A1/B1-A5/B5 "Low Vis" (vs) A3/B3-B4 LL01-MB 229.5
- Thread starter BritGerCarLuvr
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: BritGerCarLuvr
Here we are, and I've made a lot of changes & I wish to thank many members of this board for their great advice. I do, however how one more issue for which I need some clarification.
I will keep my question simple.
Q) If your car called for either oil "type", but preferred low vis WSS M2C929-A, A1/B1 A5/B5, knowing that the A3/B3-B4 LL01 MB 229.5 are higher HT/HS and Vis, would you run them in your car, and why? (instead of the "energy conserving" low vis stuff. Is there an advantage to running high HT/HS high Vis in a car that runs just fine with the A5/B5 stuff.(long life/ Better starts? Wear more/Less/)
Now running A5/B5 in both Jags and the High HT/HS A3/B4 LL01 MB 229.5 in the BMW and the Benz.
The only major differences between A3/B4 and A5/B5 is the HTHS visc. and the fact that A5/B5 oils must pass a fuel economy comparison test.
HTHS of A3/B4 must be =/> 3.5
HTHS of A5/B5 must be =/< 3.5
An interesting oil you may want to think bout is LL04/MB 229.51 approved Mobil 1 ESP 5w-30 which is an A3/B4 oil that passes the fuel economy piece of A5/B5 but does it with an HTHS of 3.58 hence this is why it's not rated as such.
The only thing with this oil is that you should cut your OCI in half since neither LL04 or 229.51 oils are recommended for spark ignition cars in the U.S.
http://www.acea.be/index.php/news/news_detail/acea_european_oil_sequences_2010/
Here we are, and I've made a lot of changes & I wish to thank many members of this board for their great advice. I do, however how one more issue for which I need some clarification.
I will keep my question simple.
Q) If your car called for either oil "type", but preferred low vis WSS M2C929-A, A1/B1 A5/B5, knowing that the A3/B3-B4 LL01 MB 229.5 are higher HT/HS and Vis, would you run them in your car, and why? (instead of the "energy conserving" low vis stuff. Is there an advantage to running high HT/HS high Vis in a car that runs just fine with the A5/B5 stuff.(long life/ Better starts? Wear more/Less/)
Now running A5/B5 in both Jags and the High HT/HS A3/B4 LL01 MB 229.5 in the BMW and the Benz.
The only major differences between A3/B4 and A5/B5 is the HTHS visc. and the fact that A5/B5 oils must pass a fuel economy comparison test.
HTHS of A3/B4 must be =/> 3.5
HTHS of A5/B5 must be =/< 3.5
An interesting oil you may want to think bout is LL04/MB 229.51 approved Mobil 1 ESP 5w-30 which is an A3/B4 oil that passes the fuel economy piece of A5/B5 but does it with an HTHS of 3.58 hence this is why it's not rated as such.
The only thing with this oil is that you should cut your OCI in half since neither LL04 or 229.51 oils are recommended for spark ignition cars in the U.S.
http://www.acea.be/index.php/news/news_detail/acea_european_oil_sequences_2010/
Last edited:
The requirements for a 0w-30 are lower than for a 0w-40 as far as cold visc goes.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Those last plots look distinctly divergent to me.
Won't anyone concede anything?
A lot of "if's" and "because", but nothing more tangible than the visc calc. Can someone work backwards from MRVs? I'm open to a technical analysis.
Back on subject, and back a few pages, does anyone see a reason not to consider the simple example/advice of A5 in winter and A3 in summer?
Buit there is NO basis to that divergence. Looks like a logarithmic curve is extrapolated to the far left and across zero for two little data points put out in a linear section far to the right. Is this mathematically sound? Does it account for any possible other nonlinear behavior? Nope.
So to me it is not to be trusted. THese curves extrapolate up to 80C back from a temperature point which is a linear range that spans only 60C. Doesnt make sense.
Reason not to use A5 in winter with A3 in summer? In general we apply an oil's viscosity and characteristics for steady-state use. The oil temperature in the engine is more or less the same whether summer or winter. The oil cna be 200F or so. Whether the delta from ambient is 32-200 or 0-200, the actual difference is farly in the noise compared to the actual operating temperature, which is the main focal point.
If you can guarantee that a vehicle will be used for a prescribed use range across a certain starting temperature range, great. Most people dont have such luxury, so need to spec for a vehicle that is going to drive from interior of Maine to Miami in February, and the temperature and operating conditions that it encounters. IMO, it is likely fairly generic...
Those last plots look distinctly divergent to me.
Won't anyone concede anything?
A lot of "if's" and "because", but nothing more tangible than the visc calc. Can someone work backwards from MRVs? I'm open to a technical analysis.
Back on subject, and back a few pages, does anyone see a reason not to consider the simple example/advice of A5 in winter and A3 in summer?
Buit there is NO basis to that divergence. Looks like a logarithmic curve is extrapolated to the far left and across zero for two little data points put out in a linear section far to the right. Is this mathematically sound? Does it account for any possible other nonlinear behavior? Nope.
So to me it is not to be trusted. THese curves extrapolate up to 80C back from a temperature point which is a linear range that spans only 60C. Doesnt make sense.
Reason not to use A5 in winter with A3 in summer? In general we apply an oil's viscosity and characteristics for steady-state use. The oil temperature in the engine is more or less the same whether summer or winter. The oil cna be 200F or so. Whether the delta from ambient is 32-200 or 0-200, the actual difference is farly in the noise compared to the actual operating temperature, which is the main focal point.
If you can guarantee that a vehicle will be used for a prescribed use range across a certain starting temperature range, great. Most people dont have such luxury, so need to spec for a vehicle that is going to drive from interior of Maine to Miami in February, and the temperature and operating conditions that it encounters. IMO, it is likely fairly generic...
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
The requirements for a 0w-30 are lower than for a 0w-40 as far as cold visc goes.
What??!? Cite this please.
AFAIK, the specification for a "0w-Z0" oil is the same x cSt at -yz degrees C, regardless of if Z=2,3,4,5.
If that is wrong a citation and/or spec would be great.
The requirements for a 0w-30 are lower than for a 0w-40 as far as cold visc goes.
What??!? Cite this please.
AFAIK, the specification for a "0w-Z0" oil is the same x cSt at -yz degrees C, regardless of if Z=2,3,4,5.
If that is wrong a citation and/or spec would be great.
Hi,
Audi Junkie - You said this:
"The requirements for a 0w-30 are lower than for a 0w-40 as far as cold visc goes."
Can you please explain what you mean?
Audi Junkie - You said this:
"The requirements for a 0w-30 are lower than for a 0w-40 as far as cold visc goes."
Can you please explain what you mean?
Logarithmic curves have no linear portions. The apparent linear portion of the curve is an artifact of scale. At the very cold regions of the curve, some constituents can begin to transition from liquid to solid and the calculations become irrelevant. Pour point depressants can affect the viscosity at very low temperatures. However, they tend to make the fluid more idealized (more like predictions) since they affect the phase transition of some constituents from liquid to solid. This phenomenon is very dependent on the presence of waxes in the base oil or additive carrier.
Can someone provide an example of a 0W-XX oil that behaves very different from calculated predictions in the -25 to 0C range. If there are observations that show the calculators to be generally incorrect in this temperature range, I would appreciate knowing about them.
Can someone provide an example of a 0W-XX oil that behaves very different from calculated predictions in the -25 to 0C range. If there are observations that show the calculators to be generally incorrect in this temperature range, I would appreciate knowing about them.
JHZR2
Staff member
Absolutely right - logarithmic curves have no linear portion. However the "curves" are based upon only two points. Two points cannot define a curve, just a line. Thus we are trying to make curves without sufficient real data... Especially since they extrapolate to temperatures farther out than the spread of the data.
One needs to scan the literature and validate how close a two-point curve is. Again, a few % error is a lot when it is in 6000 and we are comparing spacing of curves.
Withoutthe experiment validating the technique, the technique is void. Your point about waxes and temperature-molecular motion behavior is a good one and may vary between basestock groups.
One needs to scan the literature and validate how close a two-point curve is. Again, a few % error is a lot when it is in 6000 and we are comparing spacing of curves.
Withoutthe experiment validating the technique, the technique is void. Your point about waxes and temperature-molecular motion behavior is a good one and may vary between basestock groups.
Nobody seems to be able to quantify the "error", but that's fine because in no way am I trying to put an exact cSt number to a certain temp. I'm using a well-accepted analytical technique merely to *compare* two or more oils, not to publish the physical data as accurate lab measurements. I feel comfortable with the data as presented.
CLEARLY a 5w-30 is thinner than a 5w-40, it looks to be nearly half as thick in the cold, despite the misconception about both being "5w". Can anyone point to an unexpected result from the visc calc? Something counter-intuitive? Anything that doesn't fit the model?
Any poster who has been here for more than a day can understand what is the benefit of the thinner (A5) oil over the thicker (A3) oil in cold.
It looks to me that Edge 5w-30 is the thinnest oil I can use. Winter is the time for thin oil.
Pretty basic stuff.
CLEARLY a 5w-30 is thinner than a 5w-40, it looks to be nearly half as thick in the cold, despite the misconception about both being "5w". Can anyone point to an unexpected result from the visc calc? Something counter-intuitive? Anything that doesn't fit the model?
Any poster who has been here for more than a day can understand what is the benefit of the thinner (A5) oil over the thicker (A3) oil in cold.
It looks to me that Edge 5w-30 is the thinnest oil I can use. Winter is the time for thin oil.
Pretty basic stuff.
JHZR2
Staff member
Try to back up those numbers with a real viscosity value at the rating point for a 5w- oil (measured in cP to determine force over an area to move the fluid). That would be more insightful. Right now it is pure extrapolation and a guess.
It's called an educated guess, but I don't think the word "guess" even applies. It's a correct analysis based on data.
So what about the graph do you contend?
TDT is actually thinner than Edge?
Prove it.
So what about the graph do you contend?
TDT is actually thinner than Edge?
Prove it.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Any poster who has been here for more than a day can understand what is the benefit of the thinner (A5) oil over the thicker (A3) oil in cold.
It looks to me that Edge 5w-30 is the thinnest oil I can use. Winter is the time for thin oil.
Pretty basic stuff.
Neither of the vehicles in your sig line calls for an A5 oil. I'm not sure why you'd use one, particularly when a more suitable VW 502.00 and A3 oil (GC 0W-30) looks pretty darn close on the cold weather viscosity to that barely-a-30-weight Edge you're using. You're trading off proper viscosity at operating temp and the proper manufacturer approval for what is at best an educated extrapolation showing a slightly lower viscosity at temps well below freezing.
And Edge 5W-30 isn't the "thinnest oil" you can use. Given that you're willing to ignore the fact that your engines call for a VW or ACEA A3 oil, you could also run something like Mobil 1 0W-20, which I'm willing to bet is even "thinner" than the Edge 5W-30. You'd gain a very small cold temp advantage at the margin and drift even farther away from the kinematic viscosity and HT/HS requirements for use at operating temperatures.
Pretty basic stuff, as you say.
Any poster who has been here for more than a day can understand what is the benefit of the thinner (A5) oil over the thicker (A3) oil in cold.
It looks to me that Edge 5w-30 is the thinnest oil I can use. Winter is the time for thin oil.
Pretty basic stuff.
Neither of the vehicles in your sig line calls for an A5 oil. I'm not sure why you'd use one, particularly when a more suitable VW 502.00 and A3 oil (GC 0W-30) looks pretty darn close on the cold weather viscosity to that barely-a-30-weight Edge you're using. You're trading off proper viscosity at operating temp and the proper manufacturer approval for what is at best an educated extrapolation showing a slightly lower viscosity at temps well below freezing.
And Edge 5W-30 isn't the "thinnest oil" you can use. Given that you're willing to ignore the fact that your engines call for a VW or ACEA A3 oil, you could also run something like Mobil 1 0W-20, which I'm willing to bet is even "thinner" than the Edge 5W-30. You'd gain a very small cold temp advantage at the margin and drift even farther away from the kinematic viscosity and HT/HS requirements for use at operating temperatures.
Pretty basic stuff, as you say.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
The requirements for a 0w-30 are lower than for a 0w-40 as far as cold visc goes.
Any more info on this?
The requirements for a 0w-30 are lower than for a 0w-40 as far as cold visc goes.
Any more info on this?
Hi,
Audi Junkie - At the risk of repeating.....
Hi,
Audi Junkie - You said this:
"The requirements for a 0w-30 are lower than for a 0w-40 as far as cold visc goes."
Can you please explain what you mean?
and waiting.............!
Any explanation yet?
Audi Junkie - At the risk of repeating.....
Hi,
Audi Junkie - You said this:
"The requirements for a 0w-30 are lower than for a 0w-40 as far as cold visc goes."
Can you please explain what you mean?
and waiting.............!
Any explanation yet?
JHZR2
Staff member
+1
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
It's called an educated guess, but I don't think the word "guess" even applies. It's a correct analysis based on data.
So what about the graph do you contend?
TDT is actually thinner than Edge?
Prove it.
Back at you - prove it. Or at least prove your math is right and sound. Yours are still guesses.
Edge may well be thinner than tdt but until real data is provided nothing is real. Plus one test is no test. Youre not creating laws of nature based upon one data point.
It's called an educated guess, but I don't think the word "guess" even applies. It's a correct analysis based on data.
So what about the graph do you contend?
TDT is actually thinner than Edge?
Prove it.
Back at you - prove it. Or at least prove your math is right and sound. Yours are still guesses.
Edge may well be thinner than tdt but until real data is provided nothing is real. Plus one test is no test. Youre not creating laws of nature based upon one data point.
The data is provided by the oil companies themselves.
0w-30 is thinner in cold than 0w-40 by definition. Show me some oils which aren't.
0w-30 is thinner in cold than 0w-40 by definition. Show me some oils which aren't.
Hi,
Audi Junkie - You said this;
"The requirements for a 0w-30 are lower than for a 0w-40 as far as cold visc goes."
Where are these "requirements" to back up your statement? Love to see them!
SAE J300 certainly does not back your statement up!
Audi Junkie - You said this;
"The requirements for a 0w-30 are lower than for a 0w-40 as far as cold visc goes."
Where are these "requirements" to back up your statement? Love to see them!
SAE J300 certainly does not back your statement up!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked