both should be PAO and esters and therefore superior to M1 and Total. This was the point I was trying to make with my first post.

 

[KrisZ]

I can't read Russian, but looking at the pics I don't think they tried to simulate the hot tube test at all. It looks like all they did was pour the oil in a glass bowl and proceed to heat it up. That's not the tube test at all.
The tube test has oil flowing through a tube that is heated up to simulate oil flow through the turbo bearing.

Just like pour tests, this "test" is more for entertainment value, or "let’s see what happens when..." and in no way simulate engine operating conditions.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: OpelFever
Originally Posted By: Gokhan



No, Total Quartz 10W-40 is a full synthetic. That was already discussed elsewhere. Please read it first before you claim otherwise.

Mobil 1 0W-40 is probably a combination of Group III+, IV, and V -- with no Group III. Group III is used in 5W-40 HDEOs, which are significantly cheaper.

The tests they did are actually quite similar to "hot-tube tests," which are standard for testing expected performance in a turbocharger-equipped engine -- the most demanding kind of engine. It's the crucial part of the Honda/Acura HTO-06 etc. tests.


The MRV value for M1 0w-40 increases with every re-formulation which leads to believe they are removing PAO from the formulation. This also has been discussed elsewhere.

Total Quartz 7000 is their mid-range product, often labelled as "synthetic-based". As the term synthetic is used so loosely, it's not really relevant wheather its group II+, III or III+.

If base oil quality reflects on the hot-tube test results, why did Motul 300V and Redline race oil do so badly? Both should be PAO and esters and therefore superior to M1 and Total. This was the point I was trying to make with my first post.

The increasing MRV is more likely indicating a decreasing NOACK, as the two are inversely related for a given type of base oil, rather than the base-oil type changing, which means it's more likely that they are using a thicker version of the same type of base oil. Mercedes-Benz etc. have been imposing very strict NOACK restrictions recently, down to as little as 9%, which is impossible to achieve with a very low MRV at the same. Note that lower NOACK also helps with the high-temperature deposits.

It's not legal to market an oil as synthetic if it contains any base oil that is Group II+ or below. If an oil is labeled synthetic, it must be legally Group III or above.

The base oil helps but doesn't guarantee performance. If the oil is poorly formulated, such as with a large quantity of VIIs, low-quality VIIs, or low-quality additives, it will still perform poorly.

 

[OpelFever]

So I take it Redline is poorly formulated as it faired poorly despite a PAO+ester formulation?

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: OpelFever
So I take it Redline is poorly formulated as it faired poorly despite a PAO+ester formulation?

Yes -- poor-quality VIIs, perhaps also along with a not well-balanced additive package, in this case, which resulted in the polymerization of the VIIs (sludge) at very high temperatures. Note that this 50-weight racing oil is actually a 15W-50.

This is why I don't trust these boutique oils. You will probably be far better off with major brands like Mobil 1 etc., as they select their VIIs and DI packs far more carefully.

Everyone can buy PAO and esters and blend an oil but it doesn't mean that it will be a good oil. It requires a lot of knowledge, research, and testing to find the proper ingredients and optimize the performance.

 

[Shannow]

Well put

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: OpelFever
So I take it Redline is poorly formulated as it faired poorly despite a PAO+ester formulation?

Yes -- poor-quality VIIs, perhaps also along with a not well-balanced additive package, in this case, which resulted in the polymerization of the VIIs (sludge) at very high temperatures. Note that this 50-weight racing oil is actually a 15W-50.

This is why I don't trust these boutique oils. You will probably be far better off with major brands like Mobil 1 etc., as they select their VIIs and DI packs far more carefully.

Everyone can buy PAO and esters and blend an oil but it doesn't mean that it will be a good oil. It requires a lot of knowledge, research, and testing to find the proper ingredients and optimize the performance.


And people hate it when I point this out, but of all the majors, ExxonMobil has the most money to dump into R&D. They have the budget and the engineering power to make the best oils on the planet. I think their 0w40 is a very clear demonstration of that effort.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: OpelFever
So I take it Redline is poorly formulated as it faired poorly despite a PAO+ester formulation?

Yes -- poor-quality VIIs, perhaps also along with a not well-balanced additive package, in this case, which resulted in the polymerization of the VIIs (sludge) at very high temperatures. Note that this 50-weight racing oil is actually a 15W-50.

This is why I don't trust these boutique oils. You will probably be far better off with major brands like Mobil 1 etc., as they select their VIIs and DI packs far more carefully.

Everyone can buy PAO and esters and blend an oil but it doesn't mean that it will be a good oil. It requires a lot of knowledge, research, and testing to find the proper ingredients and optimize the performance.


And people hate it when I point this out, but of all the majors, ExxonMobil has the most money to dump into R&D. They have the budget and the engineering power to make the best oils on the planet. I think their 0w40 is a very clear demonstration of that effort.


I agree. I put the issue I had with the XOM tech people a few years back behind me, and started building my stash up once again with Mobil 1. All the boutique companies have to buy base stock and additives from at least one of the major players. Do you really think for a minute that they are buying a superior product to what XOM or Sopus has for their own use? Would Mobil or Sopus actually sell products that are better than what they use for their own formulations? If anything I'd think just the opposite, and they'd keep the best for themselves.

 

[skyship]

When oil gets cooked up in a turbo it is in a low Oxygen level environment and it only heats up for a short time. The glass bottle test cooks the oil for longer and evaporates off a fair amount of basestock. The deposits might be more significant if the oil has more detergent and anti wear additives combined with a lower volatility. It's an interesting test, but not of great significance.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
And people hate it when I point this out, but of all the majors, ExxonMobil has the most money to dump into R&D. They have the budget and the engineering power to make the best oils on the planet. I think their 0w40 is a very clear demonstration of that effort.

Most of their oil, conventional and synthetic are very good for the money. There are better oils but cost more. Their goal I think is providing high quality oil at reasonable cost to the consumers.

I think M1 0W40 is one of the best value synthetic oils and it can be bought at almost any auto parts store. Is there a better synthetic oil than M1 0W40 ? Probably, but at a much higher cost and hard to find at local auto parts stores.

If they want they can develop a xW40 oil that will lasted 25k miles or more in non severe driving condition, but then the cost is too high and sale volume is too low to justify the development cost.

 

[OpelFever]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint



I agree. I put the issue I had with the XOM tech people a few years back behind me, and started building my stash up once again with Mobil 1. All the boutique companies have to buy base stock and additives from at least one of the major players. Do you really think for a minute that they are buying a superior product to what XOM or Sopus has for their own use? Would Mobil or Sopus actually sell products that are better than what they use for their own formulations? If anything I'd think just the opposite, and they'd keep the best for themselves.

I partly disagree with this. While I'm sure XOM does not provide their best formulations or knowledge they have learned through extensive research, their purpose is to make money. If they can formulate an excellent oil with group III+ and sell it for $6/quart, I see no reason they could not sell PAO and esters to other companies.

There are people willing to pay $20/quart for boutique oils but not Mobil 1. XOM can still make money by selling the expensive components required for such oils.

 

[zerosoma]

Originally Posted By: skyship
High mileage oils [...] swell the seals, which is not good news if there is nothing wrong to start with.


This is somewhat of a myth. If you are advising him not to use HM oils because of damage to the seals you are mistaken.

HM oils often have heavier add packs which is why I prefer to use them; not because of my vehicles' mileage.

It's the whole "I can't use synthetic after I've switched to HM because it will leak out" balarky. Totally false. Bad information!

 

[skyship]

Originally Posted By: zerosoma
Originally Posted By: skyship
High mileage oils [...] swell the seals, which is not good news if there is nothing wrong to start with.


This is somewhat of a myth. If you are advising him not to use HM oils because of damage to the seals you are mistaken.

HM oils often have heavier add packs which is why I prefer to use them; not because of my vehicles' mileage.

It's the whole "I can't use synthetic after I've switched to HM because it will leak out" balarky. Totally false. Bad information!

Read more: What Makes High Mileage Motor Oil Different From Regular Motor Oil? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6113608_high-different-regular-motor-oil_.html#ixzz2EOWlAD7c

Most HM oils are in effect high detergent content conventional oils plus stop leak seal conditioners.
A "Seal conditioner" not only soaks into the engine's valve seals and lubricates them, but actually causes the seals to expand. After expansion, the valve seals press tightly against the valve stems, which helps to reduce the amount of oil entering the cylinders. A similar process occurs with the cam shaft seals.
If you use an HM oil that has high SCA content (They probably all do) for an engine that has seals that are in good condition, you will seriously increase the rate of wear of the good seals and if you then stop using the HM oil and change back to an oil that does not have seal conditioners, or has a very small amount, then you run the risk of a leak developing if the engine used an HM oil long enough to wear the good seals.
Lots of engine overhaul and garage owners know that, as it happens in just the same way if you add stop leak too often. How long an HM oil takes to increase the rate of wear of good seals depends on their type and quality, but it is probably more of a longer term issue than something that will be immediately apparent.
I didn't imply changing from conventional to synthetic oil will start leaks, as it normally doesn't, but that is a different story and has more to be with the effect of the Ca based detergent additives on sludge and varnish.

 

[Gokhan]

Actually, I just looked at the SN/GF-5 specs and it looks like SN without GF-5 and SN with GF-5 both have the elastomer-compatibility requirements, which restrict swelling to a certain amount, such as 40% in volume (12% in linear dimension) for silicone rubber. Therefore, it looks like you don't have to worry about too much swelling with high-mileage oils, as long as they have the SN certification. Note that this wasn't the case with SM and earlier certifications (no elastomer-compatibility requirements for them) and you are only safe with an SN oil.

Here is the full table:

Code:


API SN Elastomer compatibility ASTM D7216, Annex A2



Polyacrylate Rubber ASTM D471 Volume % change -5,9

ACM-1 (SAE J2643) ASTM D2240 Hardness pts -10,10

ASTM D412 Tensile strength % change -40,40

Hydrogenated Nitrile ASTM D471 Volume % change -5,10

HNBR-1 (SAE J2643) ASTM D2240 Hardness pts -10,5

ASTM D412 Tensile strength % change -20,15

Silicone Rubber ASTM D471 Volume % change -5,40

VMQ-1 (SAE J2643) ASTM D2240 Hardness pts -30,10

ASTM D412 Tensile strength % change -50,5

Fluorocarbon Rubber ASTM D471 Volume % change -2,3

FKM-1 (SAE J2643) ASTM D2240 Hardness pts -6,6

ASTM D412 Tensile strength % change -65,10

Ethylene Acrylic Rubber ASTM D471 Volume % change -5,30

AEM-1 (SAE J2643) ASTM D2240 Hardness pts -20,10

ASTM D412 Tensile strength % change -30,30

Note that some ACEA as well as API CJ-4 certifications also have elastomer-compatibility requirements of their own.

 

[skyship]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Actually, I just looked at the SN/GF-5 specs and it looks like SN without GF-5 and SN with GF-5 both have the elastomer-compatibility requirements, which restrict swelling to a certain amount, such as 40% in volume (12% in linear dimension) for silicone rubber. Therefore, it looks like you don't have to worry about too much swelling with high-mileage oils, as long as they have the SN certification. Note that this wasn't the case with SM and earlier certifications (no elastomer-compatibility requirements for them) and you are only safe with an SN oil.

Here is the full table:

Code:


API SN Elastomer compatibility ASTM D7216, Annex A2



Polyacrylate Rubber ASTM D471 Volume % change -5,9

ACM-1 (SAE J2643) ASTM D2240 Hardness pts -10,10

ASTM D412 Tensile strength % change -40,40

Hydrogenated Nitrile ASTM D471 Volume % change -5,10

HNBR-1 (SAE J2643) ASTM D2240 Hardness pts -10,5

ASTM D412 Tensile strength % change -20,15

Silicone Rubber ASTM D471 Volume % change -5,40

VMQ-1 (SAE J2643) ASTM D2240 Hardness pts -30,10

ASTM D412 Tensile strength % change -50,5

Fluorocarbon Rubber ASTM D471 Volume % change -2,3

FKM-1 (SAE J2643) ASTM D2240 Hardness pts -6,6

ASTM D412 Tensile strength % change -65,10

Ethylene Acrylic Rubber ASTM D471 Volume % change -5,30

AEM-1 (SAE J2643) ASTM D2240 Hardness pts -20,10

ASTM D412 Tensile strength % change -30,30

Note that some ACEA as well as API CJ-4 certifications also have elastomer-compatibility requirements of their own.


Thanks for that, so they are changing the specs for some HM oils. It's still not good to use HM oil for an engine in good condition although they might have reduced the hazard to new seals somewhat, because HM oils are conventional or part synthetics and the OCI does need to be shorter as a result in some cases.
If you don't have leaks then you can buy a top quality full synthetic for the same price and extend the OCI saving yourself time and money.