It's worth noting that Castrol TWS has an incredibly impressive CCS value of 4879. Only 10w60 I've seen come close is Millers CFS Nanotech at 5780. Most 10w60s are 6500-7000.
Any harm from Motul 300v?
- Thread starter Hujan
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Hujan
I have some followup questions if I may:
1) Will all oils of the same winter weight grade flow pretty much the same as each other at cold temps? Or does can it adjust up or down based on other factors?
2) Does the second number have any influence on the oil's cold flow? In other words would you expect a 15w40 to flow the same, better, or worse at cold temps than a 10w60?
3) Does comparing the KV40 of two oils give us a sense of, say, their viscosities at 20 C, 10 C, or 0 C? It seems odd to me that one oil would be less viscous than another at 40 C but more viscous than the other at 0 C. Is that accurate?
1. There is some variability in the cold flow performance of different oils of the same winter weight grade. But as long as they meet the SAE spec, they are considered to be in that grade.
2. No, the second number is only the result of kinematic viscosity testing at 100C. I would expect a 10w60 to flow better at subfreezing temperatures than a 15w40, but that is based only on looking at the w-number. If I was looking at a 15w60 and a 15w40, I would assume that the 15w40 would have lower cold flow viscosity. I could be wrong in that assumption, but that would be correct in most cases.
3. There are viscosity calculators that you can use (like the one that bluesubie linked) to predict viscosity at temperatures other than 40C and 100C, but once you get below ~10C, the calculators are not very accurate. Growth of wax crystals in the oil and the effect of pour point depressants upset the calculation.
I have some followup questions if I may:
1) Will all oils of the same winter weight grade flow pretty much the same as each other at cold temps? Or does can it adjust up or down based on other factors?
2) Does the second number have any influence on the oil's cold flow? In other words would you expect a 15w40 to flow the same, better, or worse at cold temps than a 10w60?
3) Does comparing the KV40 of two oils give us a sense of, say, their viscosities at 20 C, 10 C, or 0 C? It seems odd to me that one oil would be less viscous than another at 40 C but more viscous than the other at 0 C. Is that accurate?
1. There is some variability in the cold flow performance of different oils of the same winter weight grade. But as long as they meet the SAE spec, they are considered to be in that grade.
2. No, the second number is only the result of kinematic viscosity testing at 100C. I would expect a 10w60 to flow better at subfreezing temperatures than a 15w40, but that is based only on looking at the w-number. If I was looking at a 15w60 and a 15w40, I would assume that the 15w40 would have lower cold flow viscosity. I could be wrong in that assumption, but that would be correct in most cases.
3. There are viscosity calculators that you can use (like the one that bluesubie linked) to predict viscosity at temperatures other than 40C and 100C, but once you get below ~10C, the calculators are not very accurate. Growth of wax crystals in the oil and the effect of pour point depressants upset the calculation.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Hujan
Thanks for that link. That video is pretty awesome. It was neat tot see the side-by-side of the different oil weights try to pour in that super cold temperature. It almost looked like you could break a piece off of the last one. I do see the attraction of a 0w from that video, but I get your larger point.
I have some followup questions if I may:
1) Will all oils of the same winter weight grade flow pretty much the same as each other at cold temps? Or does can it adjust up or down based on other factors?
If you are 10 or so degrees off the cold test temperature for any "w" grade, they will get to the pick-up (and thus be pumpable), and fill the galleries at about the same rate.
People post pics of ball bearings falling in cylinders of oil, oil trickling down a sheet of steel, oil falling through orifices etc. and and claim higher flow for thinner oils...but your engine has a positive displacement pump which will shift the same volume of oil with every revolution.
When first started, any pumpable oil will get oil to the remote ends of the engine at pretty much the same time.
The thicker oil will cause the pump relief to be open to a greater extent, and less total flow to a pressurised engine, but the nature of bearings is that they only need the supply, and will draw off what they need...you aren't "pumping" oil through the bearings.
Originally Posted By: Hujan
2) Does the second number have any influence on the oil's cold flow? In other words would you expect a 15w40 to flow the same, better, or worse at cold temps than a 10w60?
Again, back to the definition of the "W" part.
It's the ability of the oil to make it to the oil pump (the MRV), and the ability for the engine to crank over (the CCS), not strictly "flowability" per se.
As per 1, the concept of "flow" like a waterfall to your bearings isn't what's happening in your engine.
If you are at -30 or 40F, then the 0Ws, or 5Ws have an advantage over a 10W.
At freezing temperatures, you will have no difference between the "flow" to the bearings on startup between 15W40 and 10W60.
Originally Posted By: Hujan
3) Does comparing the KV40 of two oils give us a sense of, say, their viscosities at 20 C, 10 C, or 0 C? It seems odd to me that one oil would be less viscous than another at 40 C but more viscous than the other at 0 C. Is that accurate?
Depends on the viscosity index, and the KV100 (Viscosity Index is calculated off the KV40 and KV100)...use the calculator that bluesubie linked to for a graphical representation...really only accurate down to freezing.
There's also a viscosity calculator ap here which I've got on my phone and find really handy.
Grab the data sheets for M1 0W30 and 5W30 and plug them in...the 0W is thicker (slightly) at 0C than the 5W...both would be expected to behave identically above freezing (viscosity alone, there are other factors).
Just to try to close out my point about pumpability, here's a chart from a paper. The RAOT is rocker arm oiling time, the time it took from start to get oil flowing from the remotest rocker, and the FOPT is the time to full oil pressure.
It's specific to this engine, but the results hold true for the concept that I am trying to get across.
The SAE 30 (straight grade, no "W" rating) had oil to the rockers at 3 seconds and full oil pressure at 6 seconds at 30F...at 20F, it took much longer to get to the remote rockers, and at 10F, much longer for both...clearly, the SAE30 was fine above freezing, but started to suffer below that.
The 10W30 was about as good/poor at -9F, as the SAE30 was at 10F.
The 5W20 was about as good at 9F and the SAE30 at 30F, and as good at -11F as the SAE 30 at 20F.
The missing link in the chart is that if all of the oils were shown at 30F, they would replicate the 3 and 6 seconds, as the flow in the case of a pumpable oil is dictated by the volume of the oil pump.
So again, in a place that doesn't see freezing, you don't have anything to gain by chasing "W" rating, nor KV40.
Not for a second suggesting that you would run an SAE40 in it. But in a non freezing climate, the viscosity would work (KV40 145, KV100 14.9, HTHS 4.3+)...if you drove up to the Donner Pass, it wouldn't.
So pick a decent oil with an HTHS in the range that you want, and get a "W" rating appropriate for your conditions, and you'll be fine.
Thanks for that link. That video is pretty awesome. It was neat tot see the side-by-side of the different oil weights try to pour in that super cold temperature. It almost looked like you could break a piece off of the last one. I do see the attraction of a 0w from that video, but I get your larger point.
I have some followup questions if I may:
1) Will all oils of the same winter weight grade flow pretty much the same as each other at cold temps? Or does can it adjust up or down based on other factors?
If you are 10 or so degrees off the cold test temperature for any "w" grade, they will get to the pick-up (and thus be pumpable), and fill the galleries at about the same rate.
People post pics of ball bearings falling in cylinders of oil, oil trickling down a sheet of steel, oil falling through orifices etc. and and claim higher flow for thinner oils...but your engine has a positive displacement pump which will shift the same volume of oil with every revolution.
When first started, any pumpable oil will get oil to the remote ends of the engine at pretty much the same time.
The thicker oil will cause the pump relief to be open to a greater extent, and less total flow to a pressurised engine, but the nature of bearings is that they only need the supply, and will draw off what they need...you aren't "pumping" oil through the bearings.
Originally Posted By: Hujan
2) Does the second number have any influence on the oil's cold flow? In other words would you expect a 15w40 to flow the same, better, or worse at cold temps than a 10w60?
Again, back to the definition of the "W" part.
It's the ability of the oil to make it to the oil pump (the MRV), and the ability for the engine to crank over (the CCS), not strictly "flowability" per se.
As per 1, the concept of "flow" like a waterfall to your bearings isn't what's happening in your engine.
If you are at -30 or 40F, then the 0Ws, or 5Ws have an advantage over a 10W.
At freezing temperatures, you will have no difference between the "flow" to the bearings on startup between 15W40 and 10W60.
Originally Posted By: Hujan
3) Does comparing the KV40 of two oils give us a sense of, say, their viscosities at 20 C, 10 C, or 0 C? It seems odd to me that one oil would be less viscous than another at 40 C but more viscous than the other at 0 C. Is that accurate?
Depends on the viscosity index, and the KV100 (Viscosity Index is calculated off the KV40 and KV100)...use the calculator that bluesubie linked to for a graphical representation...really only accurate down to freezing.
There's also a viscosity calculator ap here which I've got on my phone and find really handy.
Grab the data sheets for M1 0W30 and 5W30 and plug them in...the 0W is thicker (slightly) at 0C than the 5W...both would be expected to behave identically above freezing (viscosity alone, there are other factors).
Just to try to close out my point about pumpability, here's a chart from a paper. The RAOT is rocker arm oiling time, the time it took from start to get oil flowing from the remotest rocker, and the FOPT is the time to full oil pressure.
It's specific to this engine, but the results hold true for the concept that I am trying to get across.
The SAE 30 (straight grade, no "W" rating) had oil to the rockers at 3 seconds and full oil pressure at 6 seconds at 30F...at 20F, it took much longer to get to the remote rockers, and at 10F, much longer for both...clearly, the SAE30 was fine above freezing, but started to suffer below that.
The 10W30 was about as good/poor at -9F, as the SAE30 was at 10F.
The 5W20 was about as good at 9F and the SAE30 at 30F, and as good at -11F as the SAE 30 at 20F.
The missing link in the chart is that if all of the oils were shown at 30F, they would replicate the 3 and 6 seconds, as the flow in the case of a pumpable oil is dictated by the volume of the oil pump.
So again, in a place that doesn't see freezing, you don't have anything to gain by chasing "W" rating, nor KV40.
Not for a second suggesting that you would run an SAE40 in it. But in a non freezing climate, the viscosity would work (KV40 145, KV100 14.9, HTHS 4.3+)...if you drove up to the Donner Pass, it wouldn't.
So pick a decent oil with an HTHS in the range that you want, and get a "W" rating appropriate for your conditions, and you'll be fine.
Thanks for all the posts, everyone. This thread has been very educational for me and I'm glad I started it. It's definitely redefined how I look at some things, "cold" start in particular.
One quick question that is not meant to be argumentative; I am genuinely curious: If the "W" numbers are so dependent on ambient temp and thus locale, why do manufactures spec oils with a certain W weight? For example, "10w-60" instead of "Xw-60" leaving the owner to select the W weight based on region.
Or is this done for the same reason some manufactures now use electronic oil level "gauges" instead of dipsticks: because it would add anther thing for the average "dumb" user to mess up by selecting the wrong "W" weight?
One quick question that is not meant to be argumentative; I am genuinely curious: If the "W" numbers are so dependent on ambient temp and thus locale, why do manufactures spec oils with a certain W weight? For example, "10w-60" instead of "Xw-60" leaving the owner to select the W weight based on region.
Or is this done for the same reason some manufactures now use electronic oil level "gauges" instead of dipsticks: because it would add anther thing for the average "dumb" user to mess up by selecting the wrong "W" weight?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Hujan
Thanks for that link. That video is pretty awesome. It was neat tot see the side-by-side of the different oil weights try to pour in that super cold temperature. It almost looked like you could break a piece off of the last one. I do see the attraction of a 0w from that video, but I get your larger point.
I have some followup questions if I may:
1) Will all oils of the same winter weight grade flow pretty much the same as each other at cold temps? Or does can it adjust up or down based on other factors?
If you are 10 or so degrees off the cold test temperature for any "w" grade, they will get to the pick-up (and thus be pumpable), and fill the galleries at about the same rate.
People post pics of ball bearings falling in cylinders of oil, oil trickling down a sheet of steel, oil falling through orifices etc. and and claim higher flow for thinner oils...but your engine has a positive displacement pump which will shift the same volume of oil with every revolution.
When first started, any pumpable oil will get oil to the remote ends of the engine at pretty much the same time.
The thicker oil will cause the pump relief to be open to a greater extent, and less total flow to a pressurised engine, but the nature of bearings is that they only need the supply, and will draw off what they need...you aren't "pumping" oil through the bearings.
Originally Posted By: Hujan
2) Does the second number have any influence on the oil's cold flow? In other words would you expect a 15w40 to flow the same, better, or worse at cold temps than a 10w60?
Again, back to the definition of the "W" part.
It's the ability of the oil to make it to the oil pump (the MRV), and the ability for the engine to crank over (the CCS), not strictly "flowability" per se.
As per 1, the concept of "flow" like a waterfall to your bearings isn't what's happening in your engine.
If you are at -30 or 40F, then the 0Ws, or 5Ws have an advantage over a 10W.
At freezing temperatures, you will have no difference between the "flow" to the bearings on startup between 15W40 and 10W60.
Originally Posted By: Hujan
3) Does comparing the KV40 of two oils give us a sense of, say, their viscosities at 20 C, 10 C, or 0 C? It seems odd to me that one oil would be less viscous than another at 40 C but more viscous than the other at 0 C. Is that accurate?
Depends on the viscosity index, and the KV100 (Viscosity Index is calculated off the KV40 and KV100)...use the calculator that bluesubie linked to for a graphical representation...really only accurate down to freezing.
There's also a viscosity calculator ap here which I've got on my phone and find really handy.
Grab the data sheets for M1 0W30 and 5W30 and plug them in...the 0W is thicker (slightly) at 0C than the 5W...both would be expected to behave identically above freezing (viscosity alone, there are other factors).
Just to try to close out my point about pumpability, here's a chart from a paper. The RAOT is rocker arm oiling time, the time it took from start to get oil flowing from the remotest rocker, and the FOPT is the time to full oil pressure.
It's specific to this engine, but the results hold true for the concept that I am trying to get across.
The SAE 30 (straight grade, no "W" rating) had oil to the rockers at 3 seconds and full oil pressure at 6 seconds at 30F...at 20F, it took much longer to get to the remote rockers, and at 10F, much longer for both...clearly, the SAE30 was fine above freezing, but started to suffer below that.
The 10W30 was about as good/poor at -9F, as the SAE30 was at 10F.
The 5W20 was about as good at 9F and the SAE30 at 30F, and as good at -11F as the SAE 30 at 20F.
The missing link in the chart is that if all of the oils were shown at 30F, they would replicate the 3 and 6 seconds, as the flow in the case of a pumpable oil is dictated by the volume of the oil pump.
So again, in a place that doesn't see freezing, you don't have anything to gain by chasing "W" rating, nor KV40.
Not for a second suggesting that you would run an SAE40 in it. But in a non freezing climate, the viscosity would work (KV40 145, KV100 14.9, HTHS 4.3+)...if you drove up to the Donner Pass, it wouldn't.
So pick a decent oil with an HTHS in the range that you want, and get a "W" rating appropriate for your conditions, and you'll be fine.
Great stuff and thanks for your patience explaining these concepts so well. The charts, graphs, and analogies really help. A lot of this stuff is counter-intuitive (e.g., how positive displacement pumps change the game).
I'm curious your thoughts on the original question in this thread, specifically whether there's any advantage or disadvantage to an ester-based oil like Motul, all else being equal (weight, additive pack, etc.). I suspect you'll say it's irrelevant but thought I'd ask. I raise it because I really like what I see from Motul 300v 15w-50 and even Redline 5w-15.
Originally Posted By: Hujan
Thanks for that link. That video is pretty awesome. It was neat tot see the side-by-side of the different oil weights try to pour in that super cold temperature. It almost looked like you could break a piece off of the last one. I do see the attraction of a 0w from that video, but I get your larger point.
I have some followup questions if I may:
1) Will all oils of the same winter weight grade flow pretty much the same as each other at cold temps? Or does can it adjust up or down based on other factors?
If you are 10 or so degrees off the cold test temperature for any "w" grade, they will get to the pick-up (and thus be pumpable), and fill the galleries at about the same rate.
People post pics of ball bearings falling in cylinders of oil, oil trickling down a sheet of steel, oil falling through orifices etc. and and claim higher flow for thinner oils...but your engine has a positive displacement pump which will shift the same volume of oil with every revolution.
When first started, any pumpable oil will get oil to the remote ends of the engine at pretty much the same time.
The thicker oil will cause the pump relief to be open to a greater extent, and less total flow to a pressurised engine, but the nature of bearings is that they only need the supply, and will draw off what they need...you aren't "pumping" oil through the bearings.
Originally Posted By: Hujan
2) Does the second number have any influence on the oil's cold flow? In other words would you expect a 15w40 to flow the same, better, or worse at cold temps than a 10w60?
Again, back to the definition of the "W" part.
It's the ability of the oil to make it to the oil pump (the MRV), and the ability for the engine to crank over (the CCS), not strictly "flowability" per se.
As per 1, the concept of "flow" like a waterfall to your bearings isn't what's happening in your engine.
If you are at -30 or 40F, then the 0Ws, or 5Ws have an advantage over a 10W.
At freezing temperatures, you will have no difference between the "flow" to the bearings on startup between 15W40 and 10W60.
Originally Posted By: Hujan
3) Does comparing the KV40 of two oils give us a sense of, say, their viscosities at 20 C, 10 C, or 0 C? It seems odd to me that one oil would be less viscous than another at 40 C but more viscous than the other at 0 C. Is that accurate?
Depends on the viscosity index, and the KV100 (Viscosity Index is calculated off the KV40 and KV100)...use the calculator that bluesubie linked to for a graphical representation...really only accurate down to freezing.
There's also a viscosity calculator ap here which I've got on my phone and find really handy.
Grab the data sheets for M1 0W30 and 5W30 and plug them in...the 0W is thicker (slightly) at 0C than the 5W...both would be expected to behave identically above freezing (viscosity alone, there are other factors).
Just to try to close out my point about pumpability, here's a chart from a paper. The RAOT is rocker arm oiling time, the time it took from start to get oil flowing from the remotest rocker, and the FOPT is the time to full oil pressure.
It's specific to this engine, but the results hold true for the concept that I am trying to get across.
The SAE 30 (straight grade, no "W" rating) had oil to the rockers at 3 seconds and full oil pressure at 6 seconds at 30F...at 20F, it took much longer to get to the remote rockers, and at 10F, much longer for both...clearly, the SAE30 was fine above freezing, but started to suffer below that.
The 10W30 was about as good/poor at -9F, as the SAE30 was at 10F.
The 5W20 was about as good at 9F and the SAE30 at 30F, and as good at -11F as the SAE 30 at 20F.
The missing link in the chart is that if all of the oils were shown at 30F, they would replicate the 3 and 6 seconds, as the flow in the case of a pumpable oil is dictated by the volume of the oil pump.
So again, in a place that doesn't see freezing, you don't have anything to gain by chasing "W" rating, nor KV40.
Not for a second suggesting that you would run an SAE40 in it. But in a non freezing climate, the viscosity would work (KV40 145, KV100 14.9, HTHS 4.3+)...if you drove up to the Donner Pass, it wouldn't.
So pick a decent oil with an HTHS in the range that you want, and get a "W" rating appropriate for your conditions, and you'll be fine.
Great stuff and thanks for your patience explaining these concepts so well. The charts, graphs, and analogies really help. A lot of this stuff is counter-intuitive (e.g., how positive displacement pumps change the game).
I'm curious your thoughts on the original question in this thread, specifically whether there's any advantage or disadvantage to an ester-based oil like Motul, all else being equal (weight, additive pack, etc.). I suspect you'll say it's irrelevant but thought I'd ask. I raise it because I really like what I see from Motul 300v 15w-50 and even Redline 5w-15.
Originally Posted By: Hujan
I'm curious your thoughts on the original question in this thread, specifically whether there's any advantage or disadvantage to an ester-based oil like Motul, all else being equal (weight, additive pack, etc.). I suspect you'll say it's irrelevant but thought I'd ask. I raise it because I really like what I see from Motul 300v 15w-50 and even Redline 5w-15.
Firstly, you're more than welcome...I like good questions.
Looking at bearings because that's your issue, when the hydrodynamic wedge us established, it doesn't matter what's in there, as the metal surfaces don't touch...you can make a successful bearing that spins on air (not for an engine, but as an example), no additives, oils, esters, and no wear in operation as nothing touches.
When things come close to touching, or "kiss", you need something more, and that's additives, surface coatings etc. place, and an oil's job is to get them there.
To me, advertising an oil as "100% ester" is like saying it's "100% additive"...more for show...they've got lots of places in an engine oil, but as a component, rather than a 100% basestock target. i.e. PAO and ester (plus a bunch of actual engine tests and approvals) means more to me than "100% ester".
Yep, Jet engines use esters, but they aren't our car engines, operate in some crazy environments for hot and cold, and have benefits in protecting roller bearings etc.
I'm curious your thoughts on the original question in this thread, specifically whether there's any advantage or disadvantage to an ester-based oil like Motul, all else being equal (weight, additive pack, etc.). I suspect you'll say it's irrelevant but thought I'd ask. I raise it because I really like what I see from Motul 300v 15w-50 and even Redline 5w-15.
Firstly, you're more than welcome...I like good questions.
Looking at bearings because that's your issue, when the hydrodynamic wedge us established, it doesn't matter what's in there, as the metal surfaces don't touch...you can make a successful bearing that spins on air (not for an engine, but as an example), no additives, oils, esters, and no wear in operation as nothing touches.
When things come close to touching, or "kiss", you need something more, and that's additives, surface coatings etc. place, and an oil's job is to get them there.
To me, advertising an oil as "100% ester" is like saying it's "100% additive"...more for show...they've got lots of places in an engine oil, but as a component, rather than a 100% basestock target. i.e. PAO and ester (plus a bunch of actual engine tests and approvals) means more to me than "100% ester".
Yep, Jet engines use esters, but they aren't our car engines, operate in some crazy environments for hot and cold, and have benefits in protecting roller bearings etc.
Originally Posted By: Hujan
One quick question that is not meant to be argumentative; I am genuinely curious: If the "W" numbers are so dependent on ambient temp and thus locale, why do manufactures spec oils with a certain W weight? For example, "10w-60" instead of "Xw-60" leaving the owner to select the W weight based on region.
In some places they do...here's the manual from my Nissan (diesel). Pretty supportive of what I've been saying...
You can see that they set a "W" limit for a cold ambient temperature, and an upper limit for the grade. It's a little dated, and appears to hold on to the worries that the 10W40 grade had historically.
If BMW think that you need an HTHS in the low 5s, they nearly have to spec a 60 (could do a 20W50)...would give them 0W60, 5W60, 10W60, 15W60 20W60 and 25W60 to play with depending on ambient.
0W60/5W60 would be unicorn grades IMO.
10W60 would cover a lot of the world.
15W60, 20W60 and 25W60 I've only ever seen in Australia, and by the time you get to the latter the HTHS would be getting pretty high and wasteful of power and fuel (e.g. an Australian Data Sheet has the Edge 25W50 at 6.1 HTHS).
If interested, in my Nissan, I've run 0W40s, used mostly 5W40s, and am now running Edge 5W30 A3/B4, with a 3.6 HTHS...don't need the 5W, but 5W (or 0W) is about the only way to get a synthetic in the 3.5 to 4 range for HTHS...available 10W40s typically go well over 4.
One quick question that is not meant to be argumentative; I am genuinely curious: If the "W" numbers are so dependent on ambient temp and thus locale, why do manufactures spec oils with a certain W weight? For example, "10w-60" instead of "Xw-60" leaving the owner to select the W weight based on region.
In some places they do...here's the manual from my Nissan (diesel). Pretty supportive of what I've been saying...
You can see that they set a "W" limit for a cold ambient temperature, and an upper limit for the grade. It's a little dated, and appears to hold on to the worries that the 10W40 grade had historically.
If BMW think that you need an HTHS in the low 5s, they nearly have to spec a 60 (could do a 20W50)...would give them 0W60, 5W60, 10W60, 15W60 20W60 and 25W60 to play with depending on ambient.
0W60/5W60 would be unicorn grades IMO.
10W60 would cover a lot of the world.
15W60, 20W60 and 25W60 I've only ever seen in Australia, and by the time you get to the latter the HTHS would be getting pretty high and wasteful of power and fuel (e.g. an Australian Data Sheet has the Edge 25W50 at 6.1 HTHS).
If interested, in my Nissan, I've run 0W40s, used mostly 5W40s, and am now running Edge 5W30 A3/B4, with a 3.6 HTHS...don't need the 5W, but 5W (or 0W) is about the only way to get a synthetic in the 3.5 to 4 range for HTHS...available 10W40s typically go well over 4.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
So pick a decent oil with an HTHS in the range that you want, and get a "W" rating appropriate for your conditions, and you'll be fine.
That's worth saying again...
So pick a decent oil with an HTHS in the range that you want, and get a "W" rating appropriate for your conditions, and you'll be fine.
That's worth saying again...
Originally Posted By: Shannow
It's specific to this engine, but the results hold true for the concept that I am trying to get across.
The SAE 30 (straight grade, no "W" rating) had oil to the rockers at 3 seconds and full oil pressure at 6 seconds at 30F...at 20F, it took much longer to get to the remote rockers, and at 10F, much longer for both...clearly, the SAE30 was fine above freezing, but started to suffer below that.
The 10W30 was about as good/poor at -9F, as the SAE30 was at 10F.
The 5W20 was about as good at 9F and the SAE30 at 30F, and as good at -11F as the SAE 30 at 20F.
The missing link in the chart is that if all of the oils were shown at 30F, they would replicate the 3 and 6 seconds, as the flow in the case of a pumpable oil is dictated by the volume of the oil pump.
So again, in a place that doesn't see freezing, you don't have anything to gain by chasing "W" rating, nor KV40.
Not for a second suggesting that you would run an SAE40 in it. But in a non freezing climate, the viscosity would work (KV40 145, KV100 14.9, HTHS 4.3+)...if you drove up to the Donner Pass, it wouldn't.
So pick a decent oil with an HTHS in the range that you want, and get a "W" rating appropriate for your conditions, and you'll be fine.
Don't you need to add the RAOT and FOPT time together? doesn't make sense to get oil out of the rocker arm after 3 seconds and only reach full oil pressure (ie: bypass valve opens and all (in this case) after 6 seconds? Did they start from a fresh (empty) oil filter?
RAOT would relate to the cold cranking viscosity, FOPT to the pumping viscosity.
It's specific to this engine, but the results hold true for the concept that I am trying to get across.
The SAE 30 (straight grade, no "W" rating) had oil to the rockers at 3 seconds and full oil pressure at 6 seconds at 30F...at 20F, it took much longer to get to the remote rockers, and at 10F, much longer for both...clearly, the SAE30 was fine above freezing, but started to suffer below that.
The 10W30 was about as good/poor at -9F, as the SAE30 was at 10F.
The 5W20 was about as good at 9F and the SAE30 at 30F, and as good at -11F as the SAE 30 at 20F.
The missing link in the chart is that if all of the oils were shown at 30F, they would replicate the 3 and 6 seconds, as the flow in the case of a pumpable oil is dictated by the volume of the oil pump.
So again, in a place that doesn't see freezing, you don't have anything to gain by chasing "W" rating, nor KV40.
Not for a second suggesting that you would run an SAE40 in it. But in a non freezing climate, the viscosity would work (KV40 145, KV100 14.9, HTHS 4.3+)...if you drove up to the Donner Pass, it wouldn't.
So pick a decent oil with an HTHS in the range that you want, and get a "W" rating appropriate for your conditions, and you'll be fine.
Don't you need to add the RAOT and FOPT time together? doesn't make sense to get oil out of the rocker arm after 3 seconds and only reach full oil pressure (ie: bypass valve opens and all (in this case) after 6 seconds? Did they start from a fresh (empty) oil filter?
RAOT would relate to the cold cranking viscosity, FOPT to the pumping viscosity.
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Don't you need to add the RAOT and FOPT time together? doesn't make sense to get oil out of the rocker arm after 3 seconds and only reach full oil pressure (ie: bypass valve opens and all (in this case) after 6 seconds? Did they start from a fresh (empty) oil filter?
Note, it's full oil pressure...you can and have plenty of "flow" before full oil pressure as it primes the galleries, and in this case the valvetrain mechanism.
Can get visible oil out before it's pressurised.
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
RAOT would relate to the cold cranking viscosity, FOPT to the pumping viscosity.
Nope, CCS is the viscosity under high shear rate (like nearly HTHS shear rates), and is the resistance to cranking.
Both the RAOT and the FOPT are related to the low shear rate viscosity, MRV.
Don't you need to add the RAOT and FOPT time together? doesn't make sense to get oil out of the rocker arm after 3 seconds and only reach full oil pressure (ie: bypass valve opens and all (in this case) after 6 seconds? Did they start from a fresh (empty) oil filter?
Note, it's full oil pressure...you can and have plenty of "flow" before full oil pressure as it primes the galleries, and in this case the valvetrain mechanism.
Can get visible oil out before it's pressurised.
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
RAOT would relate to the cold cranking viscosity, FOPT to the pumping viscosity.
Nope, CCS is the viscosity under high shear rate (like nearly HTHS shear rates), and is the resistance to cranking.
Both the RAOT and the FOPT are related to the low shear rate viscosity, MRV.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Hujan
I'm curious your thoughts on the original question in this thread, specifically whether there's any advantage or disadvantage to an ester-based oil like Motul, all else being equal (weight, additive pack, etc.). I suspect you'll say it's irrelevant but thought I'd ask. I raise it because I really like what I see from Motul 300v 15w-50 and even Redline 5w-15.
Firstly, you're more than welcome...I like good questions.
Looking at bearings because that's your issue, when the hydrodynamic wedge us established, it doesn't matter what's in there, as the metal surfaces don't touch...you can make a successful bearing that spins on air (not for an engine, but as an example), no additives, oils, esters, and no wear in operation as nothing touches.
When things come close to touching, or "kiss", you need something more, and that's additives, surface coatings etc. place, and an oil's job is to get them there.
To me, advertising an oil as "100% ester" is like saying it's "100% additive"...more for show...they've got lots of places in an engine oil, but as a component, rather than a 100% basestock target. i.e. PAO and ester (plus a bunch of actual engine tests and approvals) means more to me than "100% ester".
Yep, Jet engines use esters, but they aren't our car engines, operate in some crazy environments for hot and cold, and have benefits in protecting roller bearings etc.
That's about in line with what I was expecting you might say. It sounds like you don't think the boutique "ester"-based oils necessarily offer any advantage over other high-quality oils from different base stocks and that there's a lot of marketing fluff in there. But let me ask another way: Is there any potential harm to running a Motul 300v over a Castrol or Mobil 1 oil, assuming the weights are appropriate?
The reason I ask is because the HTHS numbers of Motul and Redline oils seem higher than more conventional oils of a comparable weight. I really like the look of the Motul 300v 15w-50 with its HTHS of 5.3 compared to 5.1 of the Castrol. And Redline 15w-50 is even more robust at 5.8! By contrast, Mobil 1 15w-50 has an HTHS of just 4.5.
I can get the Redline for about the same as Castrol TWS and the Motul will only cost me ~$40 more per oil change, which is not a concern for me. But if there's any potential for harm, I will skip it, as this thread has led me to believe that the Castrol TWS is actually a good choice for this engine.
Thanks for posting that info from your owner's manual. That pretty much nails what I was thinking. It makes sense that BMW would spec a 10w-60 given the unavailability of alternative winter grades among 60-weight oils and that, as you say, a 10w-60 would cover most of the world. It all makes sense.
Originally Posted By: Hujan
I'm curious your thoughts on the original question in this thread, specifically whether there's any advantage or disadvantage to an ester-based oil like Motul, all else being equal (weight, additive pack, etc.). I suspect you'll say it's irrelevant but thought I'd ask. I raise it because I really like what I see from Motul 300v 15w-50 and even Redline 5w-15.
Firstly, you're more than welcome...I like good questions.
Looking at bearings because that's your issue, when the hydrodynamic wedge us established, it doesn't matter what's in there, as the metal surfaces don't touch...you can make a successful bearing that spins on air (not for an engine, but as an example), no additives, oils, esters, and no wear in operation as nothing touches.
When things come close to touching, or "kiss", you need something more, and that's additives, surface coatings etc. place, and an oil's job is to get them there.
To me, advertising an oil as "100% ester" is like saying it's "100% additive"...more for show...they've got lots of places in an engine oil, but as a component, rather than a 100% basestock target. i.e. PAO and ester (plus a bunch of actual engine tests and approvals) means more to me than "100% ester".
Yep, Jet engines use esters, but they aren't our car engines, operate in some crazy environments for hot and cold, and have benefits in protecting roller bearings etc.
That's about in line with what I was expecting you might say. It sounds like you don't think the boutique "ester"-based oils necessarily offer any advantage over other high-quality oils from different base stocks and that there's a lot of marketing fluff in there. But let me ask another way: Is there any potential harm to running a Motul 300v over a Castrol or Mobil 1 oil, assuming the weights are appropriate?
The reason I ask is because the HTHS numbers of Motul and Redline oils seem higher than more conventional oils of a comparable weight. I really like the look of the Motul 300v 15w-50 with its HTHS of 5.3 compared to 5.1 of the Castrol. And Redline 15w-50 is even more robust at 5.8! By contrast, Mobil 1 15w-50 has an HTHS of just 4.5.
I can get the Redline for about the same as Castrol TWS and the Motul will only cost me ~$40 more per oil change, which is not a concern for me. But if there's any potential for harm, I will skip it, as this thread has led me to believe that the Castrol TWS is actually a good choice for this engine.
Thanks for posting that info from your owner's manual. That pretty much nails what I was thinking. It makes sense that BMW would spec a 10w-60 given the unavailability of alternative winter grades among 60-weight oils and that, as you say, a 10w-60 would cover most of the world. It all makes sense.
A 15W or 20W 50 synthetic with limited Viscosity Index Improver activity can have the sorts of HTHS you are seeing there...Mobil 1 V-Twin (20W50) is 6.1 according to the Amsoil testing. Edge 25W50 is also 6.1 according to an Oz data sheet.
My preference is for oils that CARRY certifications, rather than claiming to "meet or exceed" them, so I'd pick the Motul...Redline would be fine.
My preference is for oils that CARRY certifications, rather than claiming to "meet or exceed" them, so I'd pick the Motul...Redline would be fine.
Hasn't the TWS been known to shear down VERY quickly in use in the M engines??
I would rather use one of the 'boutique' oils which maintain their high starting HTHSV over time, and as a xxW-50 due to lack of shear, than a 10W-60 which shears down to a (much?) lower HTHSV quickly.
Unless BMW purposely wanted the oil to do this, and that's WHY they spec it in their manual?
I would rather use one of the 'boutique' oils which maintain their high starting HTHSV over time, and as a xxW-50 due to lack of shear, than a 10W-60 which shears down to a (much?) lower HTHSV quickly.
Unless BMW purposely wanted the oil to do this, and that's WHY they spec it in their manual?
A whole lot of posts about nothing in particular!
I'd be confident to use Motul, but if you're not then go with something that gives you the reassurance you need.
I'd be confident to use Motul, but if you're not then go with something that gives you the reassurance you need.
- Status
Similar threads
