Mixed Messages From BITOG

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
1,544
Location
South Wales, UK
Probably the most suggested or recommended oil on this forum is 0w40 M1 or Castrol Edge 0w40 A3/B4.

But I see time and time again people saying you should always avoid multi-grade oils with a large difference between it's 'W' viscosity and it's operating temperature viscosity and favour a 15w40 or 10w30 as they contain less VII and will be a better oil.

So how come some oils are not included in this rule and some are?
 
Depends on application also you are somewhat halfway diving into the syn vs conventional argument.

For a diesel tractor operated in the summer in 90f there is almost no advantage in 5w40 syn vs 15w40 conventional/syn blend.

Now if you have a diesel pickup truck in Minnesota there are major advantages to syn oil.(5w40)

Fuel economy(short trips), startup wear(when cold), even being able to start certain times of year.

You cant dumb down 200000 forum posts into a paragraph and draw conclusions. You also have to look at who the posters are.
 
Because in the old days they'd take a 10w and throw in Viscosity improvers (STP stuff) to thicken up oil.

That type additive tends to make hard carbon, shear down, etc.

Now they just build synthetic from Natural gas in such a way that it's specs are great like 0w40.

I was a fuel distributor selling industrial oils, and didn't need or know about 0w40 until 2008, but after reading uoa's I'm sold.
 
Originally Posted By: 40w8
Because in the old days they'd take a 10w and throw in Viscosity improvers (STP stuff) to thicken up oil.

That type additive tends to make hard carbon, shear down, etc.

Now they just build synthetic from Natural gas in such a way that it's specs are great like 0w40.

I was a fuel distributor selling industrial oils, and didn't need or know about 0w40 until 2008, but after reading uoa's I'm sold.

So today's GTL 0W-40 doesn't contain viscosity improvers?
 
Originally Posted By: TexasVaquero
And don't forgot the Valvoline and Pennzoil shills with their weird claims. Use what your vehicle manufacturer recommends or what works best for your vehicle.

Also don't forget the anti-Valvoline shills that make weird clamis about it siezing their engine yet never provide any details or proof, even when repeatedly asked to do so.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: 40w8
Because in the old days they'd take a 10w and throw in Viscosity improvers (STP stuff) to thicken up oil.

That type additive tends to make hard carbon, shear down, etc.

Now they just build synthetic from Natural gas in such a way that it's specs are great like 0w40.

I was a fuel distributor selling industrial oils, and didn't need or know about 0w40 until 2008, but after reading uoa's I'm sold.

So today's GTL 0W-40 doesn't contain viscosity improvers?


It probably still does, but not to the degree used back in the day ... There is a thread on "Best SAE 30" here that has lots of good reading about oil development. It started as way to discuss oils w/o VII's at all. And along the way it drifted into mono-grades that can pass multi-grade tests like a number of Red Line products. But not all fancy oils can do this w/o VII's ...

M1 in particular has gone through many formula changes and is not the same as it was 10~15 years ago. Then it was all PAO based. Now, not so much. But it has built a HUGE fan base and it's still a good oil, so there is no-one saying don't run it. And the fan boys may not be oil people, and they still recommend it. That's OK, but it does biase the post count ...

A small dose of VII's may actually be a good thing. There are some indicators that VII's are good carriers of actual oil into high pressure environments. But they do get sheared and your oil does thin over time. Some engines are worse at beating oil, some don't do much. It is not straight forward as to what should be run where. Then there is sump capacity and external oil cooling as factors ...

An oil like Chevron Delo 15W-30 SD (severe duty) is a good compromise where you don't actually need a 0W or a 5W to get the motor started in winter
smile.gif


The thing to do is to look at your owners manual and disregard the W rating at first. Look at the op temp rating. If it calls for a 30, then judge how much cold weather help you need. If you live in SoCal or AZ, or TX - just drop in SAE 30. If you live in Minnesota, it's a whole nuther calculation ...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Bailes1992
But I see time and time again people saying you should always avoid multi-grade oils with a large difference between it's 'W' viscosity and it's operating temperature viscosity and favour a 15w40 or 10w30 as they contain less VII and will be a better oil.

So how come some oils are not included in this rule and some are?


The reason for the confusion... there are two ways to get a wide viscosity spread. One is to use a synthetic such as a highly refined Group III+ oil, or synthetic Group IV or V lubricant. The other way is to use a very light conventional oil, and load it up with VII's. Of course, manufacturers can and do use both techniques at the same time.

Of course, the industry definition of "full synthetic" isn't 100% Group IV/V or even III+, it's at least 30% of either and the rest may be conventional oil.

I've stated here several times that 0w-20 is usually the most Synthetic you'll see in the conventional brands, while people "playing it safe" are recommending 5w-20 or 5w-30 because it's "thicker" (5w-20 is no thicker than 0w-20 except when below freezing). Previously (SM rating and before), if you looked at the 100C temperature ratings, you'll often see the 0w- oil is thicker, and the cold pour point, of course it's more fluid. That means the 0w- offerings had more synthetic then the 5w- offering, and the people "playing it safe" were just buying an inferior oil.

But then came along the SN rating, and SN oils are pretty much all semi-synthetic now.

Clear as mud?
 
Most people on here say follow the owners manual with little to no thought and doing anything less. I must wonder why you would go on a oil site to talk oil and shop if you do something as simple as follow the owners manual every time with no chance of deviation.
 
Originally Posted By: Panzerman
Most people on here say follow the owners manual with little to no thought and doing anything less. I must wonder why you would go on a oil site to talk oil and shop if you do something as simple as follow the owners manual every time with no chance of deviation.


+1
 
There are effectively two philosophical schools of thought when it comes to formulating engine oil.

The first revolves around the concept of 'extremes'. With this you get good performance at extremely low and extremely high temperatures. Your oil won't shear or oxidise under the most extreme conditions. This philosophy is illustrated by things like top-tier, full synthetic 0W40 oils.

The second philosophy says, the first philosophy is total bunk! Under normal conditions oils never ever see the extreme conditions set out in the first philosophy. That being the case, why not built an oil around what is likely; not around what is conceivably possible. This philosophy is reflected in stuff like 10W30s, monogrades and my own personal favourite; 10W16!
 
How likely is -25C where you live, that would necessitate a 10wX engine oil?

SAE16
100C 6.1-8.2
HTHS >2.3

If Mobil 1220 was any thinner it could be a 15W16, good to -20C CCS.

40C 66
100C 8.3
HTHS 2.9
PP -27C
FP 228C

You just need some SAE10W to knock this one down to your target HTHS.
Let's play "The Price is Right" at around $4USD/L.
 
Originally Posted By: Panzerman
Most people on here say follow the owners manual with little to no thought and doing anything less. I must wonder why you would go on a oil site to talk oil and shop if you do something as simple as follow the owners manual every time with no chance of deviation.

The problem is that virtually no one on this board knows enough to make a proper decision to deviate from what the manufacturer specifies. Even then it would be appropriate only under extreme circumstances, not day-to-day operation.

We see evidence of this everywhere on BITOG. People focusing on oil properties that are not representative of what is important under operation, use of UOA (and VOA) to draw completely unwarranted conclusions about current and future performance, and most frequently the extrapolation of a little knowledge (usually obtained on the Internet) to make generalizations that are invalid.

That is what I see here the majority of the time.
 
Originally Posted By: Bailes1992
Probably the most suggested or recommended oil on this forum is 0w40 M1 or Castrol Edge 0w40 A3/B4.

But I see time and time again people saying you should always avoid multi-grade oils with a large difference between it's 'W' viscosity and it's operating temperature viscosity and favour a 15w40 or 10w30 as they contain less VII and will be a better oil.

So how come some oils are not included in this rule and some are?


With 10s of thousands of members, you are going to get groups of people who look at the world from different POV, in different weather extremes, and different understanding of what they consider important in an oil.

Can't say that you are getting "mixed messages" from BITOG, when BITOG isn't a single entity...

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
There are effectively two philosophical schools of thought when it comes to formulating engine oil.

The first revolves around the concept of 'extremes'. With this you get good performance at extremely low and extremely high temperatures. Your oil won't shear or oxidise under the most extreme conditions. This philosophy is illustrated by things like top-tier, full synthetic 0W40 oils.

The second philosophy says, the first philosophy is total bunk! Under normal conditions oils never ever see the extreme conditions set out in the first philosophy. That being the case, why not built an oil around what is likely; not around what is conceivably possible. This philosophy is reflected in stuff like 10W30s, monogrades and my own personal favourite; 10W16!


What he said.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: Panzerman
Most people on here say follow the owners manual with little to no thought and doing anything less. I must wonder why you would go on a oil site to talk oil and shop if you do something as simple as follow the owners manual every time with no chance of deviation.

The problem is that virtually no one on this board knows enough to make a proper decision to deviate from what the manufacturer specifies. Even then it would be appropriate only under extreme circumstances, not day-to-day operation.

We see evidence of this everywhere on BITOG. People focusing on oil properties that are not representative of what is important under operation, use of UOA (and VOA) to draw completely unwarranted conclusions about current and future performance, and most frequently the extrapolation of a little knowledge (usually obtained on the Internet) to make generalizations that are invalid.

That is what I see here the majority of the time.


Your thoughtful post also applies to many other topics on BITOG. Those include-tires, filters, towing topics, and many other topics.
 
I thought the Noack test was established to get the wanna be players out of the engine oil business.
No longer could a blender use evaporative loses to keep an engine oil in grade against permanent shear.
Now suddenly, everyone seems to have their panties in a bunch about Noack.
 
Last edited:
I don't think my concern over high Noack oils in the US is misplaced.

I posted the piece below recently in the Maintenance section, in response to someone who was concerned at the high level of oily deposits that had built up in his GDI engine's intake system. I'm reposting it in the hope that people will look at the piston photographs and twig the connection between piston deposits and Noack...


In my first post, I said that whilst oily intake deposits don't particularly look good, they aren't anything like as harmful as the oil that makes it through the intake and into the cylinders to be burnt. Burnt oil makes for dirty pistons, stuck rings and all sorts of bad stuff you don't want to experience in real life.

Well I stumbled upon some nice, illustrative piston photographs in the blurb for Eneos's Sustina engine oils. Please have a look at these by clicking on the link below...

http://www.eneos.us/products/sustina-enhanced-performance-motor-oil/

These pictures are of pistons taken from the industry standard Sequence IIIG test. The test uses a 1996 GM V6 engine which runs for 100 hours continuous at 3600 rpm and with the engine bulk oil temperature kept at the relatively high temperature of 150°C.

Three pistons are shown. The bottom one is very dirty representing GF-4 quality. The middle one is still dirty but marginally better and supposedly represents GF-5 oil quality. The top piston is very clean and represents what you purportedly see with Eneos's synthetic oil. In terms of Weighted Piston Deposits (where 0 is God awful and 10 is pristine), I'd guess you are looking at ratings of 3.5, 4.0 and about 7.5.

Now you're going to have to trust me on this but what I would say you're actually looking at is...

a) a Group II oil with a Noack of 14 - 15%
b) a Group II/II+ oil with a Noack of 12 - 14%
c) a Group III/IV oil with a Noack of below 10%

This should give you some idea of how Noack potentially impacts on piston cleanliness and why it's a good idea to go with a low Noack oil.

As an aside, you might ask yourself the question why the API & ILSAC ever got it into their stupid heads that the bottom & middle pistons represented an 'acceptable' level of oil performance for GF-4 & GF-5? (especially when you realise that this extreme level of deposit was laid down over just one OCI!) You might also ask, if this is what high Noack oil does to pistons, why the API & ILSAC haven't taken steps to further reduce the Noack spec from 15%? After all, European PCMOs have limited Noack to 13% max for years and dexos oils have also moved to this limit. From what I've read, the 15% Noack max limit will carry over into GF-6. It's insane!
 
Last edited:
So if we were to summurise...
A quality Group III+ basestock will have a very good viscosity index and very little VII's are needed to give a wide range such as a 0w30 or 0w40.

If you are looking at Group II or II+ oils then it's worth only getting the 'range' you really need.

I really wish more companies advertised their NOACK. The only one I can think of is AMSOIL and the range of AMSOIL products we get in the UK are very limited by few distributors.

I'm currently using Mobil1 0w40 New Life/Turbo Diesel. It was more of a 'curiosity' purchase and I will say my engine is smoother, quieter and I've seen no noticeable difference in fuel economy. It does however have a SAPS higher than I'm comfortable with in an engine with a DPF & EGR of 1.3% and this isn't helped by Mobil1 not disclosing it's NOACK. When i purchased it I assumed Mobil1 was still PAO based but looking at the German label of the same product it says "SHC SYNTHSE" which isn't a PAO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top