New cold pour test video of 5w30 Syn

[irv]

Originally Posted By: Patman
Originally Posted By: irv


And you always have an opinion on how good Mobil is so please tell/show me what "Facts" you have that show Mobil oils are Superior or head and shoulders above the rest?

I really don't need to prove anything to you, because the difference here is that I'm not claiming Mobil 1 is superior, I'm simply stating that it's not an inferior oil like you keep suggesting over and over again ad nauseam. As you can see from my sig line, I'm not an M1 fan boy, I use three different oils in three different cars. But it bothers me when people like you keep claiming over and over and over again how terrible Mobil 1 is, because it's not.


Not once have I ever said your engine will grenade using it, all I have “EVER” said if Mobil charges a premium price for it and tout it as “Superior” oil, shouldn’t it at least, through UOAs, VOAs, sequence wear testing, etc, etc, etc, always show the best or “Superior” results?

Many oils exist out there that have been proven to be just as good as Mobil oils or better, yet they can be purchased for a lot less money. All I have ever stated is, Mobil simply isn’t worth the money they charge for it based on the info that is readily available for those that choose to do a little bit of research.

Personally, and because I was once a Mobil Fanboy myself, I hate seeing people get sucked in or “brainwashed” thinking, because it’s the most expensive oil out there, it must also be the best.

The truth is, Mobil is “Superior” when it comes to marketing but it’s too bad they didn’t spend as much time and money on producing a Superior oil that can back up their claim.

 

[wdn]

The descent into brand bashing of synthetics is really hilarious. It's like Coke versus Pepsi. It is all marketing by three titanic mega oil companies whether it is by Mobil (Mobil), Pennzoil (Shell), or Castrol (BP). All of their products are very competitive with each other or else they would not be three giant mega oil companies in the first place. All three are mass market products. All of their formulas are proprietary.

If you are a careful shopper you can find good deals on any of them. Nobody here is going to get rich or go broke by choosing one over the other either.

 

[jongies3]

We need more 0W comparisons!

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Honestly, anyone who believes this "test" somehow gives a quality ranking of some sort is seriously misguided. SAE J300 (encompassing ASTM D5293 and D4684) is the proper test for cold weather performance, not some dood on the Internet.


bUt ThE pEnNzOiL pOuReD fAsTeR mAn
Probably the Pennzoil was the thinnest

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted By: jongies3
We need more 0W comparisons!
At temps below - 30*f

 

[Garak]

The comparisons are easy. Plenty of oils show their MRV and CCS numbers. That's all the comparison you need. If I want pour point, I'll check a data sheet, not YouTube.

 

[OilUzer]

Originally Posted By: Garak
The comparisons are easy. Plenty of oils show their MRV and CCS numbers. That's all the comparison you need. If I want pour point, I'll check a data sheet, not YouTube.


I think for more knowledgeable people and/or experts, comparing the numbers (cSt, HTHS, ccv, mrv, etc.) may make more sense but for the average guy sometimes the visualization is more helpful. I did a freezer, fridge, room temp test of different grade oil to see what's going on.

 

[Garak]

It's always important to note, though, that pour point performance doesn't correspond too well to pumping in Arctic conditions. I can point out at least one 15w40 that had a pour point of something like -46 C. I wouldn't be rushing to use it during our January weather, though.

 

[OilUzer]

Btw, in no way I was inferring that HKPolice (op) is an "average" guy! lol

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: OilUzer
I think for more knowledgeable people and/or experts, comparing the numbers (cSt, HTHS, ccv, mrv, etc.) may make more sense but for the average guy sometimes the visualization is more helpful. I did a freezer, fridge, room temp test of different grade oil to see what's going on.

The truth is that the freezer and fridge tests only show how the oil pours out of the container or cup at those temperatures, much like the pour point test only shows how the oil behaves in regards to the ASTM test equipment. The true indicator of how the oil will behave in your engine and help facilitate starting at low temperatures is the "W" rating. That is why it exists for both the average guy and the "expert."

 

[irv]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: OilUzer
I think for more knowledgeable people and/or experts, comparing the numbers (cSt, HTHS, ccv, mrv, etc.) may make more sense but for the average guy sometimes the visualization is more helpful. I did a freezer, fridge, room temp test of different grade oil to see what's going on.

The truth is that the freezer and fridge tests only show how the oil pours out of the container or cup at those temperatures, much like the pour point test only shows how the oil behaves in regards to the ASTM test equipment. The true indicator of how the oil will behave in your engine and help facilitate starting at low temperatures is the "W" rating. That is why it exists for both the average guy and the "expert."


All the oils he tested were of the 5-W variety, yet, as seen, some like the Pennzoil poured better than the others.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: irv
All the oils he tested were of the 5-W variety, yet, as seen, some like the Pennzoil poured better than the others.

Correct, as others have pointed out it is a good visual representation of how those oils flowed through a funnel.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: irv
All the oils he tested were of the 5-W variety, yet, as seen, some like the Pennzoil poured better than the others.

However, that pour rate doesn't matter. Living in Saskatchewan, I learned many years ago that if I want to top up oil on a car store outside in January, I had best use a bottle from inside the heated garage (or house) rather than the quart stored in the trunk. I figured that out before YouTube.

I added once in around -40 with a bottle of oil at ambient. I never repeated that mistake, and the world's lowest pour point synthetic wouldn't have made it a better experience, either.

Besides, my engines pump oil. They don't lubricated by pouring.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: irv
All the oils he tested were of the 5-W variety, yet, as seen, some like the Pennzoil poured better than the others.

However, that pour rate doesn't matter. Living in Saskatchewan, I learned many years ago that if I want to top up oil on a car store outside in January, I had best use a bottle from inside the heated garage (or house) rather than the quart stored in the trunk. I figured that out before YouTube.

I added once in around -40 with a bottle of oil at ambient. I never repeated that mistake, and the world's lowest pour point synthetic wouldn't have made it a better experience, either.

Besides, my engines pump oil. They don't lubricated by pouring.


Yes, these tests are great if you need to do an oil change out in the street at -40C...not much so for anything else.

 

[Silk]

A 100c test would be better...but no point, as it's already been done for us. But I think a few posters could do with heating a few oils up in a pan to 100c, and swishing them around a bit...see how a 30 compares to a 50. I don't think they will be able to tell the difference.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Silk
A 100c test would be better...but no point, as it's already been done for us. But I think a few posters could do with heating a few oils up in a pan to 100c, and swishing them around a bit...see how a 30 compares to a 50. I don't think they will be able to tell the difference.


Yeah, I'm not really sure how the "massive" differences would be visible in such a test.

 

[OilUzer]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Garak

... and the world's lowest pour point synthetic wouldn't have made it a better experience, either.

Besides, my engines pump oil. They don't lubricated by pouring.


Yes, these tests are great if you need to do an oil change out in the street at -40C...not much so for anything else.


The differences in this test (posted by op) are not that significant in my opinion given that all are 5Wx30!
I am sure all have to pass the same 5W test +/- some tolerance ...

I have watched some other tests of different grade oil (e.g. 0W vs. 5W vs. 10W, etc. also included some used oil) Obviously that's not a fair test especially with used oil in there (used & cold

) ... in this test one oil was almost all out where another oil was not even %10 out. This was just a demo test to show people what happens with different oil.

Here is my question:
Hypothetically speaking let's say you live in Alaska and it is winter and you have to change your oil and some one gives you an option to choose one oil (unknown W grade) but shows you a video that one flows 2-3 times faster in -30F funnel test and both are xW30 (unknown x , 30 guaranteed) from same company and same quality ... and you have to select one.
Which one will you pick?

Basically I read people saying all that matters is that the oil can be "pumped" ... but once pumped, isn't an oil with lower viscosity (cSt) at that pumped level still be better for extreme cold e.g. in Alaska -30F? Let's also assume that we are not in danger of being too thin to be detrimental under this condition.

if one oil pours faster than the other oil, why isn't that significant in general?
Can you please elaborate? btw I'm not trolling just trying to understand "if its pumping, the flow (pouring out of funnel) doesn't matter" concept.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: OilUzer
if one oil pours faster than the other oil, why isn't that significant in general?
Can you please elaborate? btw I'm not trolling just trying to understand "if its pumping, the flow (pouring out of funnel) doesn't matter" concept.


No probz…

Pour point used to be a part of the "W" grading system, and it makes logical sense, it really does.

But there were a spate of engine failures in cold climates that when analysed came down to a cooling temperature profile that promoted wax crystal formation that stopped the oil pump being fed with oil on the suction side.

MRV was the resultant specification...it's got a specific cooling profile to promote wax formation, then has the viscosity test, with the requirement that there is no "shear" behaviour displayed..i.e. the oil must flow, and refill the oil pump suction strainer without forming walls or barriers.

I'll cede that if the cooling regime followed the test for MRV, then the cold pour tests would be more relevant.

I'm not happy with the analogy that I'm proposing here, but think it's demonstrative of things that happen. You can put pure water in a glass and microwave it to above its proper boiling temperature. Throw in a teaspoon of sugar and get second degree burns...the MRV is the reverse of that...get the conditions right and the wax won't make it to the oil pump.

 

[irv]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: irv
All the oils he tested were of the 5-W variety, yet, as seen, some like the Pennzoil poured better than the others.

However, that pour rate doesn't matter. Living in Saskatchewan, I learned many years ago that if I want to top up oil on a car store outside in January, I had best use a bottle from inside the heated garage (or house) rather than the quart stored in the trunk. I figured that out before YouTube.

I added once in around -40 with a bottle of oil at ambient. I never repeated that mistake, and the world's lowest pour point synthetic wouldn't have made it a better experience, either.

Besides, my engines pump oil. They don't lubricated by pouring.


I have heard that as well but since it is difficult to show how quickly it spreads/lubes internally, the pour test, unfortunately, as far as I know, is the only thing that us as the general population can go by.

I know, like what others have also said above me, another test is more accurate, but I don't think the pour test can necessarily be written off as bunk either?

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted By: irv
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: irv
All the oils he tested were of the 5-W variety, yet, as seen, some like the Pennzoil poured better than the others.

However, that pour rate doesn't matter. Living in Saskatchewan, I learned many years ago that if I want to top up oil on a car store outside in January, I had best use a bottle from inside the heated garage (or house) rather than the quart stored in the trunk. I figured that out before YouTube.

I added once in around -40 with a bottle of oil at ambient. I never repeated that mistake, and the world's lowest pour point synthetic wouldn't have made it a better experience, either.

Besides, my engines pump oil. They don't lubricated by pouring.


I have heard that as well but since it is difficult to show how quickly it spreads/lubes internally, the pour test, unfortunately, as far as I know, is the only thing that us as the general population can go by.

I know, like what others have also said above me, another test is more accurate, but I don't think the pour test can necessarily be written off as bunk either?




As I recall, the Pennzoil is a thin 5w30 so the pour test may be showing that. Once in a engine, all these oils will be pumped at the same rate and achieve full lubrication within milliseconds of each other.