Which Mobil1 Flows Better At 0 Degrees Fahrenheit

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GravelRoad

Joined
May 30, 2015
Messages
180
Location
Virginia
Which Mobil1 Flows Better At 0 Degrees Fahrenheit?

The same, different or not enough info?
Comparing only the two below.


Mobil 1 AFE 0W-30

Viscosity @ 100ºC, cSt (ASTM D445) 10.9
Viscosity, @ 40ºC, cSt (ASTM D445) 62.9
Viscosity Index 166
Sulfated Ash, wt%, (ASTM D874) 0.9
HTHS Viscosity, mPa•s @ 150ºC (ASTM D4683) 3.0
Flash Point, ºC (ASTM D92) 226
Pour Point, ºC (ASTM D97) -50


Mobil 1 EP 5w30

Viscosity @ 100 ºC, cSt (ASTM D445) 10.6
Viscosity, @ 40 ºC, cSt (ASTM D445) 59.8
Viscosity Index 169
Sulfated Ash, wt% (ASTM D874) 0.8
HTHS Viscosity, mPa•s @ 150 ºC (ASTM D4683) 3.0
Flash Point, ºC (ASTM D92) 230
Pour Point, ºC (ASTM D97) -40
 
Define what you mean by flow ?

put them in a funnel with a 10 foot length of 1/2" tubing, and I'm "reasonably positive" that the 0W will empty the funnel quicker...can't say for sure 'though.

Put them in an engine with an oil pump, and both will reach the most remote point in the engine at pretty much exactly the same time.
 
If you can believe Widman

0w-30 @ 0F =2126 cST
5w30 @ 0F =1916 cST

Have to get well below zero for the 0w-30 to show its stuff, IMO.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
The visc calc doesn't work below 0C.


I have heard that, but don't know how to document the claim.
 
Take a quart of each, put them in your freezer overnight, try to pour both of them into separate glasses in the morning. My money is on the 0W30 AFE, lower pour point.
 
Originally Posted By: TTK
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
The visc calc doesn't work below 0C.


I have heard that, but don't know how to document the claim.


Search the board. It has been discussed on here in great detail. If you want to look at cold temperature performance, compare CCS and MRV, which are actually designed for that purpose.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Define what you mean by flow ?

put them in a funnel with a 10 foot length of 1/2" tubing, and I'm "reasonably positive" that the 0W will empty the funnel quicker...can't say for sure 'though.

Put them in an engine with an oil pump, and both will reach the most remote point in the engine at pretty much exactly the same time.

Hypothetically speaking, I believe that the 0w30 would prove superior should one start the engine cold and then run it at full throttle / full load for the next two minutes. The oil does need to make its way back to the sump under gravity, after all. Aside from this rather absurd scenario, it is doubtful that there would be any difference.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: TTK
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
The visc calc doesn't work below 0C.


I have heard that, but don't know how to document the claim.


Search the board. It has been discussed on here in great detail. If you want to look at cold temperature performance, compare CCS and MRV, which are actually designed for that purpose.


yeah, I know about the claim on BITOG, no need to search. Looking for an independent or second verification. Thanks for the tip on CCS and MRV
 
Originally Posted By: TTK
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: TTK
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
The visc calc doesn't work below 0C.


I have heard that, but don't know how to document the claim.


Search the board. It has been discussed on here in great detail. If you want to look at cold temperature performance, compare CCS and MRV, which are actually designed for that purpose.


yeah, I know about the claim on BITOG, no need to search. Looking for an independent or second verification. Thanks for the tip on CCS and MRV


bobbydevro and Molakule (both Tribologists) as well as Tom NJ have all chimed in on it. These are folks that work in the industry. I don't think you are going to get much better than that
21.gif
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

bobbydevro and Molakule (both Tribologists) as well as Tom NJ have all chimed in on it. These are folks that work in the industry. I don't think you are going to get much better than that
21.gif



Never the less, is BITOG the only source of this claim?
 
Interesting that the 5w30 has a higher VI than the 0w30.....that's not usually the case?...correct? Also appears to be thinner at both 40 deg and 100 deg.
 
Originally Posted By: TTK


Never the less, is BITOG the only source of this claim?


No. This document covers the entire topic in great detail:



Link to Google Book

From page 9:

Quote:
The actual viscosity characteristics of motor oils at low temperatures are a matter of considerable technical interest, but unfortunately precise determination of low temperature viscosities is far from simple. Low temperature viscosity measurements on motor oils in conventional Saybolt or Kinematic viscosimeters produce fictitiously high results, and often indicate complete solidification, since gravity is the only force to produce oil flow. A variety of mechanically drive and pressure viscosimeters have accordingly been used to determine low temperature viscosities under the greater forces (shear stress) and higher flow rates (shear rate) which are more nearly comparable to the conditions set up in engines at the time of cold starting.


*snip*

Quote:
Fig. 4 shows similar viscosity data on a typical commercial SAE 5w-20 motor oil of 145 Viscosity Index and -40F pour point. At temperatures of 0F and lower, there is a marked deviation between measured and extrapolated viscosities at all rates of shear.


If you look at the picture you can see it start to bugger off at around 10F. (-12C) That's for this particular lubricant. For this same reason I won't extrapolate CCS/MRV up past -15C, as they are cold temp performance tests (you can halve CCS/MRV to approximate its viscosity in 5 degree increments). I believe it was Tom NJ (don't quote me) who said that for most oils you can use the calc down to -10C, some to -15C. I error on the side of caution and don't trust them below 0C as there is that variability there. However Tom's (IIRC) statement appears to be supported by this paper so it may be safe to say you can't trust the calc below -10C
21.gif


This source is:

The Role of Engine Oil Viscosity in Low Temperature Cranking and Starting: Prepared Under the Auspices of the SAE Fuels and Lubricants Activity
By Yong Zhou

Quote:
Professor Yong Zhou is a recognized expert in the field of non-linear difference equations and their applications in China. He was Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Dynamical Systems and Differential Equations over 2007-2011, and is present Guest Editor at Optimization (T&F), Nonlinear Dynamics and Journal of Vibration and Control (Sage), and at Elsevier former Guest Editor of Computers & Mathematics with Applications over 2010-2012 and Applied Mathematics and Computation over 2014-2015.
 
Originally Posted By: Mark_Walk
Interesting that the 5w30 has a higher VI than the 0w30.....that's not usually the case?...correct? Also appears to be thinner at both 40 deg and 100 deg.


Not unusual at all actually. An oil that relies more on its base and less on polymer can have better extreme low cold temp performance despite a lower Viscosity Index.
 
CAMERON, a Schlumberger Company provides a viscosity calculator to Viscosity Conversion for temperature - ASTM 341
Converts viscosity to different temperatures
using ASTM D341 -

0w-30 @ 0F= 1996 (compared to Widman's 2126)
5w30 @ 0F= 1800 (compared to Widman's 1916)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

cirian75
2019 Skyactiv G 2.0 120 oil
Replies
6
Views
438
tcp71
sohccammer427
TBN Level of HDEO for Gasser
Replies
2
Views
940
JavierH19
dedonderosa
Anyone ever run Lubrication Engineers 5w30 Synthetic? Monolec® Syn Engine Oil 8531
2
Replies
20
Views
3K
Olds394
A
Pennzoil Ultra Platinum 5W30 Vs Castrol Edge 5W30 - both same price
2
Replies
26
Views
31K
Averroes
D
Can Someone Interpret These Oil Specifications For Me ?
Replies
6
Views
4K
benjy
Back
Top Bottom