High VI and Base Stocks

[Trav]

Thanks shannow and Overkill for providing interesting and relevant info, this has been on my mind for a long time.
My problem with these high VI numbers automatically making the oil better didn't add up in my mind.

Both EM, Castrol and SOPUS have some of the most advanced research facilities in the world and make a lot of base stock not just for themselves but for sale to smaller blenders.

If high VI was the answer why wouldn't they just create their top shelf premium products with higher VI instead of having them in the 150-170 range?
My mind is saying because it doesn't need them, the base stock is better. The fact Toyota sells their TGMO at fire sale prices is IMHO not a good will Toyota subsidy for their own branded oil, but simply the fair market value of the oil.

It seems BMW is going the same route with this partnership with Toyota. BMW knows the American consumer does not want to pay the $30 a qt for the best oil, that could be a deal breaker for some.
They will go the $6-9 for what they believe to be synthetic but not much more, the question is how do they get a lesser quality base stock to perform well enough?
It would seem through the use of VI.

Am i missing something here?

 

[bobbydavro]

I think this question got missed.


What would the theoretical Kv150 be ? 8.5 kv100 and 42.12 kv40

How about this oil?
Kv100 7.72, kv40 42.42 (density 0.85) with a HTHS of 2.61

 

[Trav]

Why ask me ask, unless it has bolts in it i cant answer you question. Ask Shannow, Overkill or A Hartman.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
I think this question got missed.


What would the theoretical Kv150 be ? 8.5 kv100 and 42.12 kv40

How about this oil?
Kv100 7.72, kv40 42.42 (density 0.85) with a HTHS of 2.61


Using the calc, we get an operating viscosity of 3.88cSt @ 150C for the first one
This gives us a KV150 of 2.917 according to Shannow's earlier method.
Can't give you an Index without density and HTHS for this one.

Using the calc, we get an operating viscosity of 3.42cSt @ 150C for the second one
This gives us a KV150 of 2.575
Harman Index of 1.014 (so basically 1)

 

[Capa]

K so it's not that I am disagreeing here however I don't recall seeing any used oil analysis with TGMO that sheared in any significant way.
So what does that mean exactly?/quote]

I agree with Clevy here. I haven't looked in the UOA section in a couple of months but it was well known that TGMO sheared less than Mobil 0W-20, even with its stratospheric VII, and had good TBN retention. These are all signs of a good base foundation. Has Mobil 0W-20 recently changed?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Capa
Originally Posted By: Clevy

K so it's not that I am disagreeing here however I don't recall seeing any used oil analysis with TGMO that sheared in any significant way.
So what does that mean exactly?


I agree with Clevy here. I haven't looked in the UOA section in a couple of months but it was well known that TGMO sheared less than Mobil 0W-20, even with its stratospheric VII, and had good TBN retention. These are all signs of a good base foundation. Has Mobil 0W-20 recently changed?


I don't recall M1 0w-20 shearing. It was the 0w-30 AFE product that sheared. And yes, the previous formulation of TGMO (the one not made by Mobil) did IIRC shear very quickly. I recall somebody saying it sheared as it flowed out of the bottle, LOL!

 

[OVERKILL]

And BTW:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...ere#Post3590331

Quote:
cST @ 40C: 36.82
cST @ 100c: 8.49
VI: 219
CCS @ -35c: 6433 (I thought maximum should be 6200 for 0w?)
Pour point: -46c
TBN: 8.02
TAN: 1.99
NOACK: 10.3%


And after use:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/2899355/Toyota_0W-20_SN,_5024_miles,_2#Post2899355

V@100C 7.6 cSt

It went from 8.49cSt to 7.6cSt.

And then this one:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3484830/TGMO_0W-20,_13_Avalon_Hybrid#Post3484830

V@100C 7.46cSt

And then there is this one:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3304443/TGMO_0W-20_SN,_TBN/TAN,_5170_M#Post3304443

With an increase in viscosity to 8.64 cSt (and it shows oxidation at 100%? Oxidative thickening?)

And this one:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb..._0W#Post3326153

V@100C 7.01cSt

And this one:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3327054/2

V@100C 7.28cSt

And this one:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...W-2#Post3289769

v@100C 6.58cSt


But then if we look at the AFE 0w-20, I found this:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3600453/Mobil_1_0w20_AFE_/_Civic_(K24Z#Post3600453

With AFE 0w-20 shearing down below 7

Which clashes nicely with this one, of the same oil, showing great visc retention:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3563224/Mobil1_AFE_0w-20---21,000_mile#Post3563224

8.14cSt

And then there is this one:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3537269/M1_AFE_0W-20_7,354_miles_2014_#Post3537269

With it at 7.22cSt.

And this one:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3438505/2007_Honda_Element_6037mi,__M1#Post3438505

With it at 7.5cSt

And a pile of them here:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3478641/2010_FX4_%7C_M1_AFE_0W-20_%7C_15,1#Post3478641

Where it sheared very little (8.4cSt on the most recent one).

So I retract my earlier statement, it does seem to shear in some applications. Virgin it is 8.7cSt. And TGMO seems to shear in some applications as well. Some of them severely.

 

[McGowen]

Sorry but I'm with bobbydavro on this.

This is just a load of "Armchair Chemistry".

 

[Garak]

Lab chemistry isn't a lot of use without someone doing the math afterwards, and probably a mathematical physicist to really straighten it out.

 

[bobbydavro]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
I think this question got missed.


What would the theoretical Kv150 be ? 8.5 kv100 and 42.12 kv40

How about this oil?
Kv100 7.72, kv40 42.42 (density 0.85) with a HTHS of 2.61


Using the calc, we get an operating viscosity of 3.88cSt @ 150C for the first one
This gives us a KV150 of 2.917 according to Shannow's earlier method.
Can't give you an Index without density and HTHS for this one.




The first one was measured at 4.1 kv150. This model you are using wouldn't appear to be that accurate.

I still can't see what you are trying to read from this number. Many VII have additional functions including dispersancy and additional benefits under high pressure to maintain film thickness. 10^7 shear rate is also at the lower end of the shear rate in an engine. At higher speed 10^9 is not uncommon, again different VII (and dispersants /PIBSA) respond differently again.

A yes the second was a 0W-20 with no VII, one of my favourites as it has a noack of 4.4% too, but only 152 VI. Again not sure what you think a number of 1 is telling you other than it has no temporary shear in the hths rig. But this is no surprise with no VII. In fact the dispersants may be thickening it up at high shear due to internal friction when compared to gravity shear (shear of oil going down a capillary tube )

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
I still can't see what you are trying to read from this number. Many VII have additional functions including dispersancy and additional benefits under high pressure to maintain film thickness. 10^7 shear rate is also at the lower end of the shear rate in an engine. At higher speed 10^9 is not uncommon, again different VII (and dispersants /PIBSA) respond differently again.

A yes the second was a 0W-20 with no VII, one of my favourites as it has a noack of 4.4% too, but only 152 VI. Again not sure what you think a number of 1 is telling you other than it has no temporary shear in the hths rig. But this is no surprise with no VII. In fact the dispersants may be thickening it up at high shear due to internal friction when compared to gravity shear (shear of oil going down a capillary tube )


Nice info, thanks.

 

[McGowen]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Some examples:

Amsoil ACD, KV40 69.0, KV100 10.6, density 8.539, HTHS 3.4, Harman Index 1.02.

TGMO, KV40 36.1, KV100 10.6, density 0.851, HTHS 2.6 (for a little while), Harman Index 0.844.

Indicates lots of propping up through VIIs.

M1 0W40, KV40 75, KV100 13.5, density 0.85, HTHS 3.8, Harman Index0.874.


Clearly Amsoil will need to add the Harman Index to their Four-Ball Wear Test results.

And we all need to run away from M1 0w40 as it's almost as bad as TGMO.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: bobbydavro

The first one was measured at 4.1 kv150. This model you are using wouldn't appear to be that accurate.


The first number is obtained by using the standard ASTM D341 calculation. I don't know how well it correlates with specific lubricants though

Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
I still can't see what you are trying to read from this number. Many VII have additional functions including dispersancy and additional benefits under high pressure to maintain film thickness. 10^7 shear rate is also at the lower end of the shear rate in an engine. At higher speed 10^9 is not uncommon, again different VII (and dispersants /PIBSA) respond differently again.

A yes the second was a 0W-20 with no VII, one of my favourites as it has a noack of 4.4% too, but only 152 VI. Again not sure what you think a number of 1 is telling you other than it has no temporary shear in the hths rig. But this is no surprise with no VII. In fact the dispersants may be thickening it up at high shear due to internal friction when compared to gravity shear (shear of oil going down a capillary tube )


Just how much VII is in a product. That 2nd lube is a great example, it has no VII and the formula indicated that. That's the whole point. It is just fun with numbers; learning a bit more about how much of something is or isn't in a lubricant

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
I'd like to know which of those 5W-30s have no VII.


Redline 5w-30 for one.


I would guess the Motul 300V 5W-30 as well, but yes, Dave at Red Line has confirmed that their 5W-30 has no added VIIs.

He has actually stated that only their 0W-xx oils (and the 5W-50, and 10W-60) have any added at all, and even then it is a minimum.

Also, the MPT Thirty K oils are confirmed as having no added VIIs in all of their line, save for their 0W-40.

 

[Capa]

Overkill, thank you for your honesty. I believe that the non-Mobil Toyota oil that sheared a lot fits with what some are saying about oils with high VII and not so good a base. However, the current Mobil TGMO, shows good TBN retention and doesn't shear so badly, and these are signs of a good base foundation. Let's not forget that what some consider the king of oils, Mobil 0W-40, is known to shear some as well.

I ask again if Mobil's 0W-20 formula was changed recently?

 

[KrisZ]

This is a great discussion and all, but I'm hoping that this Herman ratio doesn't become the next "thing" for oils on here.

There are many VIIs and PPDs on the market all designed to accomplish different things, all having their pros and cons and they cannot all be labeled as bad. Let's not get into the "my oil is closer to 1 than yours" nonsense, just like we did with the VI number.

 

[bobbydavro]

Agree with above. I'll dig some more examples out when I get chance and see what conclusions are made before giving detail on the oil.

Really though this ratio is not about VII amount but the effect of VII.

10W-60 with no VII? No chance in my view.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Capa
Overkill, thank you for your honesty. I believe that the non-Mobil Toyota oil that sheared a lot fits with what some are saying about oils with high VII and not so good a base. However, the current Mobil TGMO, shows good TBN retention and doesn't shear so badly, and these are signs of a good base foundation. Let's not forget that what some consider the king of oils, Mobil 0W-40, is known to shear some as well.

I ask again if Mobil's 0W-20 formula was changed recently?


I know the 0w-40 has changed, and based on 2010_FX4's UOA's (and the difference in shear on his most recent run vs his earlier ones) I'm going to say that the 0w-20 has probably changed too.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
Agree with above. I'll dig some more examples out when I get chance and see what conclusions are made before giving detail on the oil.

Really though this ratio is not about VII amount but the effect of VII.

10W-60 with no VII? No chance in my view.


Pretty well agreed there...

Some on the board have posited that by the time that you make a racing oil with super basestocks, you automatically get a 0W, whether it's a 40 or 50 at the top end...the index would suggest otherwise

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
I know the 0w-40 has changed, and based on 2010_FX4's UOA's (and the difference in shear on his most recent run vs his earlier ones) I'm going to say that the 0w-20 has probably changed too.


It was part of the M1 0W40 myth that they got super long drains by letting it shear to a 30, then thicken back up to a 40.

Doesn't seem to display the shear anything like it used to.