Group III Synthetics better than Group IV?

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron AKA:
I did not represent it to be a good example. But, as you have concluded it does support the fact that viscosity does matter, and that is where RL has a problem.

---

Whoa, hold on now, you're moving the target! The fact that a 20 wt oil produces greater hp, torque, and mpg than a 30 wt oil, in the same engine, under the same circumstances should come as a surprise to no one. You have been claiming that Redline oil (not 30 wt oils compared to 20 wt oils) imposes a hp, tq, and mpg penalty as compared to other oils, and have been ascribing that to the relatively high HT/HS viscosities. That's a different matter all together.

I still have seen no evidence that, within the same grade (keeping apples compared to apples, and oranges to oranges), Redline imposes any penalty in hp, tq, or mpg. Your claim -- your's to prove.

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron AKA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
http://www.lgmotorsports.com/catalog/index.php

Tell this guy RL doesn't give more HP. He has posted dyno runs on www.corvetteforum.com

---

When RL submit their oils for quality controlled standard GF-4 tests and pass I will believe it.

---

And when you show us one instance (more would of course be better) of Redline actually hurting someone's hp, tq, or mpg, as compared to another same-grade oil, I'll believe that there might be something to your assertion. I'm not, by the way, asking for more oil marketing stuff from Redline competitors that, surprise, shows the competitor's oil beating everyone else in every performance characteristic.

 

[Ron AKA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:
Whoa, hold on now, you're moving the target! The fact that a 20 wt oil produces greater hp, torque, and mpg than a 30 wt oil, in the same engine, under the same circumstances should come as a surprise to no one. You have been claiming that Redline oil imposes a hp, tq, and mpg penalty as compared to other oils, and have been ascribing that to the relatively high HT/HS viscosities. That's a different matter all together.

I still have seen no evidence that, within the same grade (keeping apples compared to apples, and oranges to oranges), Redline imposes any penalty in hp, tq, or mpg. Your claim -- your's to prove.

---

If you read that paper by the Shell engineer, you will see that what they found was that engine friction losses were most strongly correlated to HT/HS viscosity, not just SAE grades. This makes a lot of sense as the HT/HS viscosity is a shearing viscosity at a higher temperature and more accurately reflects what is going on at the piston walls and jounal bearings. Redline, if their oil specifications are correct, has an unusually high HT/HS for a given grade - and I think are proud of it. Compare Reline for example to Mobil 1 in the 5w20 and 5w30 grades:

RL 5w20 - 3.3
RL 5w30 - 3.8
M1 5w20 - 2.6
M1 5w30 - 3.1

I would expect a 5w30 M1 to even outperform a 5w20 Redline on HP and mileage.

 

[ekpolk]

Ron:

I don't dispute those numbers at all. Nor do I disagree with the the idea that frictional losses are correlated with HT/HS vis. What I'm trying to say is that there are many other factors that also bear upon net total frictional losses. Some are "negatives" and some will be "positives". Where I think you are mistaken is in your singular focus upon one factor, in this case HT/HS viscosity, as the determining factor in the hp, tq, and mpg performance of Redline oil (or any other product for that matter).

You've got to look a the "big picture," ALL the factors that bear on performance, not just one!!!

 

[Ron AKA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:
You've got to look a the "big picture," ALL the factors that bear on performance, not just one!!!

---

The second big factor of course is friction modifiers. But, when you look at it, they are really not so big. See the graph below again. The clear circles and squares indicated data points without friction modifiers. The ones in green are with a couple of different modifier additives. Yes it does make a difference but not nearly as much as HTHS viscosity. For example you are not going to get a 3.8 (RL 5w30) to perform any where near a 3.1 (M1 5w30) with friction modifiers alone. And you have to remember that M1 and others use good friction modifiers as well. So with both products using friction modifiers the difference is likley to be 95% attributable to HTHS alone. And with the natural lubricity of Group III's combined with low HTHS may make them even better still...

 

[buster]

Ron, RL uses Polyolester baseoils which have a 50% less coefficient of friction than PAO's. I don't think anyone has doubted that HT/HS has an impact on performance gains, however, it is not the only variable at play. Base oil used, additives used are also important.

If Group III's were better, why do Joe Gibb's, LiquidCosworth, Redline, Mobil, Castrol, Amsoil and Motul all use Group IV and V? Do you know something they don't?

http://www.getahelmet.com/jeeps/tech/redline-chemist/#mobil1

quote:

---

Redline starts out with a Jet Turbine Oil Base, which has a higher level of thermal stability, and they have to add less friction modifiers.
Red Line has 1/2 Cf of Mobil 1.

Viscosity vs. Sheer strength are similar, but Red Line handles high loads better.

Can gain 1 - 2% more power by going to a lower viscosity oil.

There is no longer a problem with synthetic lubricants eating away seals. (Original Mobil-1, no longer available, left out seal-swell).

Red Line blends its lubricants, but does not manufacture the synthetic bases.

---

How can you assume that HT/HS alone is the #1 reason when all oils are formulated using different %'s of different additives/baseoils?

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron AKA:
(...snip...) For example you are not going to get a 3.8 (RL 5w30) to perform any where near a 3.1 (M1 5w30) with friction modifiers alone. And you have to remember that M1 and others use good friction modifiers as well. (...snip...)

---

You would think, then, both Mobil and Redline being decades into their synthetic oil programs, that by now we'd see a pattern emerging of users reporting mileage increases when changing from RL to M1, or conversely, decreases when going from M1 to RL. I have never heard of such, and you have produced no evidence of this happening. Buster offered evidence that points in the other direction, which you dismissed out of hand, saying you want to see it GF-4 certified. But the ILSAC qual, or lack thereof, is really irrelevant to the question now at hand, so that's pretty transparently a distractor. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and there is nothing wrong with theories, but let's be straight about what's what. Theories are not facts. Facts are facts. Show us some, if they exist, and then maybe you'll find a more sympathetic reception.

 

[Ron AKA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and there is nothing wrong with theories, but let's be straight about what's what. Theories are not facts. Facts are facts. Show us some, if they exist, and then maybe you'll find a more sympathetic reception.

---

I fully agree that it is only a theory. H e l l, it may even be possible that the HTHS of the RL oil is not as high as they say it is. But, until RL qualifies their oil to the Starburst efficiency level, I won't change my mind on the theory. I think they would like everyone to believe there is no connection between fuel efficiency and HP. There is a major one.

Lets get back to the Group III vs IV discussion, as I think the RL theory had already been flogged to death. Do you agree that the superior Group III base oil specs posted above are at least equal if not better than the PAO's?

 

[ekpolk]

That's cool. I would readily agree that for most users of typical cars in typical service, they'll be just fine using even a G-II/II+, or better. And the G-IIIs in particular are impressive, in many ways. I do note, however, the apparent disparities in low temp performance (not in all, just many) and in Noack volatility.

I'll just cut to what is the chase for me: the value side (and yes, I'll agree that we can have different measures of "value"). It is quite apparent that the G-IIIs cost substantiall less to make than the G-IV/V formulations. Yet most G-IIIs are priced at or very near their IV/V competitors. Sure, you can say that if it performs at or very near the level of the IV/V, they why not price it similarly? I would counter that since I know roughly what the G-III costs to make, I feel like my intelligence is being insulted or that I'm being taken advantage of. Anyone is, of course, free to disagree with me on this -- fine with me.

I just bought a car with a Toyota Certified Used wty of 7yrs/100k miles, and which as an across-the-board, all service 5k OCI. As an attorney and car nut, I know how to care for my car, and document things (including UOAs) so that I'd win almost any wty fight, but of course, I also realize it's best to avoid that fight, so the long OCIs will be on the shelf for this car for a while. Thus, one of the primary benefits (as I see it) of the IV/V products is simply N/A for me, for now. Once I've eaten through the dozens of quarts of green GC, I'll probably try a G-III or two, if I can get it for ~$3 or so per quart.

 

[Ron AKA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:
TS:

I agree. What bothers me is that he's making an unsupportable leap and declaring that Redline products actually cause a reduction in output and mileage as a result of their relatively high HT/HS viscosities. As you correctly point out, there are many other factors that bear upon the actual performance of a finished oil. HT/HS is but one of the many. And again, I've seen no evidence at all that in actual use, Redline has the effect that Ron says it has. He should, IMO, be qualifying his statements as his predictions or theories, not stating them as if they are established fact. They are not.

---

A number of posts with the same comments. No I don't know of any head to head tests between RL and a good GF-4 like Mobil 1. However, I would bet some $$ that Mobil would win on HP and efficiency. I also suspect that is the main reason that in the current formulation RL will never qualify their 5w oils to GF-4, just because they can't meet the mileage specification - which is also a measure of HP. There is a reason ILSAC set a minimum fuel efficiency and a minimum HTHS. They want fuel efficiency while still maintaining control over wear.

If you go to the link below (which was posted by another contributer here when I did my "Redline costs HP.." post. It shows Redline not doing so well against a couple of other oils. Not sure this is all that relevant to our current discussion, as I would gather these are racing oils. I also note RL do not post their HTHS on the racing oils. I'll bet they are much lower than the street oils, or they will be watching the competition from the back row.

Click on the link called Busch Engine Test Graphs. Note there are 4 tabs to this spreadsheet that you can click on.

http://www.joegibbsracingoil.com/oiltech.php

 

[goodvibes]

HTHS can't be simplified into a linear viscosity discussion. Redline 5w30 has a hot Visc. of 10.9. M1 extended performance 5w30 is 11. Redline would get as good or better mileage when fresh based on visc alone and relying on an oil to shear for mileage improvement is just wrong think. With low HTHS and shearing comes less protection if the oil that you've chosen is correctly mileage optimized for your application when new. An oil that shears, changes it's characteristics during an interval. Pick the right viscosity with a more slippery oil like Redline and there is nothing that will get you a better combination of protection, power, and mileage for the entire interval. If you've got a tight motor that doesn't use oil, the extra ZDDP won't even wear the CAT. An SM group 3 oil is all that most of us will ever need but that doesn't mean that there aren't better things out there. I'm curious to see Buster's mileage comparisons with different 20 wts. Redline is the heaviest and I suspect that he did not or will not see improvement from another. If Red Line protects well enough for you to use their 20w in place of someone elses 30 as racers will do with a shear stable highly additised exotic synth than you have the best of all worlds. Constant protection and mileage from the beginning of an interval without having to wait for or worry about oil shear. If your mileage increase even subtley, the oil premium is paid for.

[ September 17, 2006, 03:58 AM: Message edited by: goodvibes ]

 

[Ron AKA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:
I'll just cut to what is the chase for me: the value side (and yes, I'll agree that we can have different measures of "value"). It is quite apparent that the G-IIIs cost substantiall less to make than the G-IV/V formulations. Yet most G-IIIs are priced at or very near their IV/V competitors. Sure, you can say that if it performs at or very near the level of the IV/V, they why not price it similarly? I would counter that since I know roughly what the G-III costs to make, I feel like my intelligence is being insulted or that I'm being taken advantage of.

---

Price is a strange one, and one that often insults me as well. At Canadian Tire they sell Castrol Syntec 0w30 (Made in Germany), right beside the 5w30 Syntec and Mobil 1, and all at the same ridiculous price of $8.99/L. Makes no sense. The other thing that makes no sense in Canada is ESSO selling their full synthetic XD-3 0w30 at about $5, and PetroCan selling their Arctic 0w30 full syntethic for a little less, while selling their Xw30 more popular synthetics for at least 50% more. Pricing obvioiusly has little to do with cost, and a lot to do with marketing.

 

[buster]

Ron, I brought RL's base oil into the equation simply bc you claimed that RL's HT/HS results in less HP and MGP. However, you failed to realize that all the oils in that sample were of the same formulation. Comparing RL's chemistry to a PAO or Group III is comparing apples to oranges.

I'm in 100% agreement with ekpolk. My issue with group III's has NEVER been about quality. The issue has been, why pay the same amount for a Group III when I can get a PAO based oil? The prime example of this over the years has been Castrol Syntec vs Mobil 1. Syntec has always been priced very close to M1.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron AKA:
Pour Point - Clearly the base PAO is far better in this parameter. However, as has been discussed earlier this advantage pretty much goes away once the additives have been put in the PAO.

---

First, PetroCan's 0w30 doesn't have the better CCS/MRV specs compared to a premium PAO product when formulated for performance in this temperature realm. Just because you don't have the spec's, doesn't mean the superior PAO product doesn't exist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron AKA:
And the CCS/MRV which is what really counts is better at least with the PetroCan in the final product.

---

And with any formulation depending on PPDs for CCS/MRV specs, the advantage starts going away as soon as you begin using it.

 

[Ron AKA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:
And with any formulation depending on PPDs for CCS/MRV specs, the advantage starts going away as soon as you begin using it.

---

If you check the oil specs for Group III's there is isn't a direct correlation between pour point and CCS/MRV performance. In fact if there is a relationship, it is the inverse - As pour is lowered CCS/MRV gets worse. In the 5w30 synthetic chart I posted compare the PetroCan, Quaker State, & Pennzoil products as an illustration. So there may not be as much PPD additive as one might expect in the good products. Also there is the issue that the best Group III's need less VI improvers as they start out with a better VI. So, in the end perhaps both Group III's and IV's are susceptible to additive depletion when used for extended oil intervals.

 

[bruce381]

""If you check the oil specs for Group III's there is isn't a direct correlation between pour point and CCS/MRV performance.""

Yes there is.

""In fact if there is a relationship, it is the inverse - As pour is lowered CCS/MRV gets worse""

Thats what it does. That is normal.

""Group III's and IV's are susceptible to additive depletion when used for extended oil intervals""

True but PAO will not have as big a drop off in PP as a GPIII will when "used up"

""In the 5w30 synthetic chart I posted compare the PetroCan, Quaker State, & Pennzoil products as an illustration.""

What page is that on??

While the gap is narrow to none the PAO still has it over any GPIII in the unadditized PP department.

Bruce

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron AKA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:
And with any formulation depending on PPDs for CCS/MRV specs, the advantage starts going away as soon as you begin using it.

---

If you check the oil specs for Group III's there is isn't a direct correlation between pour point and CCS/MRV performance. In fact if there is a relationship, it is the inverse - As pour is lowered CCS/MRV gets worse. In the 5w30 synthetic chart I posted compare the PetroCan, Quaker State, & Pennzoil products as an illustration. So there may not be as much PPD additive as one might expect in the good products. Also there is the issue that the best Group III's need less VI improvers as they start out with a better VI. So, in the end perhaps both Group III's and IV's are susceptible to additive depletion when used for extended oil intervals.

---

Ron, you're learning, but you still have a long way to go.

It was I who first enlightened you to the relationship between PPDs and viscosity with Group IIIs, so you don't have to repeat this fact back to me.

You still need to learn the difference between CCS and MRV. Group IIIs can have a great CCSs values, but you still have to deal with their poor MRV performance. Low temperature viscometrics are sacrificed to improve the MRV performance of Group IIIs.

You keep harping VI of Group IIIs when what is actually the difference, 126 vs 130? Or whatever numbers you want to pull off the spec sheets.

What you failed to learn is that high VI PAOs can be blended with the base PAO to significantly improve the VI. Just a 10% blend of a high VI PAO into a PAO basestock can easily match the VI of the best Group III+ made today. All while maintaining much of their cold temperature performance.

 

[Ron AKA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:
It was I who first enlightened you to the relationship between PPDs and viscosity with Group IIIs, so you don't have to repeat this fact back to me.

---

Actually I recall it was you that posted that misleading graph of PAO viscosity vs temp compared to a GIII with PPD. When another contributer posted the complete link which had the explaination of the graph and this was combined with specifications of final product pour points and CCS/MRV, then there actually was some learning. i.e. PAO's are not nearly as good as their pour point would suggest - especially after the PAO's are blended to real viscosity and additives put in.

I have not seen a split between CCS/MRV - when one is good, the other usually is. The split comes in between PP and CCS/MRV, with the conclusion that PP especially of the base oil is meaningless.

 

[Ron AKA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bruce381:
""Group III's and IV's are susceptible to additive depletion when used for extended oil intervals""

True but PAO will not have as big a drop off in PP as a GPIII will when "used up"

""In the 5w30 synthetic chart I posted compare the PetroCan, Quaker State, & Pennzoil products as an illustration.""

What page is that on??

---

It is not the PP drop off that I would be concerned about, just the CCS/MRV. Here is the table of values to compare.

 

[BlazerLT]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron AKA:

RL 5w20 - 3.3
RL 5w30 - 3.8
M1 5w20 - 2.6
M1 5w30 - 3.1

I would expect a 5w30 M1 to even outperform a 5w20 Redline on HP and mileage.

---

You REALLY to stop with your opinionated ASSUMPTIONS based off of white paper data.

You are making yourself foolish with statements like this.