New cold pour test video of 5w30 Syn

[HKPolice]

Haven't seen this video before and it's one of the fairest tests done IMO because of the funnel used as a restrictor.

Seems like PP/PUP is the king of 5w30 in the cold which is surprising since M1 always had the best reputation for cold performance due to its PAO content.

Also surprising is how well 5w30 conventional performed, but I think it applies mostly to SOPUS oils since they're known to have some GrpIII base mixed in.

 

[bbhero]

Yeah I saw this video last winter. It was interesting in how well Pennzoil Platinum did in comparison to Castrol Edge. This video may well confirm the PQIA test results in how Pennzoil Ultra Platinum and Pennzoil Platinum both had lower CCS and MRV than Castrol Edge. However... Being that they all pass both tests then it is all elementary. They all would perform ok in those cold temps.

 

[Silk]

Still not relevant to me, I've got no idea what -20c is...that's 20 degrees colder than I'm used to. I want to see a 0c test, but no one does them, they just do a real cold test.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Silk
Still not relevant to me, I've got no idea what -20c is...that's 20 degrees colder than I'm used to. I want to see a 0c test, but no one does them, they just do a real cold test.


Put in anything...here's 25W60 and SAE30 at -15...



Nothing will be a problem to you if you go marginally below frost.

 

[alarmguy]

Good post!

As a conventional oil user, the results do not surprise me, if just a little.

Bottom line is 5w30 oil is 5w30 oil.
There really is no best, at least at 0 F degrees, which is much of the United States, more so for the southern half and coastal areas.

If I lived in an extreme winter area I would choose a syn as cold performance is more important then hot wear numbers.

So the question is, which provides better wear protection? Most likely just the same as the test results, all about equal.

 

[edwardh1]

look all about the same to me

 

[dbias]

Originally Posted By: edwardh1
look all about the same to me


Yeah I agree, but they all are 5w so what real big difference was expected.

 

[wdn]

It was a demonstration of how fast oil falls out of a funnel at 0 degrees F and nothing more than that. The pour point of all of them is at least -30 F. Every one of them flowed under the weight of gravity at 0 F as expected, and how fast does not matter. It seems a bit silly because the cold cranking performance of an oil when it is being pumped by your oil pump is what matters, not how long it takes you to add a quart of oil on a cold day.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: wdn
It was a demonstration of how fast oil falls out of a funnel at 0 degrees F and nothing more than that. The pour point of all of them is at least -30 F. Every one of them flowed under the weight of gravity at 0 F as expected, and how fast does not matter. It seems a bit silly because the cold cranking performance of an oil when it is being pumped by your oil pump is what matters, not how long it takes you to add a quart of oil on a cold day.


Exactly, the test tells you how fast you can do a cold oil change...well at least refill a cold engine through a funnel...well at least get the oil into the valve cover area through a funnel (typically).

 

[camrydriver111]

Originally Posted By: HKPolice
Also surprising is how well 5w30 conventional performed, but I think it applies mostly to SOPUS oils since they're known to have some GrpIII base mixed in.


Which one is conventional? They all look synthetic to me.

 

[LotI]

Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
Originally Posted By: HKPolice
Also surprising is how well 5w30 conventional performed, but I think it applies mostly to SOPUS oils since they're known to have some GrpIII base mixed in.


Which one is conventional? They all look synthetic to me.

The author of the video says right off..."fully synthetic cold pour test".

But then he throws a conventional in for comparison so I vote clickbait!

 

[camrydriver111]

Originally Posted By: LotI
Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
Originally Posted By: HKPolice
Also surprising is how well 5w30 conventional performed, but I think it applies mostly to SOPUS oils since they're known to have some GrpIII base mixed in.


Which one is conventional? They all look synthetic to me.

The author of the video says right off..."fully synthetic cold pour test".

But then he throws a conventional in for comparison so I vote clickbait!


Never mind, I see it now. It's in the second test he does.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Nice test, wrong temp. Should be at -35 C where you start to get cloudd point - that's where you run into problems not at around 0 F. Guess it didn't get that cold that year.


above -20F? 5W oils? Base oil type and FM package is more critical for engine wear - not flow they all flow adequately.


Parlour trick with no winner.

 

[Snagglefoot]

Thanks for the post. Yes, this one has been around for a while. Everything went as expected in my opinion, including the part where 5w30 conventional flows as well as 5w30 synthetic as long as the temp is not -40. Also, as usual, Royal Purple takes a bit longer to flow from the funnel. My question is, what is the guy planning on doing with those 9 funnels?

 

[Brigadier]

Originally Posted By: LotI
Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
Originally Posted By: HKPolice
Also surprising is how well 5w30 conventional performed, but I think it applies mostly to SOPUS oils since they're known to have some GrpIII base mixed in.


Which one is conventional? They all look synthetic to me.

The author of the video says right off..."fully synthetic cold pour test".

But then he throws a conventional in for comparison so I vote clickbait!


Which one is conventional again?

 

[billt460]

I would like to see a, "hot pour test" of 0W-20, 5W-20, and 5W-30, at say 200+F timed through a restricted orifice. Out here in Arizona that would serve to be more useful, than how well they all pour at -30F. I checked You Tube, and there isn't much. Cold pour tests are everywhere however.

 

[HKPolice]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: wdn
It was a demonstration of how fast oil falls out of a funnel at 0 degrees F and nothing more than that. The pour point of all of them is at least -30 F. Every one of them flowed under the weight of gravity at 0 F as expected, and how fast does not matter. It seems a bit silly because the cold cranking performance of an oil when it is being pumped by your oil pump is what matters, not how long it takes you to add a quart of oil on a cold day.


Exactly, the test tells you how fast you can do a cold oil change...well at least refill a cold engine through a funnel...well at least get the oil into the valve cover area through a funnel (typically).

This test shows the cold viscosity of each oil, having a higher viscosity will affect cold cranking performance, it's physics. Sure, all of the oils tested will flow when cold but some are better than others. Splitting hairs? Maybe, but that's what we do here @ bobsoil.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted By: billt460
I would like to see a, "hot pour test" of 0W-20, 5W-20, and 5W-30, at say 200+F timed through a restricted orifice. Out here in Arizona that would serve to be more useful, than how well they all pour at -30F. I checked You Tube, and there isn't much. Cold pour tests are everywhere however.
Why?
You have HTHS and KV100 specs.
I hope this is a stab at satire or some form of Humor.

I think its 101 In New Hampshire today with high humidity and you can keep any air over 80 Fahrenheit

 

[Patman]

Originally Posted By: Brigadier


Which one is conventional again?


It's in the middle jar of the second test he does.

 

[oldhp]

To me it's a useless test. Unless you have a video and multiple oil pressure sensors in a engine showing where and when oil gets to parts of a engine at a specific temp it means nothing. Just me...