Synthetic Oils With Lowest VII's ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by ka9mnx
Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't buy into this high V! means junk oil. From what I've read high VI indicated better base oil (PAO).

Some grp3's also have a very high natural VI.. I've used "bargain" oils for the most part my entire life with God knows what amount of VII's and have had one engine reach 300k miles and another currently approaching 200k miles. Guess I've just been lucky.. I can't imagine spending all these years worried about the VII's to this detail and I'm not gonna start now... but to each his own.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Here is the updated VII content (VII column) and base-oil viscosity at 150 C (BO DV150 column) table:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oIYJP_5lgdt9l-_5n_ftKL5ScaaeY0MErFRothajZos/edit?usp=sharing
Curious, would you be willing to add the Ravenol 5w-30's and 0w-40 to that sheet?

1. Ravenol DXG 5w-30:
Density: 0.846
HTHS: 3.1
KV100: 10.7
KV40: 63.3
I get 4.44%

2. Ravenol VMP 5w-30:
Density: 0.853
HTHS: 3.6
KV100: 11.5
KV40: 68.2
I get 0.92%

3. Ravenol SSL 0w-40:
Density: 0.840
HTHS: 3.7
KV100: 13.25
KV40: 74.4
I get: 5.99%

Done.

I got VII content = 5.41%, 7.00%, and 2.02% for Ravenol DXG 5W-30, Ravenol SSL 0W-40, and Ravenol VMP 5W-30, respectively.
 
It's not so much the VII amount but the VII type that matters more IMO. The Japanese(Idemitsu and Eneos) are a fan of PMMA VIIs which explains why their oils have high VIs at the expense of NOACK/flash point - Idemitsu's 5W-30/0W-20 only carries D1G2 approval in their Zepro series but not their "regular"/moly lines. Supposedly PMMA/MMA VIIs are more prone to forming deposits.

My experience with Idemitsu non-dexos approved oil in a known drinker(Subaru FB25) is positive - you'd think with the high NOACK numbers the engine would be using more of it. I've noticed much less oil consumption compared to M1 AFE or PP.

PAO/POE oils have naturally high VIs, Red Line claims on their white bottle oils that a VII is not needed for them.
 
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Done.

I got VII content = 5.41%, 7.00%, and 2.02% for Ravenol DXG, SSL, and VMP, respectively.


Yeah, I'm using the original A_Harman formula from "back in the day", which included a correction factor of 0.885, which you changed to 0.905. If I update my formula to use yours, I get 6.97% for the 0w-40.

I've updated my sheet now so that we can be "on the same page" so to speak.

Looks like we have a leader on the low VII content 0w-40 (though not by a huge margin).
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by nthach

PAO/POE oils have naturally high VIs, Red Line claims on their white bottle oils that a VII is not needed for them.


I believe that claim was only ever made for their 5w-30, however using a density figure of 0.880 I'm getting 3.61% VII in that lube.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by nthach
The Japanese(Idemitsu and Eneos) are a fan of PMMA VIIs which explains why their oils have high VIs at the expense of NOACK/flash point - Idemitsu's 5W-30/0W-20 only carries D1G2 approval in their Zepro series but not their "regular"/moly lines. Supposedly PMMA/MMA VIIs are more prone to forming deposits.

A PMMA VII multiplies the viscosity by a larger number as the temperature increases, which is unlike an OCP VII, which multiplies it by a roughly temperature-independent number. Therefore, you can generate ultra-high-VI oils using a PMMA VII.

The downside of a PMMA VII is that it requires an actual polymer content several times higher than an OCP VII for a given thickening. For this reason it causes a lot of deposits because you have so much more polymer in the oil. I doubt any oil can pass the turbocharger-deposit tests if it uses a PMMA VII.
 
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Yeah, I'm using the original A_Harman formula from "back in the day", which included a correction factor of 0.885, which you changed to 0.905.

Yep, A_Harman's 0.885 density-correction factor was not correct. 0.905 is much closer to the actual density-correction factor for most oils.
 
Originally Posted by SR5

...
[Linked Image]



Nice graph! Need to save it for thin vs. thick threads ... We haven't had one of those discussions in a while
shocked2.gif
more vii vs. less vii are not as exciting
grin2.gif
 
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Originally Posted by ka9mnx
Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't buy into this high V! means junk oil. From what I've read high VI indicated better base oil (PAO).

Some grp3's also have a very high natural VI.. I've used "bargain" oils for the most part my entire life with God knows what amount of VII's and have had one engine reach 300k miles and another currently approaching 200k miles. Guess I've just been lucky.. I can't imagine spending all these years worried about the VII's to this detail and I'm not gonna start now... but to each his own.

Agree. I think we are "pixel peeping" here (a term we use in the photography world. I guess if your going to stretch you OCI's or run track days, it would matter. My track days consist of a run to Wal Mart. I'm so glad the cheap oils I use today are light years better than the good oils I used 50 years ago!
 
Originally Posted by Gokhan
It's impossible to say. We can't say which oil is better based entirely on the HTHS viscosity, base-oil viscosity at 150 C (BO DV150), and VII content. The quality of the base-oil and additive package used, as well as the type and quality of the VII used, also matter, to say the least.

Finally something I understand and believe.
 
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by ka9mnx
Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't buy into this high V! means junk oil. From what I've read high VI indicated better base oil (PAO).


Only to a point. PAO has a higher VI than most lower group bases, but once you get well above the VI of the base oil, that increase is being provided by VII. A VII-free 10w-30 blended with PAO won't have a wickedly high VI for example. Ravenol DXG 5w-30 has a VI of 160 and is PAO-based. That's a pretty low VI and, without going through the effort of doing the calculations, should point to a low VII content.

Ok. I understand what you are saying but in my pea brain a VI of 160 or 170, to me, is very high. I used to think anything over 120 was great!
 
So based on the conversations here and is it long as it would meet the spec of your vehicle you're better off with a 10w 30 than a 5w 30 synthetic if temps are warm enough
 
Originally Posted by Gokhan

The downside of a PMMA VII is that it requires an actual polymer content several times higher than an OCP VII for a given thickening. For this reason it causes a lot of deposits because you have so much more polymer in the oil. I doubt any oil can pass the turbocharger-deposit tests if it uses a PMMA VII.

Since turbo coking testing is part of the dexos1 spec, I don't see many Japanese formulations with D1G2 certs - Idemitsu Zepro 0W-20 has one dexos1 compliant grade. However, Mazda and Subaru sell Idemitsu's oils and say it's OK for their turbocharged models. The D1G2 compliant Zepro 0W-20 has 209 VI/11% NOACK/230*C flash, the moly one has 215 VI/14% NOACK/215*F flash.

Their 0W-16 has a 157 VI, 13% NOACK, and 230*C flash point. I wonder if the newest 0W-16 oils are using more PAO/POE, less Group 3 and low levels of VII to achieve those numbers for a "thin" oil?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by ka9mnx
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by ka9mnx
Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't buy into this high V! means junk oil. From what I've read high VI indicated better base oil (PAO).


Only to a point. PAO has a higher VI than most lower group bases, but once you get well above the VI of the base oil, that increase is being provided by VII. A VII-free 10w-30 blended with PAO won't have a wickedly high VI for example. Ravenol DXG 5w-30 has a VI of 160 and is PAO-based. That's a pretty low VI and, without going through the effort of doing the calculations, should point to a low VII content.

Ok. I understand what you are saying but in my pea brain a VI of 160 or 170, to me, is very high. I used to think anything over 120 was great!


That's why I never got excited about the "super high VI" oils that were all the rage here for a duration. Give me a mediocre VI oil with a PAO base and the least amount of VII possible.
 
Originally Posted by ka9mnx
Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Here is the updated VII content (VII column) and base-oil viscosity at 150 C (BO DV150 column) table:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oIYJP_5lgdt9l-_5n_ftKL5ScaaeY0MErFRothajZos/edit?usp=sharing




A lot of work there. I see Chevron Delo but no Havoline?

I thought we debunked his BOC a year or 2 ago?


I think the issue is that you run into scenarios where the derived figures are... questionable.

For example, if we use the Mobil Blending Guide:
[Linked Image]


And use the following data for Density:
SpectraSyn 8: 0.833
SpectraSyn 6: 0.827
SpectraSyn 4: 0.820

The resultant VII percentages don't quite align for all the examples, despite being quite close for others.
 
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
I think the issue is that you run into scenarios where the derived figures are... questionable.

For example, if we use the Mobil Blending Guide:
[Linked Image]


And use the following data for Density:
SpectraSyn 8: 0.833
SpectraSyn 6: 0.827
SpectraSyn 4: 0.820

The resultant VII percentages don't quite align for all the examples, despite being quite close for others.

It should work very well in most cases. In fact I checked it against your ExxonMobil table when I first derived the formulas, and the agreement was near perfect.

Don't forget that the VII content is relative -- it refers neither to the solid polymer treat rate nor the dissolved VII, which comes in a Group I base oil. Since it can be sold in a variety of concentrations, you can't talk about an absolute VII content. The ExxonMobil table lists the dissolved VII bought from Infineum, and the relative numbers should work out.

Also, your density numbers are totally wrong because you're neglecting the VII and DI package, which alter the density a lot. You should use representative values from commercial Mobil 1 oils if you want a run a calculation.
 
This and the inability to proof the formula against actual blending data makes it pseudo or Faux.
No knock on the hard work trying to pin it down, I think the concepts of base oil viscosity as a quality are great, but the base oil calculation does not have enough consistent data,points,to be reliable. Some of the results are so counterintuitive that the proof end of the formula is needed to believe it.
Right now we have an equation and some numbers but no way to prove the efficacy of it, despite that I appreciate the effort to deconstruct but there is something missing that we won't be able to fix. That's the actual formulation data of enough oils to prove or disprove the formula.

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by ka9mnx
Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Here is the updated VII content (VII column) and base-oil viscosity at 150 C (BO DV150 column) table:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oIYJP_5lgdt9l-_5n_ftKL5ScaaeY0MErFRothajZos/edit?usp=sharing




A lot of work there. I see Chevron Delo but no Havoline?

I thought we debunked his BOC a year or 2 ago?


I think the issue is that you run into scenarios where the derived figures are... questionable.

For example, if we use the Mobil Blending Guide:
[Linked Image]


And use the following data for Density:
SpectraSyn 8: 0.833
SpectraSyn 6: 0.827
SpectraSyn 4: 0.820

The resultant VII percentages don't quite align for all the examples, despite being quite close for others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
M1 5W30 EP D1 / Gen 3 Users ?
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
Triple_Se7en
C
Myth Using Synthetic 10W30 Today in GDI Engines ?
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
16K
Greasymechtech
C
VII Increase in Euro Synthetic 5W30 Oils ?
Replies
9
Views
2K
kschachn
A
PUP 5W30 quieted Toyota 2.5L startup rattle completely
2 3
Replies
41
Views
4K
KCJeep
R
Mobil Delvac 1 5W30 Advanced Synthetic
Replies
3
Views
2K
fantastic
Back
Top