Originally Posted by CATERHAM
Actually, CAM2 Synavex 0W-16"s 200 VI isn't higher than TGMO.
If you raised the HTHSV of TGMO 0W-16 to the 2.4cP of CAM2 by adding 33% of TGMO 0W-20, the resulting VI of that heavier TGMO 0W-16 would be 203.
Yes. Yes. The Cam2 would be the only oil I know of, even in the ballpark of TGMO 0W16, regarding viscosity. Low dose VII's on the TGMO is a plus. Cam2 blender states it is 100% Group III base stock. I would expect TGMO 0W16 to have some PAO/AN.
Understood about KV40 on the VOA. I will look into TBN/TAN ratio too if the OCI is extended the per Dave Newton's directive.
Good stuff, Caterham. Nice to see you here. I am a long time lurker...finally got past my internet issues, having been defrauded previously with an online purchase. It is great to participate @ BITOG. Great people !! Lots to learn !!
Actually, CAM2 Synavex 0W-16"s 200 VI isn't higher than TGMO.
If you raised the HTHSV of TGMO 0W-16 to the 2.4cP of CAM2 by adding 33% of TGMO 0W-20, the resulting VI of that heavier TGMO 0W-16 would be 203.
Yes. Yes. The Cam2 would be the only oil I know of, even in the ballpark of TGMO 0W16, regarding viscosity. Low dose VII's on the TGMO is a plus. Cam2 blender states it is 100% Group III base stock. I would expect TGMO 0W16 to have some PAO/AN.
Understood about KV40 on the VOA. I will look into TBN/TAN ratio too if the OCI is extended the per Dave Newton's directive.
Good stuff, Caterham. Nice to see you here. I am a long time lurker...finally got past my internet issues, having been defrauded previously with an online purchase. It is great to participate @ BITOG. Great people !! Lots to learn !!
