Amsoil - no longer commenting on Base Oils

[JAG]

Another member who didn't stick around and was knowledgable and does engine/oil testing basically said what Blue99 did. He got beat up for saying it but it makes sense to me. It seems to me that it would be hard to make a 10W-30 PAO oil that passes the Fuel Economy tests needed for GF-4. PAO's high viscosity index/low cold cranking & pumping viscosities works against it here IMO, especially in a 10W-30 oil (0W-30 would be easier since it can use thinner PAOs and rely on more VI improvers). A 10W-30 PAO oil is pretty much a straight weight oil...nothing in it to shear. An oil like that that passed GF-4 would need some super friction modifiers which costs even more money to include. One other thing that could be done is to blend the PAOs such that it is barely a 30 weight oil which is fine because it won't shear but I doubt that's enough on its own. Maybe I'm wrong here and someone will tell me why.

What I think is that API/ILSAC has accidentally driven off the use of lots of PAO in oils by the fuel economy requirements. By not having much more stingent performance requirements, they've also made high use of PAO usually not necessary...obviously since non-synthetic oils meet the specs.

 

[buster]

Quote:

---

He got beat up for saying it but it makes sense to me. It seems to me that it would be hard to make a 10W-30 PAO oil that passes the Fuel Economy tests needed for GF-4. PAO's high viscosity index/low cold cranking & pumping viscosities works against it here IMO, especially in a 10W-30 oil (0W-30 would be easier since it can use thinner PAOs and rely on more VI improvers). A 10W-30 PAO oil is pretty much a straight weight oil...nothing in it to shear. An oil like that that passed GF-4 would need some super friction modifiers which costs even more money to include. One other thing that could be done is to blend the PAOs such that it is barely a 30 weight oil which is fine because it won't shear but I doubt that's enough on its own. Maybe I'm wrong here and someone will tell me why.

What I think is that API/ILSAC has accidentally driven off the use of lots of PAO in oils by the fuel economy requirements. By not having much more stingent performance requirements, they've also made high use of PAO usually not necessary...obviously since non-synthetic oils meet the

---

I remember that. I wish I could remember what link it was in.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

Another member who didn't stick around and was knowledgable and does engine/oil testing basically said what Blue99 did. He got beat up for saying it but it makes sense to me. It seems to me that it would be hard to make a 10W-30 PAO oil that passes the Fuel Economy tests needed for GF-4. PAO's high viscosity index/low cold cranking & pumping viscosities works against it here IMO, especially in a 10W-30 oil (0W-30 would be easier since it can use thinner PAOs and rely on more VI improvers). A 10W-30 PAO oil is pretty much a straight weight oil...nothing in it to shear. An oil like that that passed GF-4 would need some super friction modifiers which costs even more money to include. One other thing that could be done is to blend the PAOs such that it is barely a 30 weight oil which is fine because it won't shear but I doubt that's enough on its own. Maybe I'm wrong here and someone will tell me why.

What I think is that API/ILSAC has accidentally driven off the use of lots of PAO in oils by the fuel economy requirements. By not having much more stingent performance requirements, they've also made high use of PAO usually not necessary...obviously since non-synthetic oils meet the specs.

---

I have a few problems with this position.

First, how may cars still spec a 10w30? I willing to bet that for cars requiring a GF-4 oil, 99.9% of them spec 5w30 or 5w20.

Second, as you mentioned, you could blend down to the low end of the Xw30 grade and the inherit high VI of syns is going to help economy, not hurt. Besides, the better Group IIIs have comparable VI to PAOs so I don't see how using Group IIIs is going to help the situtation...unless they're using the lowest quality Group IIIs that require more VIIs.

Third, the option exists to have the 10w30 grade qualify for an SM ONLY designation.

Finally, the GF-4 fuel economy requirements are on a sliding scale so that a 10w30 grade doesn't have to produce the same fuel economy as the 0w30 or 5w30 grades.

SAE 0W-20 and 5W-20 viscosity grades:
2.3% min. after 16 hours aging (Phase I FEI)
2.0% min. after 96 hours aging (Phase II FEI)

SAE 0W-30 and 5w30 viscosity grades:
1.8% min. after 16 hours aging (Phase I FEI)
1.5% min. after 96 hours aging (Phase II FEI)

All other SAE viscosity grades:
1.1% min. after 16 hours aging (Phase I FEI)
0.8% min. after 96 hours aging (Phase II FEI)

 

[JAG]

Let's assume a 10W-30 PAO oil without VI improvers and KV at 100C of 10 cst. It might have to be a mix of multiple PAOs to achieve that. Let's assume there are no other basestocks. Approximately what would its HTHS be? I'm thinking it would be quite high.

 

[harrydog]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Yes, a major hurdle to cross, is beating the PAO reference oil used in the GF-4 fuel economy test. Conventional oils use the temporary shear of viscosity improvers and friction modifier additives to beat the PAO reference oil by 1-2%, PAO formulations need another method.

So, both the major motor oil brands and a huge group of the ILMA independents go the Grp III route, which is where the additive companies have already provided the R&D to pass the GF-4 tests.

Take a look at the list of API SM/GF-4 that carry the term "synthetic" in the label. Every SM* (asterisk) oil on this list is also GF-4 and API Starburst.

http://eolcs.api.org/default.asp Please insert the term "synthetic" into the brand search box.

Of all the synthetic motor oils on this list, I do not recognize any as PAO formulations. So the current trend is "Synthetic" on the label equals Grp III & a PAO formulation is indeed rare.

---

Does anyone have any references to the above? Blue99 made some good points.

---

So, with Group II or Group III oils, meeting the the GF-4 fuel economy standards means that other things like shear resistance are being sacrificed? Am I wrong about that?

 

[TeeDub]

JAG,

The CCS viscosity of the PAO based Amsoil 10w-30 is only 4000 Cp @ -25C, vs an upper SAE J300 limit of 7000 Cp @ -25C. In addition the VI is a very high 171 (compare that to a VI of only 147 for the Mobil 1, 10w-30 for example).

Amsoil has also added MoDTC and Borate esters to their latest 5w30/10w-30 formulations, for friction modification and they have reduced their HT/HS viscosity from 3.5 Cp (their API/SL oil) to 3.2 Cp in their API/SM oils.

Thats how you formulate a top tier, SAE 10w-30 with PAO/Ester basestocks and get it to surpass the GF-4 "Energy Conserving" requirements.

Any questions???

TD

 

[OriginHacker21]

I just ordered some Amsoil XL 5w30. I'm going to run it and compare it to my Amsoil ASL 5w30 and GC runs with UOAs. I think my fear of Group III oils is unwarranted. Still, if I had a BMW M3, Corvette, or a high performance engine - I'd want a FULL synthetic for it. As Pablo said - I hope Amsoil will be smart enough to keep its ASL and create a new group of group III oils. I have a feeling they will.

 

[Blue99]

Quote:

---

Any questions???

---

Same question as always, why not pay to have Southwest Research run Sequence VIB fuel economy tests on whatever formulations that Amsoil tags the "meets or exceeds energy conserving requirements of GF-4" verbage?

 

[nascarnation]

once again our roadways will be littered with another formerly robust group of vehicles with blown motors.......

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

Let's assume a 10W-30 PAO oil without VI improvers and KV at 100C of 10 cst.

---

In my best Adam Savage voice from Mythbusters, "well...there's your problem."

I think it's very rare you'll find any PAO synthetic 10w30 today that isn't made with at least some VIIs. And as Ted so eloquently pointed out, with the proper tweaking of base oils and VIIs, and addition of the right FMs, there's no reason why a 10w30 can't be built with premium basestocks and still meet GF-4 fuel economy requirements as apparently Amsoil is already doing it.

 

[TeeDub]

If you want to see an SAE 10w-30 made with just a "dumbell" basestock blend (a combo of thin and very thick PAO's), take a look at the Amsoil 10w-30, Four Stroke Marine Oil(WCT):

VI of 152
CCS of 6030 Cp @ -25C (50% more viscous than ATM)
HT/HS of 3.65 Cp @ 150C
Noack of 4.8%

That's a 30wt formulated with high molecular weight basestocks, which is biased towards having the best high temp stability - abeit at some expense in terms of cold pumpability. It's going to be much too thick to meet the GF-4 specifications.

The bottom line is that any oil formulation is a tradeoff of hot/cold temp properties....

 

[Blue99]

Well, I guess that's one of my points, that VI improvers showing up in a PAO formulation are the result of formulators being put in a box by the Sequence VIB requirements.

Remember, Molakule always taught us that classic PAO formulations are mixed down, selecting the base oil for the high temp requirement & volatility and then mixing in the lighter viscosity for the low temp requirements.

A formulator has a mix of 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 25 cSt PAO base oils to select from. And no VI's are required.

I was under the impression that Amsoil 10W-30 was almost a mono-grade oil with enough cold temp properties to meet the 10W rating.

 

[TeeDub]

Blue,

The Amsoil 10w-30/ACD is a monograde, but it only has a VI of 142. I don't believe you can get a 171 VI with only a basestock blend at the price point of the Amsoil 10w-30 (dealer cost of approx $6.00/qt). Of course the drawback to this approach this that the ACD formulation only has a PP of -36F, compared to -58F for ATM. In other words the thicker basestock kills your low temp pumpability.

Keep in mind that VI modifiers are most effective between 40C and 100C and it is the variation in viscosity at these two reference temps that determines the VI....

Ted

 

[buster]

Quote:

---

That's a 30wt formulated with high molecular weight basestocks, which is biased towards having the best high temp stability - abeit at some expense in terms of cold pumpability. It's going to be much too thick to meet the GF-4 specifications.

The bottom line is that any oil formulation is a tradeoff of hot/cold temp properties....

---

It is and based on the current spec sheets, I would tend to believe that Amsoil ASL/ATM/TSO are all PAO/Ester. The volatility is still very good, so they end up mixing in VII's to meet the fuel eff. spec. Noak tends to be a good indicator of significant base oil change correct?

If one looks at RL, it's clear they formulate for the high temp end which makes sense for that market.

M1 however, is most likely using Group III and they use some high viscosity SuperSyn PAO in the blend.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

I'm only an electrical engineer with a masters in electromagenetic pulse theory. So we will just have to agree to disagree.

---

Well I'm an Electrical Engineer who worked on miltary radar systems for 10 years, not to mention my Physics and MS Computer Science degrees. Although, I'm not sure what comparing degrees is going to prove.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

A formulator has a mix of 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 25 cSt PAO base oils to select from. And no VI's are required.

---

Not if you use ANs in place of Esters. Maybe if you add SuperSyn (or equivalent) into the mix you could make a 10w30 without VIIs.