shell 10w30 noack 12%

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 10, 2016
Messages
682
Location
il usa
How precise are these noack tests done by pqia and in general?

12% seems high for shell 10w30 and moreover pyb 10w30 had a noack of around 4.3%. Both made by shell.

For minimizing oil consumption how can one trust any weight including sae 30 or 20w50 until you see a specific value for noack !!!!!
 
Last edited:
I've never seen a correlation between NOACK and oil usage. Not saying there ISNT one, but I've had HIGHER usage on some low NOACK oils in Subarus. Base oil chemistry is a bigger factor, I might guess. Oil is oil is an oversimplification by laypersons.
Also critical is PCV system. Oil is Fogged into a mist in the crankcase and the PCV baffling has to separate oil from blowby "fumes".
 
I would love to know the noack of all oils including m1 10w30
M1 10w30 ep
M1 10w30 hm.

I am boycottimg m1 after 30 years of using their oil till they publish more data especially noack.
Dont really care to know their secret blend.
 
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
I've never seen a correlation between NOACK and oil usage. Not saying there ISNT one, but I've had HIGHER usage on some low NOACK oils in Subarus. Base oil chemistry is a bigger factor, I might guess. Oil is oil is an oversimplification by laypersons.
Also critical is PCV system. Oil is Fogged into a mist in the crankcase and the PCV baffling has to separate oil from blowby "fumes".


Can you say which low noack oils gave you higher consumption. Thanks.
 
PQIA if you are listening then please first test oils that are actually on shelves at walmart autozone napa etc etc. Most of the brands tested i have never heard of.

Who knows your audience might increase by 10 fold.
 
There isn't a direct correlation between Noack and oil loss and neither would I expect there ever to be one. How can blowing cold air over a cup of oil at 250°C for one hour be a fair representation of blowing moderately hot blow-by gas over/through a sump's worth of engine oil at roughly 100°C for say 300 hours of engine on time? And that's before you factor in the variation in engine types (big sump vs small sump), engine age (old engines give higher blowby than new ones) and turbos (higher compression boosted engines give more blow-by than n/a engines).

Having said all that, I can put hand on heart and say that in crude terms, oil loss DOES correlate with Noack. You see precisely this on industry standard engine tests like the Peugeot TU5 and the Sequence IIIG (although keep in mind that both tests run the oil at the unrepresentatively high temperature of 150°C). Also whilst for any given fixed set of viscometrics, a synthetic oil will give you a lower Noack than a mineral oil (and as a result, less oil loss), a mineral oil and synthetic of equal Noack will roughly give the same level of oil loss.

Noack is a very imperfect test (dating from before WWII!), but it's all we've got and I see no signs of an improved, more predictive test on the horizon. The bottom line is still, if you're genuinely concerned about your engine consuming oil, go with the lowest Noack oil you can get your hands on. Usually this translates to being a heavy, synthetic (preferably PAO), narrow cross-grade with a low level of approval (less DI is good).
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: merconvvv
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
I've never seen a correlation between NOACK and oil usage. Not saying there ISNT one, but I've had HIGHER usage on some low NOACK oils in Subarus. Base oil chemistry is a bigger factor, I might guess. Oil is oil is an oversimplification by laypersons.
Also critical is PCV system. Oil is Fogged into a mist in the crankcase and the PCV baffling has to separate oil from blowby "fumes".


Can you say which low noack oils gave you higher consumption. Thanks.
Once the oil thickens . Oil burning will be lessened.
 
Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: merconvvv
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
I've never seen a correlation between NOACK and oil usage. Not saying there ISNT one, but I've had HIGHER usage on some low NOACK oils in Subarus. Base oil chemistry is a bigger factor, I might guess. Oil is oil is an oversimplification by laypersons.
Also critical is PCV system. Oil is Fogged into a mist in the crankcase and the PCV baffling has to separate oil from blowby "fumes".




Can you say which low noack oils gave you higher consumption. Thanks.
Once the oil thickens . Oil burning will be lessened.


But plenty of thick 20w50 with high noack.
 
Out of everything that is or isn't published about motor oils, the three parameters that I can't see how they relate to performance of an oil in an ICE are NOACK, flash point and pour point. Sure there are standardized tests but how do the results directly relate to what happens in an engine?
 
Originally Posted By: merconvvv
Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: merconvvv
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
I've never seen a correlation between NOACK and oil usage. Not saying there ISNT one, but I've had HIGHER usage on some low NOACK oils in Subarus. Base oil chemistry is a bigger factor, I might guess. Oil is oil is an oversimplification by laypersons.
Also critical is PCV system. Oil is Fogged into a mist in the crankcase and the PCV baffling has to separate oil from blowby "fumes".




Can you say which low noack oils gave you higher consumption. Thanks.
Once the oil thickens . Oil burning will be lessened.


But plenty of thick 20w50 with high noack.



Not the 20W50s I used to formulate! It's a while ago since I did this but as I recall, 5 - 6% was the norm, and that's with old fashioned Group I and not trying too hard to optimise the oil specifically for Noack.

It's as rare a hens teeth but if you can find it, opt for 20W40 rather than 20W50. It's truly wonderful for passing Noack orientated engine tests. It's also brilliant in diesel engines.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Out of everything that is or isn't published about motor oils, the three parameters that I can't see how they relate to performance of an oil in an ICE are NOACK, flash point and pour point. Sure there are standardized tests but how do the results directly relate to what happens in an engine?


Would be interested to know what oil each of your 4 cars get. Do you change oil by season? Do you drive cross country in any of those cars ?
 
Originally Posted By: merconvvv
PQIA if you are listening then please first test oils that are actually on shelves at walmart autozone napa etc etc. Most of the brands tested i have never heard of.

Who knows your audience might increase by 10 fold.
I think PQIA's primary mission is to educate the public on sub-standard, dangerous, & mis-labeled convenience store motor oils (at which they do a GREAT job)-they also do main-line oil company products, such Valvoline, SOPUS, XOM, etc., but not as many. Maybe Tom in NJ can take special requests?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: merconvvv
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Out of everything that is or isn't published about motor oils, the three parameters that I can't see how they relate to performance of an oil in an ICE are NOACK, flash point and pour point. Sure there are standardized tests but how do the results directly relate to what happens in an engine?

Would be interested to know what oil each of your 4 cars get. Do you change oil by season? Do you drive cross country in any of those cars

The reason I said that was because those parameters are interesting and is no doubt relate to formulation, but how do they then relate to something I should be concerned about for my vehicles? For example, why do I care what temperature the oil will ignite at? Does the pour point substitute for pumpablilty? Isn't that what "W" rating is for? And no, I don't change by season. Why should I with multi-viscosity oils? I used to run every one of those tests and more when I worked in college, but we never took that to the point of understanding how they related to performance in an engine. I can understand how they should meet some minimum/maximum amount dictated by a standard, but after that what does it mean? I've always understood them to be a screening test only, not something that I as an end user is concerned about.

And as far as my vehicles, I use Mobil 1 products except in the BMW where I use Castrol. I'm not sure what constitutes cross-country driving, but the Accord sees the most with regular trips between the New Jersey sea coast and the upper Midwest. My old Sienna also still makes that trip a couple of times a year. The Accord and Sienna get 5W-30, the ECHO 0W-20. The BMW is 0W-40.
 
Kschachn you are fortunate that none of your cars consume oil. Maybe they do i dont know. I think you start looking into these things when you drive a perfectly good car that consumes oil.
I never had time to study oil until about a year or so ago (or was it 2) even though the ford consumed oil since 1999. Prior to that i just poured in M1. Had never heard of noack etc !
 
Yes noack is correlated with oil consumption until there is some other factor that is being overlooked.
My ford consumes much less qsud 10w30 than m1 0w40.
 
Originally Posted By: merconvvv
Kschachn you are fortunate that none of your cars consume oil. Maybe they do i dont know. I think you start looking into these things when you drive a perfectly good car that consumes oil.
I never had time to study oil until about a year or so ago (or was it 2) even though the ford consumed oil since 1999. Prior to that i just poured in M1. Had never heard of noack etc !


Precisely. I have been looking at NOACK lately as my 2016 Mazda 6 is consuming 1/4 quart per 1000 miles. Not a huge deal but it's more than any car I've ever had and I don't like it. I've been using the Mazda with moly oil and I don't know it's NOACK value.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top