I'm looking forward to the new grades. Not for personal use, but I've never been comfortable with 0W-20, as it is designed to shear by its very nature. These new, thinner monogrades should maintain fuel economy without sacrificing engine and oil longevity.
Best SAE30 weight oil?
- Thread starter BrocLuno
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Red91
I'm looking forward to the new grades. Not for personal use, but I've never been comfortable with 0W-20, as it is designed to shear by its very nature. These new, thinner monogrades should maintain fuel economy without sacrificing engine and oil longevity.
It's designed to in what way?
And as to sacrificing longevity, I don't agree. My old Sienna ran on 5W-20 for a very long time, and my ECHO continues to operate well on 0W-20. There's really no evidence at all that any longevity is being sacrificed, unless you have some to offer. I think people like to say this since it sounds right but I've never seen any reliability data showing a decrease in the 20+ years since X-20 oils have been used.
I'm looking forward to the new grades. Not for personal use, but I've never been comfortable with 0W-20, as it is designed to shear by its very nature. These new, thinner monogrades should maintain fuel economy without sacrificing engine and oil longevity.
It's designed to in what way?
And as to sacrificing longevity, I don't agree. My old Sienna ran on 5W-20 for a very long time, and my ECHO continues to operate well on 0W-20. There's really no evidence at all that any longevity is being sacrificed, unless you have some to offer. I think people like to say this since it sounds right but I've never seen any reliability data showing a decrease in the 20+ years since X-20 oils have been used.
Originally Posted By: Red91
I'm looking forward to the new grades. Not for personal use, but I've never been comfortable with 0W-20, as it is designed to shear by its very nature. These new, thinner monogrades should maintain fuel economy without sacrificing engine and oil longevity.
Regarding this point I recently calculated the A_Harman index for the new M1 5W-20 AP and it was 98%. 100% means a straight grade. Therefore, it's almost like a straight grade. 5W-20 oils tend to contain less VII than 0W-20. M1 HM 5W-20 A_Harman index is 96%. However, M1 AFE, EP, and AP 0W-20 have good A_Harman indexes of 93%, 94%, and 90%, respectively, because they contain a lot of PAO. Other 0W-20 oils can have much lower A_Harman indexes. 5W-30 is the worst grade in terms of high VII content. M1 AP 5W-30 A_Harman index is 78%, and that's a top synthetic.
I'm looking forward to the new grades. Not for personal use, but I've never been comfortable with 0W-20, as it is designed to shear by its very nature. These new, thinner monogrades should maintain fuel economy without sacrificing engine and oil longevity.
Regarding this point I recently calculated the A_Harman index for the new M1 5W-20 AP and it was 98%. 100% means a straight grade. Therefore, it's almost like a straight grade. 5W-20 oils tend to contain less VII than 0W-20. M1 HM 5W-20 A_Harman index is 96%. However, M1 AFE, EP, and AP 0W-20 have good A_Harman indexes of 93%, 94%, and 90%, respectively, because they contain a lot of PAO. Other 0W-20 oils can have much lower A_Harman indexes. 5W-30 is the worst grade in terms of high VII content. M1 AP 5W-30 A_Harman index is 78%, and that's a top synthetic.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: Red91
I'm looking forward to the new grades. Not for personal use, but I've never been comfortable with 0W-20, as it is designed to shear by its very nature. These new, thinner monogrades should maintain fuel economy without sacrificing engine and oil longevity.
It's designed to in what way?
That may have been something a little more plausible with some of the OEM 0w-20 options. With the off the shelf options, and even the boutiques, I would suggest that was much less of an issue.
Originally Posted By: Red91
I'm looking forward to the new grades. Not for personal use, but I've never been comfortable with 0W-20, as it is designed to shear by its very nature. These new, thinner monogrades should maintain fuel economy without sacrificing engine and oil longevity.
It's designed to in what way?
That may have been something a little more plausible with some of the OEM 0w-20 options. With the off the shelf options, and even the boutiques, I would suggest that was much less of an issue.
If this is true(and I'm not doubting nor agreeing), then why bother with marketing these products as multigrades at all? If a "5W-20" is really an SAE 20, why not call it 20 and recommend 20 from the factory? It seems that is where they are headed with these new 8, 12, and 16 grades.
Originally Posted By: Red91
If this is true(and I'm not doubting nor agreeing), then why bother with marketing these products as multigrades at all? If a "5W-20" is really an SAE 20, why not call it 20 and recommend 20 from the factory? It seems that is where they are headed with these new 8, 12, and 16 grades.
If it passes the requirements for 5W-20 then it must be labeled as such. One would assume similar requirements exist for the other grades.
If this is true(and I'm not doubting nor agreeing), then why bother with marketing these products as multigrades at all? If a "5W-20" is really an SAE 20, why not call it 20 and recommend 20 from the factory? It seems that is where they are headed with these new 8, 12, and 16 grades.
If it passes the requirements for 5W-20 then it must be labeled as such. One would assume similar requirements exist for the other grades.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: Red91
If this is true(and I'm not doubting nor agreeing), then why bother with marketing these products as multigrades at all? If a "5W-20" is really an SAE 20, why not call it 20 and recommend 20 from the factory? It seems that is where they are headed with these new 8, 12, and 16 grades.
If it passes the requirements for 5W-20 then it must be labeled as such. One would assume similar requirements exist for the other grades.
Slight clarification, and it's not for argument, just clarification.
IF it's got zero VII, it can be labelled as a monograde, and/or a multigrade.
If it's got VII, then it has to be labelled as the lowest W rating that it can achieve.
Originally Posted By: Red91
If this is true(and I'm not doubting nor agreeing), then why bother with marketing these products as multigrades at all? If a "5W-20" is really an SAE 20, why not call it 20 and recommend 20 from the factory? It seems that is where they are headed with these new 8, 12, and 16 grades.
If it passes the requirements for 5W-20 then it must be labeled as such. One would assume similar requirements exist for the other grades.
Slight clarification, and it's not for argument, just clarification.
IF it's got zero VII, it can be labelled as a monograde, and/or a multigrade.
If it's got VII, then it has to be labelled as the lowest W rating that it can achieve.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Slight clarification, and it's not for argument, just clarification.
IF it's got zero VII, it can be labelled as a monograde, and/or a multigrade.
If it's got VII, then it has to be labelled as the lowest W rating that it can achieve.
Yeah sorry, I was being sloppy in my statement.
It's actually tied to the Newtonian nature of the fluid, right? Can there be non-Newtonian oils that don't have VII?
Quote:
Most oils will meet the viscosity requirements of at least one of the W grades. Nevertheless, consistent with historic practice, any Newtonian oil may be labeled as a single-grade oil (either with or without a W). Oils which are formulated with polymeric viscosity index improvers for the purpose of making them multiviscosity-grade products are non-Newtonian and must be labeled with the appropriate multiviscosity grade (both W and high-temperature grade). Since each W grade is defined on the basis of maximum cranking and pumping viscosities as well as minimum kinematic viscosities at 100 °C, it is possible for an oil to satisfy the requirements of more than one W grade. In labeling either a W grade or a multiviscosity grade oil, only the lowest W grade satisfied may be referred to on the label. Thus, an oil meeting the requirements for SAE grades 10W, 15W, 20W, 25W, and 30 must be referred to as an SAE 10W-30 grade only.
Slight clarification, and it's not for argument, just clarification.
IF it's got zero VII, it can be labelled as a monograde, and/or a multigrade.
If it's got VII, then it has to be labelled as the lowest W rating that it can achieve.
Yeah sorry, I was being sloppy in my statement.
It's actually tied to the Newtonian nature of the fluid, right? Can there be non-Newtonian oils that don't have VII?
Quote:
Most oils will meet the viscosity requirements of at least one of the W grades. Nevertheless, consistent with historic practice, any Newtonian oil may be labeled as a single-grade oil (either with or without a W). Oils which are formulated with polymeric viscosity index improvers for the purpose of making them multiviscosity-grade products are non-Newtonian and must be labeled with the appropriate multiviscosity grade (both W and high-temperature grade). Since each W grade is defined on the basis of maximum cranking and pumping viscosities as well as minimum kinematic viscosities at 100 °C, it is possible for an oil to satisfy the requirements of more than one W grade. In labeling either a W grade or a multiviscosity grade oil, only the lowest W grade satisfied may be referred to on the label. Thus, an oil meeting the requirements for SAE grades 10W, 15W, 20W, 25W, and 30 must be referred to as an SAE 10W-30 grade only.
It is possible to blend a synthetic monograde 30 without VII'S, and it meet the cold flow requirements of a 10W-30, so why not just do that instead of using the VII'S in the first place. The same can be done with 20 and 40 grades, correct?
Originally Posted By: Red91
It is possible to blend a synthetic monograde 30 without VII'S, and it meet the cold flow requirements of a 10W-30, so why not just do that instead of using the VII'S in the first place. The same can be done with 20 and 40 grades, correct?
No clue. I was mostly asking whether a non-Newtonian oil without VII would still be required to be labeled as a multi-viscosity grade per J300. My quote from J300 (above) seemed to emphasize the rheological behavior of the fluid rather than the presence of VII.
It is possible to blend a synthetic monograde 30 without VII'S, and it meet the cold flow requirements of a 10W-30, so why not just do that instead of using the VII'S in the first place. The same can be done with 20 and 40 grades, correct?
No clue. I was mostly asking whether a non-Newtonian oil without VII would still be required to be labeled as a multi-viscosity grade per J300. My quote from J300 (above) seemed to emphasize the rheological behavior of the fluid rather than the presence of VII.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: Red91
It is possible to blend a synthetic monograde 30 without VII'S, and it meet the cold flow requirements of a 10W-30, so why not just do that instead of using the VII'S in the first place. The same can be done with 20 and 40 grades, correct?
No clue. I was mostly asking whether a non-Newtonian oil without VII would still be required to be labeled as a multi-viscosity grade per J300. My quote from J300 (above) seemed to emphasize the rheological behavior of the fluid rather than the presence of VII.
How would you make an oil non-Newtonian without adding Viscosity Modifiers? As oils are by themselves Newtonian.
Originally Posted By: Red91
It is possible to blend a synthetic monograde 30 without VII'S, and it meet the cold flow requirements of a 10W-30, so why not just do that instead of using the VII'S in the first place. The same can be done with 20 and 40 grades, correct?
No clue. I was mostly asking whether a non-Newtonian oil without VII would still be required to be labeled as a multi-viscosity grade per J300. My quote from J300 (above) seemed to emphasize the rheological behavior of the fluid rather than the presence of VII.
How would you make an oil non-Newtonian without adding Viscosity Modifiers? As oils are by themselves Newtonian.
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
How would you make an oil non-Newtonian without adding Viscosity Modifiers? As oils are by themselves Newtonian.
Well I would assume it isn't "oil". Not all fluids are Newtonian.
So if Amsoil 10W-30 doesn't have VII and is required to be labeled 10W-30 per J300, that doesn't mean it is non-Newtonian? It just means it meets the cold-cranking specs required for a 10W (and also meets the viscosity requirements for a 30-weight)?
How would you make an oil non-Newtonian without adding Viscosity Modifiers? As oils are by themselves Newtonian.
Well I would assume it isn't "oil". Not all fluids are Newtonian.
So if Amsoil 10W-30 doesn't have VII and is required to be labeled 10W-30 per J300, that doesn't mean it is non-Newtonian? It just means it meets the cold-cranking specs required for a 10W (and also meets the viscosity requirements for a 30-weight)?
Originally Posted By: Red91
It is possible to blend a synthetic mono-grade 30 without VII'S, and it meet the cold flow requirements of a 10W-30, so why not just do that instead of using the VII'S in the first place. The same can be done with 20 and 40 grades, correct?
That's how red Line makes their race oils. They carry both mono & multi ratings
It is possible to blend a synthetic mono-grade 30 without VII'S, and it meet the cold flow requirements of a 10W-30, so why not just do that instead of using the VII'S in the first place. The same can be done with 20 and 40 grades, correct?
That's how red Line makes their race oils. They carry both mono & multi ratings
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
How would you make an oil non-Newtonian without adding Viscosity Modifiers? As oils are by themselves Newtonian.
Well I would assume it isn't "oil". Not all fluids are Newtonian.
So if Amsoil 10W-30 doesn't have VII and is required to be labeled 10W-30 per J300, that doesn't mean it is non-Newtonian? It just means it meets the cold-cranking specs required for a 10W (and also meets the viscosity requirements for a 30-weight)?
It's not required to be labeled as such if it's newtonian, but Amsoil seems to have elected to do so.
I wonder if monogrades can contain pour point depressants...
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
How would you make an oil non-Newtonian without adding Viscosity Modifiers? As oils are by themselves Newtonian.
Well I would assume it isn't "oil". Not all fluids are Newtonian.
So if Amsoil 10W-30 doesn't have VII and is required to be labeled 10W-30 per J300, that doesn't mean it is non-Newtonian? It just means it meets the cold-cranking specs required for a 10W (and also meets the viscosity requirements for a 30-weight)?
It's not required to be labeled as such if it's newtonian, but Amsoil seems to have elected to do so.
I wonder if monogrades can contain pour point depressants...
You'll find some examples that have a Noack on the datasheet for monogrades. It may certainly not be on all them, but that applies to everything.
Originally Posted By: Garak
You'll find some examples that have a Noack on the datasheet for monogrades. It may certainly not be on all them, but that applies to everything.
Yes but i think on pqia they dont test sae 30 for noack but the other usual stuff.
You'll find some examples that have a Noack on the datasheet for monogrades. It may certainly not be on all them, but that applies to everything.
Yes but i think on pqia they dont test sae 30 for noack but the other usual stuff.
The above is regarding sis 2016 chevy equinox 2.4 gdi engine. I was thinking pp 10w30 for the summer for this chevy and pp 10w30 might be very close to straight 30. I just finished a 600 mile highway run with pp 10w30 in the expedition and oil consumption was close to zero so very happy about that. Lowest oil consumption of any oil that has gone in the expi.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
Lastly, if this is your 1st time using a mono, it may turn brown or black and the engine might smell hot as the oil un-sticks the rings and cleans up the mess left behind from years of
using VII containing multi grade engine oils.
When i drained qsud 10w30 at about 3k miles to put in the pp 10w30 the oil that drained felt more dirty than it should have. Qsud 10w30 should be close to monograde 30 and my expi has had years of 5w30 and 0w40 etc. I am wondering if i am cleaning up the mess starting from 1999 !
Lastly, if this is your 1st time using a mono, it may turn brown or black and the engine might smell hot as the oil un-sticks the rings and cleans up the mess left behind from years of
using VII containing multi grade engine oils.
When i drained qsud 10w30 at about 3k miles to put in the pp 10w30 the oil that drained felt more dirty than it should have. Qsud 10w30 should be close to monograde 30 and my expi has had years of 5w30 and 0w40 etc. I am wondering if i am cleaning up the mess starting from 1999 !
- Status