Eneos Sustina 0w50 -- VOA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
13,663
Location
Frisco, TX
I had the KV @ 40 test done, too, which is not a standard test.

sustina_0w50_voa.png
 
From the numbers alone point of view...this oil leaves a lot to be desired. TBN of 7.4 is quite low in my opinion be it an ester oil or not.
 
Originally Posted By: deven
From the numbers alone point of view...this oil leaves a lot to be desired. TBN of 7.4 is quite low in my opinion be it an ester oil or not.


Correct, but consider that it has a VI of about 200. Supposedly they're using next-gen basestocks.
 
Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: deven
From the numbers alone point of view...this oil leaves a lot to be desired. TBN of 7.4 is quite low in my opinion be it an ester oil or not.


Correct, but consider that it has a VI of about 200. Supposedly they're using next-gen basestocks.

Yes, I never go by the numbers alone. Numbers are numbers but the proof is always in the pudding itself.
 
That TBN is A LOT lower than the 11.2 quoted to me by Sarah Park from their tech dept.

I wonder who to believe??
(The calcium is decent, so maybe Blackstone? {is this who you used??} got it wrong?)

The moly is slightly higher than what I expected, and the boron is slightly lower than I was hoping for.
frown.gif


But if it is as shear stable as we suspect, and with that high VI, it is still great stuff, and fully blendable with their 0W-20 to get a perfect weight, VERY high VI brew.
wink.gif
 
dparm, thanks for posting this.

Blackstone's KV100 value of only 15.5cSt is at lot lower (10.4%) than the Sustina PDS figure of 17.29cSt which drops the oil into the 40wt range. The lower KV100 figure results in a VI of only 172 so something is not right here.

It's worth noting that Blackstone VOA of the Sustina 0W-20 had a KV100 of 7.60cSt vs the PDS spec' of 7.94cSt; 4.3% lower. And when I first ran the oil I did notice an oil pressure drop somewhat in the first few miles and then stabilize. So just the process of heating the oil to test could result in some permanent shear.

Anyway, I'd ask Blackstone to test the 0W-50 KV100 spec' again; the difference is way too big which the VI doesn't support.

As for the other elemental values, the Phos, Moly and Boron figure are about 10% higher than for their 0W-20 oil, VOA is below:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2702321&page=2

I was hoping that the Phos' level would have been higher.

On balance, my opinion on this oil is dependant on resolving the KV100 spec' difference. I'm hoping the Blackstone figure is incorrect, but if they stand by it, I would be writing Sustina for an explanation.
 
Good point. I've sent Blackstone a note to request this be re-run.

If the Blackstone number holds true, I would actually be a bit concerned about the 0w50/0w20 mix I made (5:2 ratio) -- might be borderline too thin for my motor.
 
Blackstone sez:



Hi, Dan. We re-ran that viscosity test at 100°C (twice, just to be sure), and came back with a very similar reading of 15.913 cSt, or 81.6 SUS. This is slightly higher than the test we ran yesterday, but still not quite in the SAE 50-weight range.

A slightly lower viscosity isn't all that unusual with multi-weight oils, however. We base our "should be" values on the observed ranges of the oils we've tested, and we find that oils with a larger gap between the winter-weight and the SAE-weight will tend to have a slightly lower viscosity range than a multi-weight with a smaller difference between the two numbers, or a straight-weight oil of the same viscosity.

For example, a 0W/50, 20W/50, and straight SAE 50-weight oil should theoretically all have the same viscosity range at 100°C, but that's never been the case in any of the oils we've tested. The straight 50-weight oil should fall within the proper range for SAE 50 oil, but we expect the 20W/50 oil to read a bit lighter, and the 0W/50 oil to read even lighter still. We've tested samples from many different brands of 0W/50 oil, both virgin and used, and most fall at the light end of the 50-weight range or slightly lower.

Hope that helps. Let me know if there's anything else we can do for you. Thanks!
 
Originally Posted By: deven
^^So how do you feel about mixing 0w50 and 0w20 now?


A bit nervous, though I suspect it's still fine. The motor sheared Syntec 5w40 out of grade in only 5k, so I plan to sample at 2.5k to see how this is holding up.
 
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
dparm - Could be the oil not the engine. Only one way to find out.


True, but my car is a supercharged direct-injected V6 with a tune making 30% more power than stock. And I don't drive like an old lady...
 
Originally Posted By: dparm
Blackstone sez:
For example, a 0W/50, 20W/50, and straight SAE 50-weight oil should theoretically all have the same viscosity range at 100°C, but that's never been the case in any of the oils we've tested. The straight 50-weight oil should fall within the proper range for SAE 50 oil, but we expect the 20W/50 oil to read a bit lighter, and the 0W/50 oil to read even lighter still. We've tested samples from many different brands of 0W/50 oil, both virgin and used, and most fall at the light end of the 50-weight range or slightly lower.

I don't agree with this explanation.
We're not talking about used oil but a virgin oil and the viscosity spec's should be in line with the PDS figures.
And how many other brands of the 0W-50 have they tested?
There are only three that I'm aware of; Sustina, ENEOS and M1 R.

Bottom line, assuming B'Stone's is correct, the Sustina 0W-50 is really a 0W-40 with a 178 VI. That being the case and erring on the side of caution, for blending purposes I'd assume a lower HTHSV of around 3.85cP.

I tried to find the VOA of RL 0W-40 for compariso;, I thought BobFout posted one but I can't find it. Anyway the UOAs of that all oil show a KV100 spec' around the PDS provided figure of 15.1cSt if not higher.
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Anyway, I'd ask Blackstone to test the 0W-50 KV100 spec' again; the difference is way too big which the VI doesn't support.


And maybe even recheck the TBN, since that is also a LARGE discrepancy from Eneos' claimed number.

But YES, IF that VI (172, or 178) turns out to be correct, one is much better off just using the relatively high VI Red Line 0W-40 to blend with a thinner, very high VI oil to get to one's ideal viscosity.
wink.gif
 
Yeah, this aggravates me because that means I watered a 3.85 down with the 2.7...giving me an HTHS right at 3.5. Also means the VI is around 185 in my blend. Had I know the specs were this far off, I'd have just put RL 0w40 or 300V 0w40 in.

I intend to pursue this with Eneos.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top