FYI - most SAE 20 oils will test out as 10W-20 in modern tests
How Do Viscosity Index Improvers Work?
- Thread starter Red91
- Start date
- Status
I've seen arguments both ways on the 0 vs 5w-20. 5w-20 tends to have less VII and lower NOACK, but 0w-20 has better base stocks.
A nice 10w-30 is my favorite grade for severe service. Esp the high end syn that don't need much VII to meet 10w
A nice 10w-30 is my favorite grade for severe service. Esp the high end syn that don't need much VII to meet 10w
Okay. I'm back again. So in no particular order...
Regarding 10W40s, if ever an oil grade can claim to have truly 'evolved', it's this one.
I wasn't around when the original US 10W40 problems occurred but it's easy to see how it might have happened. Back in the day, oils weren't constrained for Noack or the affects of VII shear. Similarly oil specs weren't that severe, cost was king and to be honest, a lot of test cheating was going on. Under such circumstances, you would maybe make a full Group I 10W40 to say 12.6 cst (just inside the 40 limit) because it's cheap to do so. You might make it with 55 SSI high ethylene OCP VII because again that's the cheapest way to do it. You minimise the amount of DI (and especially Ashless Dispersant) in the oil which has the effect of maximising the amount of VII needed. Put this all together and you very likely have a high Noack oil (I'm guessing around 18-20%) containing a lot of potentially insoluble, highly shearable polymer, whose base oil system solvency power will be quickly compromised once it starts oxidising. Note that with such a high Noack oil, as light base is stripped out of the sump by the action of hot blow-by, the concentration of VII in the remaining oil would increase, pushing everything closer to it's solubility limit. It's no wonder GM balked at using such an oil!
Going back to say the mid 90s, Euro 10W40s were even then far more constrained. Low shear 22 SSI VIIs were absolutely required to meet VWs specs while ACEA's KO30 shear spec tended to keep 10W40 KV100s around the 14.5 cst mark. Likewise Noack was mainly constrained to 13% max and this meant you couldn't physically make an all Group I 10W40; you had to use typically 20% min synthetic just to make 13% (so reducing VII loading). As ACEA specs evolved, you saw tests like the Peugeot TU5 acting as a pseudo-Noack constraint for 10W40 and upping the required level of synthetic to 30% min. The required level of Group III in 10W40 jumped again as oils were required to pass the VW TDI test to ACEA B4 such that today, Euro 10W40s are more synthetic than they are mineral.
That said, I would still prefer a 10W20 to a 10W40 any day of the week. In 2017, it's a valid question to ask, why do I need 40 weight oil still? Some people cite better wear performance as the reason but with so much of the world happily running on 20 weight oils now (often containing clever stuff like Moly) how much benefit are you actually getting from a 10W40? I'd also ask this because the disadvantages you get from using a 10W40 over a 10W20 are numerous; more VII, more shear, more piston deposits, higher Noack, higher required levels of DI (to cope with all that VII) and my personal favourite, much higher cost!
To the person that compared 10W40 to 20W50 in terms of VII loading, that's not correct. A 10W40 will typically contain twice as much VII as a 20W50. If you want to compare, a 10W40 is very like a 15W50 in terms of how much polymer it contains
To the folks that said, if you want a 10W20, just use an SAE 20, you are only half right. Viscometrically you are probably correct in that an SAE 20 will very likely meet the CCS requirements of 10W. However a lot of SAE 20s are low DI treat HDDOs and I might not want to use them as-is in a gasoline engine because they might lack stuff that could be beneficial (like Moly).
Hope this helps...
Regarding 10W40s, if ever an oil grade can claim to have truly 'evolved', it's this one.
I wasn't around when the original US 10W40 problems occurred but it's easy to see how it might have happened. Back in the day, oils weren't constrained for Noack or the affects of VII shear. Similarly oil specs weren't that severe, cost was king and to be honest, a lot of test cheating was going on. Under such circumstances, you would maybe make a full Group I 10W40 to say 12.6 cst (just inside the 40 limit) because it's cheap to do so. You might make it with 55 SSI high ethylene OCP VII because again that's the cheapest way to do it. You minimise the amount of DI (and especially Ashless Dispersant) in the oil which has the effect of maximising the amount of VII needed. Put this all together and you very likely have a high Noack oil (I'm guessing around 18-20%) containing a lot of potentially insoluble, highly shearable polymer, whose base oil system solvency power will be quickly compromised once it starts oxidising. Note that with such a high Noack oil, as light base is stripped out of the sump by the action of hot blow-by, the concentration of VII in the remaining oil would increase, pushing everything closer to it's solubility limit. It's no wonder GM balked at using such an oil!
Going back to say the mid 90s, Euro 10W40s were even then far more constrained. Low shear 22 SSI VIIs were absolutely required to meet VWs specs while ACEA's KO30 shear spec tended to keep 10W40 KV100s around the 14.5 cst mark. Likewise Noack was mainly constrained to 13% max and this meant you couldn't physically make an all Group I 10W40; you had to use typically 20% min synthetic just to make 13% (so reducing VII loading). As ACEA specs evolved, you saw tests like the Peugeot TU5 acting as a pseudo-Noack constraint for 10W40 and upping the required level of synthetic to 30% min. The required level of Group III in 10W40 jumped again as oils were required to pass the VW TDI test to ACEA B4 such that today, Euro 10W40s are more synthetic than they are mineral.
That said, I would still prefer a 10W20 to a 10W40 any day of the week. In 2017, it's a valid question to ask, why do I need 40 weight oil still? Some people cite better wear performance as the reason but with so much of the world happily running on 20 weight oils now (often containing clever stuff like Moly) how much benefit are you actually getting from a 10W40? I'd also ask this because the disadvantages you get from using a 10W40 over a 10W20 are numerous; more VII, more shear, more piston deposits, higher Noack, higher required levels of DI (to cope with all that VII) and my personal favourite, much higher cost!
To the person that compared 10W40 to 20W50 in terms of VII loading, that's not correct. A 10W40 will typically contain twice as much VII as a 20W50. If you want to compare, a 10W40 is very like a 15W50 in terms of how much polymer it contains
To the folks that said, if you want a 10W20, just use an SAE 20, you are only half right. Viscometrically you are probably correct in that an SAE 20 will very likely meet the CCS requirements of 10W. However a lot of SAE 20s are low DI treat HDDOs and I might not want to use them as-is in a gasoline engine because they might lack stuff that could be beneficial (like Moly).
Hope this helps...
It's evolution unfortunately came late for North America. Even now, the 10w-40 options you'll find on our shelves aren't A3/B3 or A3/B4, with very few exceptions (maybe Castrol HM, but the American version, not here).
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Seems this is an overlooked oil in the US … perhaps due to being HM designated …
Shannow posted this in another thread, but it probably deserves to be here too. It's from Mobil and it shows how PAO base stock can be blended to make various viscosity grades. Note the % of VM (viscosity modifier) which I believe represents the VII (viscosity index improver) added. They all have the same level of DI and PPD treatment.
To me the sweet spot with the lowest VM% and the lowest Noack volatility % is in the 5W30 grade, but this is for PAO.
If this was Group II or Group III then I would assume the grades to chase would be 10W30 followed by 5W20 or 15W40.
To me the sweet spot with the lowest VM% and the lowest Noack volatility % is in the 5W30 grade, but this is for PAO.
If this was Group II or Group III then I would assume the grades to chase would be 10W30 followed by 5W20 or 15W40.
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Seems this is an overlooked oil in the US … perhaps due to being HM designated …
The concept of a full synthetic 10W40 PCMO never really caught on in Europe for several reasons.
First, for several years, 10W40 was the big volume grade in Europe and there would never have been sufficient Group III commercially available to make full synthetic 10W40 the norm.
Second, oil companies were far more keen to focus their 'full-synthetic' efforts on the newly emerging 5W & 0W markets where oil prices were naturally higher.
Third, it's not as easy as you might think to make a viscometrically 'tight' all Group III 10W40 because there's no widely available heavy Group III base oil (I suspect the Mobil 1 10W40 in the picture in either all PAO/Ester or more likely a mix of 6 cst Group III topped off with heavy PAO 10 with a smidge of Ester for the HM claim).
Seems this is an overlooked oil in the US … perhaps due to being HM designated …
The concept of a full synthetic 10W40 PCMO never really caught on in Europe for several reasons.
First, for several years, 10W40 was the big volume grade in Europe and there would never have been sufficient Group III commercially available to make full synthetic 10W40 the norm.
Second, oil companies were far more keen to focus their 'full-synthetic' efforts on the newly emerging 5W & 0W markets where oil prices were naturally higher.
Third, it's not as easy as you might think to make a viscometrically 'tight' all Group III 10W40 because there's no widely available heavy Group III base oil (I suspect the Mobil 1 10W40 in the picture in either all PAO/Ester or more likely a mix of 6 cst Group III topped off with heavy PAO 10 with a smidge of Ester for the HM claim).
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
The concept of a full synthetic 10W40 PCMO never really caught on in Europe for several reasons.
First, for several years, 10W40 was the big volume grade in Europe and there would never have been sufficient Group III commercially available to make full synthetic 10W40 the norm.
Second, oil companies were far more keen to focus their 'full-synthetic' efforts on the newly emerging 5W & 0W markets where oil prices were naturally higher.
Third, it's not as easy as you might think to make a viscometrically 'tight' all Group III 10W40 because there's no widely available heavy Group III base oil (I suspect the Mobil 1 10W40 in the picture in either all PAO/Ester or more likely a mix of 6 cst Group III topped off with heavy PAO 10 with a smidge of Ester for the HM claim).
We get a few full synthetic 10W40's here, are they worth the trouble ? I see them on sale, but I'm never sure.
Here is the local Nulon one
https://www.nulon.com.au/images/files/productbulletins/PB-SYN10W40.pdf
It's SN, A3/B4-12, MB 229.3, VW 502 / 505 with a fair bit of Moly, which is the Nulon way.
KV100 = 15.07 cSt
KV40 = 101.1 cSt
SA = 0.9 %
TBN = 9.8
FP = 226 C
SoJ: "I suspect the Mobil 1 10W40 in the picture in either all PAO/Ester or more likely a mix of 6 cst Group III topped off with heavy PAO 10 "
SR5: This doesn't sound like a bad thing to me, it sounds quite good - a lowly PAO and Group III will do me.
The concept of a full synthetic 10W40 PCMO never really caught on in Europe for several reasons.
First, for several years, 10W40 was the big volume grade in Europe and there would never have been sufficient Group III commercially available to make full synthetic 10W40 the norm.
Second, oil companies were far more keen to focus their 'full-synthetic' efforts on the newly emerging 5W & 0W markets where oil prices were naturally higher.
Third, it's not as easy as you might think to make a viscometrically 'tight' all Group III 10W40 because there's no widely available heavy Group III base oil (I suspect the Mobil 1 10W40 in the picture in either all PAO/Ester or more likely a mix of 6 cst Group III topped off with heavy PAO 10 with a smidge of Ester for the HM claim).
We get a few full synthetic 10W40's here, are they worth the trouble ? I see them on sale, but I'm never sure.
Here is the local Nulon one
https://www.nulon.com.au/images/files/productbulletins/PB-SYN10W40.pdf
It's SN, A3/B4-12, MB 229.3, VW 502 / 505 with a fair bit of Moly, which is the Nulon way.
KV100 = 15.07 cSt
KV40 = 101.1 cSt
SA = 0.9 %
TBN = 9.8
FP = 226 C
SoJ: "I suspect the Mobil 1 10W40 in the picture in either all PAO/Ester or more likely a mix of 6 cst Group III topped off with heavy PAO 10 "
SR5: This doesn't sound like a bad thing to me, it sounds quite good - a lowly PAO and Group III will do me.
Last edited:
Looking at the MSDS for the Nulon 10w40 full synthetic above, it lists mostly "paraffinic distillate, heavy, hydrotreated (severe)" which I take to be Group III.
[Ref: Nulon 10W40 synthetic MSDS]
Given SoJ:
Quote:
Today, in the US, Group I base oils have been displaced by Group II oils. There is no Group II equivalent to Bright Stock and the heaviest base oil you can get from Group II refining is typically 500N with a KV100 of about 10 cst. If you want a 40 or 50 weight Group II oil, VII is your only option.
The situation with Group IIIs (what constitutes 'synthetic' in most oils) is even worse. Typically the heaviest Group III base oil will have a KV100 of just 7.5 cst so the heaviest 'natural' oil you can make is a 20 grade.
So I assume this 10W40 is a Group III with a lot of VII added.
[Ref: Nulon 10W40 synthetic MSDS]
Given SoJ:
Quote:
Today, in the US, Group I base oils have been displaced by Group II oils. There is no Group II equivalent to Bright Stock and the heaviest base oil you can get from Group II refining is typically 500N with a KV100 of about 10 cst. If you want a 40 or 50 weight Group II oil, VII is your only option.
The situation with Group IIIs (what constitutes 'synthetic' in most oils) is even worse. Typically the heaviest Group III base oil will have a KV100 of just 7.5 cst so the heaviest 'natural' oil you can make is a 20 grade.
So I assume this 10W40 is a Group III with a lot of VII added.
Originally Posted By: SR5
To me the sweet spot with the lowest VM% and the lowest Noack volatility % is in the 5W30 grade, but this is for PAO.
If this was Group II or Group III then I would assume the grades to chase would be 10W30 followed by 5W20 or 15W40.
Here's another one from the vault...albeit a 5W30 HDMO...
Here's the doc...
https://www.palmerholland.com/News/file....%20Brochure.pdf
To me the sweet spot with the lowest VM% and the lowest Noack volatility % is in the 5W30 grade, but this is for PAO.
If this was Group II or Group III then I would assume the grades to chase would be 10W30 followed by 5W20 or 15W40.
Here's another one from the vault...albeit a 5W30 HDMO...
Here's the doc...
https://www.palmerholland.com/News/file....%20Brochure.pdf
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Here's another one from the vault...albeit a 5W30 HDMO...
Interesting, and two very different 5W30s
SpectraSyn 6 with 12%VM, 8% Noack , KV100= 12.4 cSt and HTHS = 3.7 cP - HDEO
SpectraSyn 6 + SpectraSyn 8 with 3%VM, 6% Noack, KV100 = 10.5 cSt and HTHS = 3.2 cP - PCMO
That VII package is adding to both the KV100 and the HTHS viscosities in the HDEO.
Unless it's the few % extra Ester NP343 that is doing the heavy lifting (2% Vs 5%) or the DI (12% Vs 20%) in ( PCMO Vs HDEO)
Here's another one from the vault...albeit a 5W30 HDMO...
Interesting, and two very different 5W30s
SpectraSyn 6 with 12%VM, 8% Noack , KV100= 12.4 cSt and HTHS = 3.7 cP - HDEO
SpectraSyn 6 + SpectraSyn 8 with 3%VM, 6% Noack, KV100 = 10.5 cSt and HTHS = 3.2 cP - PCMO
That VII package is adding to both the KV100 and the HTHS viscosities in the HDEO.
Unless it's the few % extra Ester NP343 that is doing the heavy lifting (2% Vs 5%) or the DI (12% Vs 20%) in ( PCMO Vs HDEO)
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Going back to say the mid 90s, Euro 10W40s were even then far more constrained. Low shear 22 SSI VIIs were absolutely required to meet VWs specs while ACEA's KO30 shear spec tended to keep 10W40 KV100s around the 14.5 cst mark. Likewise Noack was mainly constrained to 13% max and this meant you couldn't physically make an all Group I 10W40; you had to use typically 20% min synthetic just to make 13% (so reducing VII loading). As ACEA specs evolved, you saw tests like the Peugeot TU5 acting as a pseudo-Noack constraint for 10W40 and upping the required level of synthetic to 30% min. The required level of Group III in 10W40 jumped again as oils were required to pass the VW TDI test to ACEA B4 such that today, Euro 10W40s are more synthetic than they are mineral.
Thanks for enlightenment.
On the basis that the above fits nicely to:
Comparing it against a Castrol Magnatec SN 10W40 without A3B4 oil ,
am I right to suggest that the Castrol Magnatec 10W40 SN without ACEA :
..has more mineral than synthetic base oil content and more VII's ;
..is of lower amount (or weaker)of DI suggesting weaker anti-oxidation; weaker detergency/dispersancy etc capability ;
..lower TBN and hence shorter OCI capability; and
..inferior to Total 10W40 A3B4 SL in every other aspect of real world performance ?
Appreciate your comparative figures between these 2 oils basing on certain assumptions.
TIA
Going back to say the mid 90s, Euro 10W40s were even then far more constrained. Low shear 22 SSI VIIs were absolutely required to meet VWs specs while ACEA's KO30 shear spec tended to keep 10W40 KV100s around the 14.5 cst mark. Likewise Noack was mainly constrained to 13% max and this meant you couldn't physically make an all Group I 10W40; you had to use typically 20% min synthetic just to make 13% (so reducing VII loading). As ACEA specs evolved, you saw tests like the Peugeot TU5 acting as a pseudo-Noack constraint for 10W40 and upping the required level of synthetic to 30% min. The required level of Group III in 10W40 jumped again as oils were required to pass the VW TDI test to ACEA B4 such that today, Euro 10W40s are more synthetic than they are mineral.
Thanks for enlightenment.
On the basis that the above fits nicely to:
Comparing it against a Castrol Magnatec SN 10W40 without A3B4 oil ,
am I right to suggest that the Castrol Magnatec 10W40 SN without ACEA :
..has more mineral than synthetic base oil content and more VII's ;
..is of lower amount (or weaker)of DI suggesting weaker anti-oxidation; weaker detergency/dispersancy etc capability ;
..lower TBN and hence shorter OCI capability; and
..inferior to Total 10W40 A3B4 SL in every other aspect of real world performance ?
Appreciate your comparative figures between these 2 oils basing on certain assumptions.
TIA
So the question that comes to mind with all this information taken into account is this: are modern American 10W-40 conventional oils any less good than their 5W-30, 10W-30 and 20W-50 counterparts, or is it just that they're great but late to the party?
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Today, in the US, Group I base oils have been displaced by Group II oils. There is no Group II equivalent to Bright Stock and the heaviest base oil you can get from Group II refining is typically 500N with a KV100 of about 10 cst. If you want a 40 or 50 weight Group II oil, VII is your only option.
The situation with Group IIIs (what constitutes 'synthetic' in most oils) is even worse. Typically the heaviest Group III base oil will have a KV100 of just 7.5 cst so the heaviest 'natural' oil you can make is a 20 grade...
Reading this makes me think there is a lot of advantage in a well formulated Group II 10W30 or a Group III 5W20. Especially in my market where PAO synthetics are very expensive.
Today, in the US, Group I base oils have been displaced by Group II oils. There is no Group II equivalent to Bright Stock and the heaviest base oil you can get from Group II refining is typically 500N with a KV100 of about 10 cst. If you want a 40 or 50 weight Group II oil, VII is your only option.
The situation with Group IIIs (what constitutes 'synthetic' in most oils) is even worse. Typically the heaviest Group III base oil will have a KV100 of just 7.5 cst so the heaviest 'natural' oil you can make is a 20 grade...
Reading this makes me think there is a lot of advantage in a well formulated Group II 10W30 or a Group III 5W20. Especially in my market where PAO synthetics are very expensive.
Zeng, I can't believe your Magnatec 10W40 is only SN rated, over here in Oz it's both SN and A3/B4 rated.
I just looked up the two Castrol spec sheets:
For Malaysia the KV100 = 13.6 cSt and SA = 0.91 % with Pour Point = -33C
For Australia the KV100 = 14.5 cSt and Sulphated Ash = 1.2 % with PP = -42C
That is two very different oils with the same name.
I just looked up the two Castrol spec sheets:
For Malaysia the KV100 = 13.6 cSt and SA = 0.91 % with Pour Point = -33C
For Australia the KV100 = 14.5 cSt and Sulphated Ash = 1.2 % with PP = -42C
That is two very different oils with the same name.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Think so ~ Merc is an anti VII company so likely their 25w40 is not far from SAE40 ~ being it’s a syn blend reckon that’s how it gets there …?
SR5, I used to be able to get Magnatec 10W40 A3B4, Total Quartz Energy 10W40 SL A3B4 'product of Europe' from Tesco some 1-2 years back ......
but lately Tesco mostly carries weaker A3B3 in Elf/Repsol 10W40.
However Shell Malaysia still carries Helix 7 SN A3B4 10W40
Generally there isn't any problem sourcing Euro 0/5/10W40 oils over here, though my market is flooded with Japanese/Korean/US API SN/SM/SL oils.
but lately Tesco mostly carries weaker A3B3 in Elf/Repsol 10W40.
However Shell Malaysia still carries Helix 7 SN A3B4 10W40
Generally there isn't any problem sourcing Euro 0/5/10W40 oils over here, though my market is flooded with Japanese/Korean/US API SN/SM/SL oils.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: zeng
Shell Malaysia still carries Helix 7 SN A3B4 10W40
Hi Zeng, we also get that Shell Helix HX7 10W40 semi-synthetic, and to me it's the pick of the bunch being API SN/CF and ACEA A3/B4 plus various OEMs like MB 229.3 & VW 502/505.
The other 10W40 semi-synthetics around me, like Castrol Magnatec and Valvoline DuraBlend / EngineArmour don't carry that level of OEMs, so the Shell HX7 stands out in that respect.
For me they are all very similar on price. Right now the Magnatec 10W40 SN & A3/B4 is 45% off at the local Repco auto store, but if I wait a month or two, then it will be either Valvoline or Shell's turn to be at deep discount.
Shell Malaysia still carries Helix 7 SN A3B4 10W40
Hi Zeng, we also get that Shell Helix HX7 10W40 semi-synthetic, and to me it's the pick of the bunch being API SN/CF and ACEA A3/B4 plus various OEMs like MB 229.3 & VW 502/505.
The other 10W40 semi-synthetics around me, like Castrol Magnatec and Valvoline DuraBlend / EngineArmour don't carry that level of OEMs, so the Shell HX7 stands out in that respect.
For me they are all very similar on price. Right now the Magnatec 10W40 SN & A3/B4 is 45% off at the local Repco auto store, but if I wait a month or two, then it will be either Valvoline or Shell's turn to be at deep discount.
Yes, that's a new one to me. I was told about the Castrol synthetic HM before. The M1 HM is fairly new to Canada, so hasn't always attracted my attention, either. Generally speaking, and historically speaking, our shelves have always had a fair number of 10w-40 conventional options in whatever was the current standard only (i.e. SN, SM, and so forth) with an occasional boutique having a little more, but, of course, that would be a synthetic, too, as is the M1 HM.
SonofJoe: Fully synthetic 10w-40s haven't been common here either. For that matter, A3/B3 or A3/B4 10w-40 or 15w-40 options never caught on in North America, either. As I may have mentioned before the 10w-40s we'd see might have a CF on them when that was more recent, and the 15w-40 versions would be whatever HDEO spec was current. Our A3/B4 options are just about all marketed/priced at the synthetic tier.
SonofJoe: Fully synthetic 10w-40s haven't been common here either. For that matter, A3/B3 or A3/B4 10w-40 or 15w-40 options never caught on in North America, either. As I may have mentioned before the 10w-40s we'd see might have a CF on them when that was more recent, and the 15w-40 versions would be whatever HDEO spec was current. Our A3/B4 options are just about all marketed/priced at the synthetic tier.
Originally Posted By: SR5
Looking at the MSDS for the Nulon 10w40 full synthetic above, it lists mostly "paraffinic distillate, heavy, hydrotreated (severe)" which I take to be Group III.
[Ref: Nulon 10W40 synthetic MSDS]
Given SoJ:
Quote:
Today, in the US, Group I base oils have been displaced by Group II oils. There is no Group II equivalent to Bright Stock and the heaviest base oil you can get from Group II refining is typically 500N with a KV100 of about 10 cst. If you want a 40 or 50 weight Group II oil, VII is your only option.
The situation with Group IIIs (what constitutes 'synthetic' in most oils) is even worse. Typically the heaviest Group III base oil will have a KV100 of just 7.5 cst so the heaviest 'natural' oil you can make is a 20 grade.
So I assume this 10W40 is a Group III with a lot of VII added.
I had a look at the Nulon 10W40 properties. It's not what I'd call particularly well optimised. The KV100, at 15.07 cst is too high (14.3 would have been more than adequate) & the CCS, at 5270, is unnecessarily low (6700 cP would be better). This oil needs to have it's VII loading cut back and simultaneously 'heavied-up' to yield a better oil (less VII, less deposits, lower Noack, cheaper).
Given that the Nylon SDS refers to severely hydrocracked stocks (as opposed to PAO), what Nylon might want to think about is using a bit of Group II 500N as the optimising base oil. It stretches the definition of 'synthetic' but you would deffo end up with a far better oil.
Looking at the MSDS for the Nulon 10w40 full synthetic above, it lists mostly "paraffinic distillate, heavy, hydrotreated (severe)" which I take to be Group III.
[Ref: Nulon 10W40 synthetic MSDS]
Given SoJ:
Quote:
Today, in the US, Group I base oils have been displaced by Group II oils. There is no Group II equivalent to Bright Stock and the heaviest base oil you can get from Group II refining is typically 500N with a KV100 of about 10 cst. If you want a 40 or 50 weight Group II oil, VII is your only option.
The situation with Group IIIs (what constitutes 'synthetic' in most oils) is even worse. Typically the heaviest Group III base oil will have a KV100 of just 7.5 cst so the heaviest 'natural' oil you can make is a 20 grade.
So I assume this 10W40 is a Group III with a lot of VII added.
I had a look at the Nulon 10W40 properties. It's not what I'd call particularly well optimised. The KV100, at 15.07 cst is too high (14.3 would have been more than adequate) & the CCS, at 5270, is unnecessarily low (6700 cP would be better). This oil needs to have it's VII loading cut back and simultaneously 'heavied-up' to yield a better oil (less VII, less deposits, lower Noack, cheaper).
Given that the Nylon SDS refers to severely hydrocracked stocks (as opposed to PAO), what Nylon might want to think about is using a bit of Group II 500N as the optimising base oil. It stretches the definition of 'synthetic' but you would deffo end up with a far better oil.
- Status
Similar threads
