Pour point - questions PP vs other Synthetics

[sceva]

In looking at the data sheets on different oils I see that there appears to be a good bit of difference in pour points between various 5W30 oils. I would assume that the lower a pour point the better ( within reason ) Also, is there a difference in ASTM D-97 results vs ASTM D-5949?
Case in point: Two off the shelf synthetic oils that appear to have a good following.
Mobil-1 5W30 lists a pour point of -48°C (-54.4° F)
(per ASTM D-5949)and a flash point of 230°C.(446°F)
Pennzoil Platinum 5W30 lists a pour point of -39°C (-38.2° F)
(per ASTM D-97) and a flash point of 224°C. (435°F)
-48°C vs -39°C is only a 9°C difference but that is a 16° diff. in Farenheigt.
Is the Pennzoil a lessor oil in this regard? Given that it seldom gets below -20° F in my area ( Northeast Illinois )should this even be something that I should concern myself with?
What makes Pennzoil Synth have a pour point that is higher than most synthetics? Is it the wax that I have heard is in it?

 

[paulo57509]

Wax? :???:

 

[02zx9r]

uh ho, here comes the "wax is in penzoil it is no good" again!

 

[XPR]

Originally Posted By: 02zx9r
uh ho, here comes the "wax is in penzoil it is no good" again!


PP does not have wax, other non synthetic oils do, its just the nature of the fractioning method.

 

[double vanos]

PP has a severely hydrocracked base oil that has little, if any wax left in it.

I would also venture a guess that it is in the VHVI class of GRP III base oils as indicated by it's relatively low pour point and high flash point.

Also, there are numerous UOA's that show that PP keeps wear metals down to a minium.

Meeting Honda's HTO-06 spec doesn't hurt either.....

 

[sceva]

Wax was a poor choice of words evidently, I remembered reading that some dino oils had wax in their make-up. I was pretty sure that synthetics do not.
I like what I am seeing with PP enough that I am switching over to PP 5W30 next oil change. (I already bought the oil, O'reilly auto parts have a $4.99/qt rebate - up to 6 quarts until 11/20/07 so it will end up basically free oil)
I was mainly wondering if the -39° C pour point was anything that I should base a decision on. If PP, M-1, Syntec, etc are all Group III based 5w30 oils why is there that much variation in pour points (-39 to -48), does it reflect differences in the base oil or Group III vs Group IV?

 

[buster]

Quote:
If PP, M-1, Syntec, etc are all Group III based 5w30 oils why is there that much variation in pour points (-39 to -48), does it reflect differences in the base oil or Group III vs Group IV?


Mobil 1 is still primarily a PAO based oil. Only the 5w30 and 10w30 appear to have some amount of Group III. All the other grades I believe are PAO based. Mobil Jp states this.

You can use things to lower the pp so you can't always just go by what the base oils are. M1/Amsoil have a natural low PP and higher VI bc of the base oils used.

 

[SubLGT]

Originally Posted By: sceva
........I was mainly wondering if the -39° C pour point was anything that I should base a decision on. .........


MRV and CCS are more relevant to cold temp performance than PP.

 

[sceva]

Originally Posted By: SubLGT
MRV and CCS are more relevant to cold temp performance than PP.


I do not understand what the MRV and CCS numbers are telling me. What should I be looking for? I have found two different data sheets on line for Pennzoil Platinum; For 5W30 the January 2005 data sheet has MRV viscosity cP at 6,600(-35) and CCS viscosity cP at 4,410(-30) while the latest one (September 2007) has MRV viscosity cP at 14,800(-35) and CCS viscosity cP at 5,150(-35). That appears to be a big difference in MRV but I have no idea if it the larger number from the 2007 data sheet is better or worse. Which is better? ( I also see that the pour point was given as -45°C in 2005 and now it is listed as -39°C. Does anyone know what is changed in the PP 5W30 (besides gaining HTO-06) and is PP 5W30 better or worse now?

 

[T4i]

The lower the number means less stress = better/easier to turn over in cold conditions for CCS

I'm not very farmiliar with MRV. Its the pumpability of oil so I presume the lower the MRV value the easier it is on the pump.

 

[flatlandtacoma]

Originally Posted By: sceva
That appears to be a big difference in MRV but I have no idea if it the larger number from the 2007 data sheet is better or worse. Which is better?


If one is only concerned with pumpability at an insanely cold temperature like -35C, then the lower number is better.

 

[blackdiamond]

Originally Posted By: sceva
...is only a 9°C difference but that is a 16° diff. in Farenheigt.


I can't resist posting the question that "ran" through my mind when I read this:

If the temperature drops 9 degrees in Canada does it feel the same as a 16 degree drop in the United States?

I realize that you were simply converting the temp difference into something you can relate to.

 

[unDummy]

http://www.infineum.com/information/viscosity.html
Notice the requirements easily met by PP/M1!

Since it seldom drops below -20f in your area, it is NOT something to worry about.

Is the M1 better for the coldest weather, yep. But, it doesn't get that cold so don't worry about it.

And, if it did get that cold, you need a garage OR coolant/oil heaters anyway making oil selection less of an issue.

I'd wager that PP isn't using a heavy dose of pour point depressants. So, you end up with a more stout oil.
M1 probably has a decent dose of group4/5 in it vs the groupIII PZL and will show with those better -35 to -50 numbers.

Another question to ask yourself, what are the pourpoints/pumpability after the oil has 2k-5k miles on it?

 

[PT1]

My brother said "PP pours like water out of the bottle" so I did a VOA to show him the results it came out:

H-2
o-1

 

[SubLGT]

Originally Posted By: sceva
.......... I do not understand what the MRV and CCS numbers are telling me. What should I be looking for? ...........


The lower the numbers, the better the cold temp performance.
Here is a little bit more on CCS and MRV, pulled off another website:

The high-shear Cold Cranking Simulator (CCS) (ASTM D2602 Mod.) measures the ease of cold cranking an engine for cold starts.

The low Temperature pumpability test (mini rotary viscometer, or MRV) measures the viscosity at low temperature and under low shear conditions. The 60,000 cP (centipoises) limit is the limiting pumping viscosity, since above this viscosity the oil will not flow continuously to the oil pump inlet during the initial stages.

 

[Forest]

Wax is like the f word when it comes to PP. Don't play with PP...

 

[bob_ninja]

SubLGT,
That is interesting info.

unDummy,
I am mostly concerned about mornings (as night temps are lower), so my average morning winter temp is -20C / -4F. However it sometimes/often dips down to -30C / -22F. As you can imagine I could have a lot of startup wear using wrong oil.

At the moment I am looking at 3 oils for winter:

PP 5W30, pour -45C, CCS 4410@-30C, MRV 6,600@-30C
Esso XD3 0W30, pour -48C, CCS 5900@-35C, MRV 60,000@-46C
F1 5W20, pour -33C, CCS 4890@-30C, MRV -43C

(F1 info is actually from FormulaShell which I think is the source for Formula1 brand here in Canada, or at least close enough)

PP/Esso are synth and F1 is a regular cheap dino.

Starting with pour point, they are all fine for me, except F1 is close to my extreme cold morsnings limit. Still, it is good enough.

Clearly I am mostly concerned with CCS as I want to be able to crank with ease. The trouble is they use different temps. Oddly the 0W oil is worse than both 5W oils. Seems PP is the winner, while F1 is close behind. Now in general how hard is 4410 cP on I4 engines as opposed to 5900 cP? Clearly these are far higher than the operating 10-15 cP so how do I tell which level is bad?

Next MRV is tricky. F1 doesn't specifyviscosity so have to assume it refers to the 60K cP limit. So Esso and F1 will pump down to -40C / -40F, which is plenty good. PP simply states that at -30C it is still far from the -60K cP limit. I can't really tel at what temp it hits the limit, so I'd have to guess again below -40C, again good enough.

So the bottom line is that all 3 will handle my winter temperatures fine. Ironically the 5W oils, both synthetic and dino, are actually better choices than 0W synth!?!?

The only remaining fuzzy issue is what CCS viscosity is Ok and which level is bad, as too hard to crank a small I4.

Anyway this analysis weems correct? Am I reading these things right?

Finally, there are some places in Canada and even US where we do sometimes approach CCS/MRV limits perhaps for 10W oils and maybe even some 5W oils. Of course as others said in general most 5W oils (including dinos) should work fine for most of the US.

 

[BradC]

Don't forget about F1 Full Synthetic - it's also from Shell.

I ran Petro-Canada dino last winter, used the block heater on really cold nights. This will be my first winter using a synthetic. I have PP 5W30 in my 4 banger.

 

[SubLGT]

Originally Posted By: bob_ninja
........At the moment I am looking at 3 oils for winter:

PP 5W30, pour -45C, CCS 4410@-30C, MRV 6,600@-30C..............


That data is for PP as originally formulated, the latest formulation has less impressive cold performance.

Platinum 5w30 Group V (PDS dated Jan 2005):
MRV, at -35 degC: 6600
CCS, at -30 degC: 4410
Pour Point, degC: -45


Platinum 5w30 Group III (PDS dated July 2006):
MRV, at -35 degC: 14,800
CCS, at -30 degC: 5150
Pour Point, degC: -39


Pennzoil 5w30 Conventional (PDS dated Mar 2006):
MRV, at -35 degC: 25,100
CCS, at -30 degC: 5800
Pour Point, degC: -36

 

[bob_ninja]

Of course, I forgot the PP base oil change.
Interesting data. Seems PP is not much better than conventional.
Also F1 5W20 conventional actually seems to be almost as good and at half price after the best sales I could find. I was under the impression that synthetics were supposed to be substantially better for cold flow. Is there something these numbers don't show?

According to these numbers a decent quality 5W20 conventional is about as effective as 0W30 and 5W30 synthetics. Strange?!?!?