M1 0W-40 SM vs SN

[cp3]

Why such an aversion here to high VI? When would an oil being heavier at start up be better? What applications should not have a high-VI recommendation? Or is it just CATERHAM's vigorous promotion of it that has people arguing against it? Misunderstanding of what it is?

I'm not sure I would say CATERHAM's mixing recommendations are willy nilly either. He does advocate temp and pressure gauges for people interested in mixing so that they know where they are viscosity wise.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

High Vi of a basestock or blend is desirable in vehicles subject to numerous cold starts over the service interval. Some cost sensitive oils achieve the high VI in nefarious ways giving a less stable, sludge prone lube.

I've mention this before and its been ignored. Test critical specs at 50% OLM and see what the vi and ccs measure. Bet $-to-O the result would be pretty pitiful on the average API SM lube - but hopefully acceptable on a premium ILSAC GF5 - or your darlings

 

[BerndV]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
The main purpose behind the ultra high VI OEM 0W-20 oils such as TGMO (216 VI) is fuel economy.


Therefore, if a 1-2% fuel economy advantage is your principal concern in selecting a motor oil, then by all means select TGMO, Sustina, etc. However, for those of you like me for whom brisk acceleration and driving combine to make getting from point A to point B not only practical but oftentimes entertaining and fun, there are many other oil performance parameters that trump ultra high VI. I gleefully combust excessive hydrocarbons everyday as I merge onto highways at WOT and delight in the sound of a 48 valve V8 winding to redline. Frankly, I enjoy wringing the neck of my vehicles and giving them the best lubrication products because they need it. I'll take high HTHS, low NOACK, superior film strength, negative 50 to 60 degree pour points, a super robust additive package, and paltry 160-170 VI's over a VII overloaded oil any day. If ultra high VI was the end-all be-all of high end motor oil, the chemists at Shell, EM, Castrol, Valvoline, Amsoil, Motul, and Redline could easily dose up their products with VII's and get all of them into the 190-220 range. Oddly enough, however, they haven't done so. Clearly, there are other considerations when it comes to producing top tier PCMO's.

 

[buster]

Quote:
I'll take high HTHS, low NOACK, superior film strength, negative 50 to 60 degree pour points, a super robust additive package, and paltry 160-170 VI's over a VII overloaded oil any day. If ultra high VI was the end-all be-all of high end motor oil, the chemists at Shell, EM, Castrol, Valvoline, Amsoil, Motul, and Redline could easily dose up their products with VII's and get all of them into the 190-220 range. Oddly enough, however, they haven't done so. Clearly, there are other considerations when it comes to producing top tier PCMO's.


I agree. That's how I feel.

The ultra high VI PCMO's is a recent trend and over time, maybe more will follow that path as the technology gets better.

You can clear see though that HT/HS is very important in racing, and if you look at Amsoil Dominator and most RL oils they are built with maximum shear stability in mind, not ultra high VI.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: vinu_neuro
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

The main purpose behind the ultra high VI OEM 0W-20 oils such as TGMO (216 VI) is fuel economy. Compared to a typical 5W-20 (150 VI) it's a whopping 50% lighter at 32F, 35% at room temp' and still 10% at 90C (normal operating temp'). Both oils having the same 2.6cP HTHSV. It shouldn't come as a surprise that Toyota claims a fuel economy of at least 2% depending how the vehicle is operated.


If you mainly only do short-trips that's certainly useful. However, most don't.

At least 2% improvement.. depending on how the vehicle's driven. Well which is it..

Toyota 0W-20 has a tremendous amount of moly, how much of the fuel economy benefit is in that..

Where are you getting a 10% difference in visc at 90C from. If you use the Toyota VOA as reference with 8.54cst 100C and VI 210, that comes out to 38.44 at 40C. For the same 100C visc, VI 150 produces 49.64. That's 10.6 vs. 10.3 cst difference at 90C, or 2.9%!

Some of ACEA fuel economy specs call for a 3% improvement in a 30wt against a 15w40. Using the mid-points of 30wt and 40wt grades, that's 10.4 vs 14.4 cst. That's almost a 40% difference in kinematic viscosity for a 3% fuel economy gain. You expect us to believe a 3% difference in visc is supposed to produce a 2% fuel economy improvement, really?

Blindly recommending high VI without looking at the application is silly.

This is without even getting into your recommendations to people to mix oils different oils willy nilly.

A former Mobil1 Chief Engineer posted this in 2011 in another forum. Things here have gotten worse since then.

Quote:
The BITOG site has a lot of "experts" that say all sorts of things about oils. Until I joined here, I never looked at that site much because of what I would read the posters say or comment. All I can say is, that you should do your own research on oils, Mobil 1 included, and not rely on BITOG site for definitive conclusions about any one's engine oil and its capabilities.

Since it can take up to half an hour of running time to get the oil up to operating temp's (and maybe never in the winter months), the actual percentage of engine running time is considerably higher than you would think for most drivers.
It's the main reason I run a lighter than spec' oil in most of my cars.

I have never blindly recommended a high VI oil.
If an OEM 0W-20 is specified by definition it is a high VI oil and that's what one should use otherwise you're automatically be running a much heavier than specified oil.

The viscosity percentage differences I've mentioned are calculated kinematic values for 32F and room temperature but the 10% difference at normal operating temp's is based on actual observed oil pressure differences using TGMO. In all likelihood the real operational viscosity differences is higher than what the kinematic values would indicate.
The reason is, if two oils with the same HTHSV @ 150C spec's but have different VIs, the oil with the higher VI will be progressively lighter at all temp's below 150C down to at least 0C and when you're talking about a huge VI difference in the 60-70 point range that will be reflected in a very significant viscosity difference at normal operating temp's.

 

[BerndV]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
It's the main reason I run a lighter than spec' oil in most of my cars.

I have never blindly recommended a high VI oil.
If an OEM 0W-20 is specified by definition it is a high VI oil and that's what one should use otherwise you're automatically be running a much heavier than specified oil.


So it is perfectly acceptable to run a lighter than spec oil but not a heavier than spec oil?

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: buster
Quote:
I'll take high HTHS, low NOACK, superior film strength, negative 50 to 60 degree pour points, a super robust additive package, and paltry 160-170 VI's over a VII overloaded oil any day. If ultra high VI was the end-all be-all of high end motor oil, the chemists at Shell, EM, Castrol, Valvoline, Amsoil, Motul, and Redline could easily dose up their products with VII's and get all of them into the 190-220 range. Oddly enough, however, they haven't done so. Clearly, there are other considerations when it comes to producing top tier PCMO's.


I agree. That's how I feel.

The ultra high VI PCMO's is a recent trend and over time, maybe more will follow that path as the technology gets better.

You can clear see though that HT/HS is very important in racing, and if you look at Amsoil Dominator and most RL oils they are built with maximum shear stability in mind, not ultra high VI.

And you'd both be wrong since neither of you actually understand the full benefits of high VI oils and HTHSV.

From what I understand neither of you have much if any experience operating a vehicle with oil gauges to see first hand the real difference VI makes. The advantages are not just in being lighter on start-up but if so formulated to enable one to run a higher HTHSV rated oil for a given operational viscosity at normal operating temp's.
The most advanced high VI oils are formulated with the highest VI base oils available as well as the latest in shear stable polymer technology, it is not a simple case of "easily dose up their products to get them into the 190-220 range". As a result these oils are very expensive.
Having said that, many formulators in addition to the OEM 0W-20's have high VI oil's in their line up such as RL 0W-40( 190 VI), RLI 0W-30 (193 VI) and of course Sustina.
And as far as outright racing is concerned you need look no further than Mobil's high VI race oils, 0W-30 and 0W-50.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: BerndV
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
It's the main reason I run a lighter than spec' oil in most of my cars.

I have never blindly recommended a high VI oil.
If an OEM 0W-20 is specified by definition it is a high VI oil and that's what one should use otherwise you're automatically be running a much heavier than specified oil.


So it is perfectly acceptable to run a lighter than spec oil but not a heavier than spec oil?

Again you're obviously not talking from experience, but for the sake of argument name a scenerio where a heavier than specified oil would be required for a lubrication benefit on the street? I do know of some track use situations, where a slightly heavier oil may be preferred but even then I've yet to find a manufacturer who will actually state it is necessary.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

I might run (just for fun and a data point) some straight SAE20 in the Honda - if I could find some purportedly decent stuff. I also need to find some ACDELCO PF2057 filters in Southern Newd Hampster.

 

[BerndV]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: BerndV
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
It's the main reason I run a lighter than spec' oil in most of my cars.

I have never blindly recommended a high VI oil.
If an OEM 0W-20 is specified by definition it is a high VI oil and that's what one should use otherwise you're automatically be running a much heavier than specified oil.


So it is perfectly acceptable to run a lighter than spec oil but not a heavier than spec oil?

Again you're obviously not talking from experience, but for the sake of argument name a scenerio where a heavier than specified oil would be required for a lubrication benefit on the street? I do know of some track use situations, where a slightly heavier oil may be preferred but even then I've yet to find a manufacturer who will actually state it is necessary.


Well, we've had this conversaton before. A perfect example is the thread about German manufacturers recommending heavier viscosities generally, and Japanese manufacturers recommending a range of viscosities in Germany. You yourself were unwilling to come to the defense of lighter oils for occasional autobahn use. Furthermore, while I am no tribologist, it is a reasonable inference from the multitude of lubricant manufacturers putting out their "best" PCMO's that don't have VI's in the 190-220 range that there is more to formulating a premier product than VI. You have stated that you "have no use" for PU, for example, due to the lack of an ultra high VI. Most people on this forum would agree that SN PU is one of the very best non-boutique synthetics, period. You have criticized Amsoil for the ostensible shortcomings of their SSO 0W-20 (not "light" enough). These very light, high VI 0W-20's are being "spec'd" for only one reason, as you yourself have stated: fuel economy. 1-2% for CAFE may be important to manufacturers, but not to me. The one application for which these oils make sense to me is a hybrid, where the IC engine is continually cycling on and off.

 

[CATERHAM]

Ford spec's a 5W-20 for their 400+ HP Mustang GT.
Is there any benefit from running a heavier oil even for track use?
Ford will tell your there is not, in fact it likely would be counter-productive.

The reason that few aftermarket formulators make high VI 0W-20 oils to match the OEM's is cost, pure and simple. It's cheaper not to, the OEM don't require it, the general public hasn't a clue what VI is anyway, so they don't bother.

 

[BerndV]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Ford spec's a 5W-20 for their 400+ HP Mustang GT.
Is there any benefit from running a heavier oil even for track use?
Ford will tell your there is not, in fact it likely would be counter-productive.

The reason that few aftermarket formulators make high VI 0W-20 oils to match the OEM's is cost, pure and simple. It's cheaper not to, the OEM don't require it, the general public hasn't a clue what VI is anyway, so they don't bother.


I know you love the Mustang GT example, I've heard it from you before. How about Porsche or Ferrari? Mercedes AMG? BMW M series? I doubt that Amsoil and Redline are constrained by cost for their premier products. Money being no object is parctically their raison d'etre. EM makes TGMO and I can buy a case of it at my local Toyota dealer for $75.00. Quarts of PU cost more at Wal Mart. If it was that important, Mobil would not be going backwards on VI with their premier PCMO, 0W-40. The manufacturers for whom this product is designed clearly don't care. BTW, that subject was the genesis of this thread.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: BerndV
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM


Mobil would not be going backwards on VI with their premier PCMO, 0W-40. The manufacturers for whom this product is designed clearly don't care. BTW, that subject was the genesis of this thread.

Then I stick to that.
M1 0W-40 has had a 185 VI from day one. There has been literally no more than a 1 or 2 point VI variance over the years which is nothing. It is the OEM's that demand the high VI's so there is no going back whatsoever.

Regarding the retail cost of oil, it little to do with what it costs to make. TGMO has zero advertising cost.

Red Line is in the high performance race oil business. They don't even make a true 20wt oil.

 

[buster]

I do not have any experience using OP gauges to monitor oil pressure. However, I don't need to.

Oils like RL/M1 that have high VI are great because they achieving that through the use of very high quality base oils. So these oils are going to be more shear stable and use less polymeric thickeners.

Quote:
The synthetic basestocks have a natural multigrade property, which means that large amounts of unstable polymeric thickeners are not required to manufacture our multigrades.


Mobil did a test and it showed oils with less VI'ers showed less varnish.

*The reality is, focusing on any one property alone is foolish.

 

[BerndV]

"M1 0W-40 has had a 185 VI from day one. There has been literally no more than a 1 or 2 point VI variance over the years which is nothing"

The SJ formulation of M1 0W-40 had a VI of 196: http://www.ulei-mobil.ro/pdf/MobilAutoDataSheet/Mobil 1 0W-40 pds.pdf

I think your your credibility is waning.

 

[buster]

Obsessing over VI is dumb. Yeah, the higher the better if you can do it without giving up something else as a compromise.

 

[buster]

Quote:
These polymeric thickeners are very large molecules which will suffer from thermal cracking when exposed to high temperatures. When these molecules crack, they reform to create varnish deposits which can stick rings and plug turbo passages. For this reason many turbocharged cars recommend against using wide-range multi-grades. Since Red Line Synthetic Oils satisfy the high-temperature and low-temperature flow requirements of a multigrade using only a fraction of these thickeners, all viscosity grades are suitable for high temperature and turbo use.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: BerndV
"M1 0W-40 has had a 185 VI from day one. There has been literally no more than a 1 or 2 point VI variance over the years which is nothing"

The SJ formulation of M1 0W-40 had a VI of 196: http://www.ulei-mobil.ro/pdf/MobilAutoDataSheet/Mobil 1 0W-40 pds.pdf

I think your your credibility is waning.

That's a UK Mobil website, and represents a normal batch variation.
The nominal VI for M1 0W-40 is 185. It has never been higher than 187 in the past 10 years in NA and most parts of the world.
Your argument that it has declined therefore has no merit and Mobil certainly wouldn't agree with you.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Ford spec's a 5W-20 for their 400+ HP Mustang GT.
Is there any benefit from running a heavier oil even for track use?
Ford will tell your there is not, in fact it likely would be counter-productive.


And you and I both know that Ford would be talking out both sides of their mouth with that example because the Track Pack version of the same car, WITH an oil cooler, spec's 5w-50. The ONLY reason they can get away with the CAFE-driven 5w-20 recommendation for the base GT is the oil temperature based engine power management (castration mechanism) that prevents the engine from damage that could occur due to elevated oil temperatures.

 

[BerndV]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: BerndV
"M1 0W-40 has had a 185 VI from day one. There has been literally no more than a 1 or 2 point VI variance over the years which is nothing"

The SJ formulation of M1 0W-40 had a VI of 196: http://www.ulei-mobil.ro/pdf/MobilAutoDataSheet/Mobil 1 0W-40 pds.pdf

I think your your credibility is waning.

That's a UK Mobil website, and represents a normal batch variation.
The nominal VI for M1 0W-40 is 185. It has never been higher than 187 in the past 10 years in NA and most parts of the world.
Your argument that it has declined therefore has no merit and Mobil certainly wouldn't agree with you.


Batch variation? It is a Mobil product data sheet. The only difference between the UK sheet and the US sheet is the mailing address. You yourself have stated that it has declined in it's current SN formulation due to the significantly higher MRV. Consistency would be helpful.