Synthetic Oils With Lowest VII's ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
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.

Actually I just realized that three of the oils from the ExxonMobil table are in my spreadsheet, and the agreement is great.

I don't know where OVERKILL made a mistake when he attempted to use the formula.
 
Originally Posted by tblt44
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


Sort of, a 10Wx oil is only recommended down to 0F (-20C) so colder than that and I would always use a 5Wx (or 0Wx) oil. Also 10W30 is not a Dexos approved viscosity grade, no matter how good the oil, so if you need Dexos for warranty you can't use a 10W30.

Also for some, the 10W30 uses lower quality base stock over the 5W30. For example Magnatec 10W30 is a semi-synthetic (Group II & III) while Magnatec 5W30 is a full synthetic (Group III), Chevron Supreme 10W30 is a mineral oil while their 5W30 is a semi-synthetic.

Still if you live in a mild climate (or a summer run) and you find a Full Synthetic 10W30 that is both API SN-Plus (to resist LSPI) and ACEA A5/B5 or A3/B3/B4 (high quality Euro spec) then you have found a very high quality oil that could be used for most applications. It would be low in VII content and it would also have a low Noack volatility ( about 6 to 8% typically).
 
Originally Posted by Gokhan
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.

Well, I just ran it against a few of them using density figures from Ravenol, which I figured were a better match because they, like these examples, are PAO-based.

Originally Posted by Gokhan
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.

Yes, I was going by the relative content, like what's listed in the table with the expectation that everything should add up to 100.

Originally Posted by Gokhan
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.

I simply noted the densities for the PAO bases because these are PAO oils. Using density figures for oils using different bases may not align well.

For example:
- if we look at the 0w-20, Mobil 1 EP 0w-20 has a density of 0.839, Ravenol 0w-20 has a density of 0.840. Using the latter, I end up with a VII content of 1.41%, the chart lists 2.6%.
- if we look at the 0w-30, Mobil 1 AFE has a density of 0.842, but has very little PAO. Ravenol 0w-30 has a density of 0.844. Using the latter, I end up with a VII content of 6.90%, the chart lists 7%, extremely close!
- If we look at the 5w-30, Mobil 1 5w-30 has a density of 0.855, but has no PAO. Ravenol DXG 5w-30 has a density of 0.846. Using the latter, I end up with a VII content of 13.03%, the chart lists 12%
- If we look at the 5w-50, Mobil no longer lists one that I can see. Ravenol makes one, but it doesn't list being fully PAO-based. It has a density of 0.847, using this we end up with a VII content of 11.47%, the chart lists 11.6%, extremely close!

So the 0w-20 and 5w-30 both stand out as being off by roughly a full percentage point. That's what I was driving at.
 
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Bryanccfshr
Originally Posted by ChrisD46
*Not to get off topic , here in North Georgia I can run 10W30 10 months out of the year (I prefer a 5W if my morning temps will see temps in the teens ) ... My only concern with a 10W30 synthetic is the lack of D1 / Gen 2 certification which makes me concerned I might receive a lesser ability oil than the 5W30 D1 / Gen 2 of the same brand ?


In today's lean manufacturing and consolidated process environment, Do you think that it would be cost effective to have a different additive package in a 10w30 than the same brand 5w30 that has the D1/gen 2 ?

I don't. The only thing I could see that is different is the blend of base oil and VII rate.
10w30 cannot by definition get Dexos.

Metallic adds usually look identical on the PDS. https://cglapps.chevron.com/sdspds/PDSDetailPage.aspx?docDataId=518483&docFormat=PDF



No, but they'll probably use a cheaper base oil because they can.
What cheaper base stocks are the big brand syn oils going to use?
 
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by Gokhan
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.

Actually I just realized that three of the oils from the ExxonMobil table are in my spreadsheet, and the agreement is great.

I don't know where OVERKILL made a mistake when he attempted to use the formula.


Well, for starters, you have HTHS as 2.7 for the 0w-20 in your table, the blending guide lists 2.8. The density I used for the 0w-30, from the Ravenol product, gets me closer to the blending guide than you got with your guess at 0.850.
 
Originally Posted by hatt
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Bryanccfshr
Originally Posted by ChrisD46
*Not to get off topic , here in North Georgia I can run 10W30 10 months out of the year (I prefer a 5W if my morning temps will see temps in the teens ) ... My only concern with a 10W30 synthetic is the lack of D1 / Gen 2 certification which makes me concerned I might receive a lesser ability oil than the 5W30 D1 / Gen 2 of the same brand ?


In today's lean manufacturing and consolidated process environment, Do you think that it would be cost effective to have a different additive package in a 10w30 than the same brand 5w30 that has the D1/gen 2 ?

I don't. The only thing I could see that is different is the blend of base oil and VII rate.
10w30 cannot by definition get Dexos.

Metallic adds usually look identical on the PDS. https://cglapps.chevron.com/sdspds/PDSDetailPage.aspx?docDataId=518483&docFormat=PDF



No, but they'll probably use a cheaper base oil because they can.
What cheaper base stocks are the big brand syn oils going to use?


Could be Yubase instead of GTL for example. Not all Group III bases are created equal. Also, not sure how much Group II+ they can get away with and still label it as synthetic, but that's worth considering too.
 
Originally Posted by OVERKILL


Could be Yubase instead of GTL for example. Not all Group III bases are created equal. Also, not sure how much Group II+ they can get away with and still label it as synthetic, but that's worth considering too.
I though they had to be at least III. My favorite oil is PP. I doubt they're using anything other than GTL since they were supposedly covered up in GTL. Remember when the PYB 10w-30 came back with those great numbers a few years ago. It looked like they were basically putting PP in the PYB jugs. Listening to guys in the oil business the retail markup on motor oils is very high. I doubt they're having to pinch pennies in base stock schemes.
 
Originally Posted by hatt
Originally Posted by OVERKILL


Could be Yubase instead of GTL for example. Not all Group III bases are created equal. Also, not sure how much Group II+ they can get away with and still label it as synthetic, but that's worth considering too.
I though they had to be at least III. My favorite oil is PP. I doubt they're using anything other than GTL since they were supposedly covered up in GTL. Remember when the PYB 10w-30 came back with those great numbers a few years ago. It looked like they were basically putting PP in the PYB jugs. Listening to guys in the oil business the retail markup on motor oils is very high. I doubt they're having to pinch pennies in base stock schemes.


Well, seeing Mobil only use PAO when necessary, I think they definitely chase less expensive bases. More margin is better, right?
wink.gif
But I can't see SOPUS using anything other than GTL, given Pearl. Other blenders? I expect they use what they can get away with and with a 10w-30 that can't be certified against DEXOS and the like, that's quite possibly a cheaper base oil blend.
 
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
For example:
- if we look at the 0w-20, Mobil 1 EP 0w-20 has a density of 0.839, Ravenol 0w-20 has a density of 0.840. Using the latter, I end up with a VII content of 1.41%, the chart lists 2.6%.
- if we look at the 0w-30, Mobil 1 AFE has a density of 0.842, but has very little PAO. Ravenol 0w-30 has a density of 0.844. Using the latter, I end up with a VII content of 6.90%, the chart lists 7%, extremely close!
- If we look at the 5w-30, Mobil 1 5w-30 has a density of 0.855, but has no PAO. Ravenol DXG 5w-30 has a density of 0.846. Using the latter, I end up with a VII content of 13.03%, the chart lists 12%
- If we look at the 5w-50, Mobil no longer lists one that I can see. Ravenol makes one, but it doesn't list being fully PAO-based. It has a density of 0.847, using this we end up with a VII content of 11.47%, the chart lists 11.6%, extremely close!

So the 0w-20 and 5w-30 both stand out as being off by roughly a full percentage point. That's what I was driving at.

Oh, if the agreement is within 10% of error, I am more than happy! An estimated 13% VII content vs. an actual 12% VII content is only 8% percent error; so, it's good!

You're making a mistake in the 0W-20. I get 3.14% estimated VII content vs. 2.6% actual VII content. So, the percentage error is 20%, but the absolute error is only 0.5%; so, it's still pretty good.
 
Originally Posted by Gokhan

You're making a mistake in the 0W-20. I get 3.14% estimated VII content vs. 2.6% actual VII content. So, the percentage error is 20%, but the absolute error is only 0.5%; so, it's still pretty good.


That's because you have HTHS at 2.7, but the Blending Guide lists it at 2.8, I'm using 2.8
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by hatt
Originally Posted by OVERKILL


Could be Yubase instead of GTL for example. Not all Group III bases are created equal. Also, not sure how much Group II+ they can get away with and still label it as synthetic, but that's worth considering too.
I though they had to be at least III. My favorite oil is PP. I doubt they're using anything other than GTL since they were supposedly covered up in GTL. Remember when the PYB 10w-30 came back with those great numbers a few years ago. It looked like they were basically putting PP in the PYB jugs. Listening to guys in the oil business the retail markup on motor oils is very high. I doubt they're having to pinch pennies in base stock schemes.


Well, seeing Mobil only use PAO when necessary, I think they definitely chase less expensive bases. More margin is better, right?
wink.gif
But I can't see SOPUS using anything other than GTL, given Pearl. Other blenders? I expect they use what they can get away with and with a 10w-30 that can't be certified against DEXOS and the like, that's quite possibly a cheaper base oil blend.

Are VIIs cheaper than sightly better base stocks?
 
Originally Posted by hatt
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by hatt
Originally Posted by OVERKILL


Could be Yubase instead of GTL for example. Not all Group III bases are created equal. Also, not sure how much Group II+ they can get away with and still label it as synthetic, but that's worth considering too.
I though they had to be at least III. My favorite oil is PP. I doubt they're using anything other than GTL since they were supposedly covered up in GTL. Remember when the PYB 10w-30 came back with those great numbers a few years ago. It looked like they were basically putting PP in the PYB jugs. Listening to guys in the oil business the retail markup on motor oils is very high. I doubt they're having to pinch pennies in base stock schemes.


Well, seeing Mobil only use PAO when necessary, I think they definitely chase less expensive bases. More margin is better, right?
wink.gif
But I can't see SOPUS using anything other than GTL, given Pearl. Other blenders? I expect they use what they can get away with and with a 10w-30 that can't be certified against DEXOS and the like, that's quite possibly a cheaper base oil blend.

Are VIIs cheaper than sightly better base stocks?


I expect so.
 
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Gokhan
You're making a mistake in the 0W-20. I get 3.14% estimated VII content vs. 2.6% actual VII content. So, the percentage error is 20%, but the absolute error is only 0.5%; so, it's still pretty good.
That's because you have HTHS at 2.7, but the Blending Guide lists it at 2.8, I'm using 2.8
wink.gif


Hmm, I see...

The problem we're having is that we don't know the actual densities because they are not listed. In fact if you look at the compositions, the 0W-30 is a lighter oil (in density) than the 0W-20.

If we use density = 0.85 for the 0W-20 and density = 0.84 for the 0W-30 and HTHS = 2.764 for the 0W-20 and HTHS = 3.079 for the 0W-30, which round off to 2.8 and 3.1, respectively, we get perfect agreement for the theory vs. experiment. See my updated spreadsheet.
 
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Gokhan
You're making a mistake in the 0W-20. I get 3.14% estimated VII content vs. 2.6% actual VII content. So, the percentage error is 20%, but the absolute error is only 0.5%; so, it's still pretty good.
That's because you have HTHS at 2.7, but the Blending Guide lists it at 2.8, I'm using 2.8
wink.gif


Hmm, I see...

The problem we're having is that we don't know the actual densities because they are not listed. In fact if you look at the compositions, the 0W-30 is a lighter oil (in density) than the 0W-20.

If we use density = 0.85 for the 0W-20 and density = 0.84 for the 0W-30 and HTHS = 2.764 for the 0W-20 and HTHS = 3.079 for the 0W-30, which round off to 2.8 and 3.1, respectively, we get nearly perfect agreement for the theory vs. experiment. See my updated spreadsheet.


I was watching you play around with it
wink.gif
I expect we are best served, in absence of data, by using the densities from known lubes like the Ravenol examples, particularly given how closely the Ravenol 0w-20 (0.840) and M1 EP 0w-20 (0.839) are which should suggest that this would be the correct density for the lube, or as close as we are going to get. If we put HTHS at the minimum we can get away with for a 2.8 round: 2.75, that gives us 2.28% which is within your 10% error margin.

On the other hand, we could tweak your adjustment factor to 0.915 and that gives us 2.6% with an HTHS of 2.76, which is right on the money.
 
Adding some more data here, I have these beauties from Mobil:
[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]


That we can use to further refine things here. The red one is particularly nice because of the number of significant figures listed for HTHS. Using the Ravenol 0w-40 density @ 0.840 I end up needing a correction factor of 0.935 to get 11.9% BUT, this gives us 9% for the 5w-40, dropping it down to 0.925 gives us our 8.5% but then puts us too low for the 0w-40, going with 0.930 gives us 11.7% for the 0w-40 and if we use the same density for the 5w-40, gives us our 8.5% and using 0.845 for the 10w-40 gives us 7.37%, again, pretty close.

BUT, the SpectraSyn 6 product throws everything for a loop
lol.gif
Unless the density is REALLY high?
21.gif
 
Originally Posted by Bryanccfshr
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.

You must have missed it. Comparison to actual blending data has been done at great length.

Recently, right around when I was working on this, the internationally celebrated veteran tribologist Hugh Spike et al. published a couple of tour de force papers on VII (VM), shear, base-oil viscosity, HTHSV, friction, and wear. This was a breakthrough study. They studied never-been studied shear regimes and did so for all types of VIIs. In particular they verified my conception that VIIs exhibit full temporary shear at extreme shear rates through the perfect alignment of their molecules along the flow direction, and you're left with the viscosity of the base oil and detergent - inhibitor (DI) pack. They have extensive data on more than a dozen oils.

I compared my calculations to the oils they tested, which use many different kinds of VII, and my theoretical results were within 6% of their experimental results.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...riction-and-wear-state-of-th#Post5133413
 
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
BUT, the SpectraSyn 6 product throws everything for a loop
lol.gif
Unless the density is REALLY high?
21.gif



I used HTHS of 3.65, density of 0.995 and the 0.930 adjustment factor I used for the red table oils and it gives me 11.7% VII treat rate.
 
Originally Posted by ka9mnx
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!

Right!

"Pixel peeping"..is that like looking at/examining one pixel on a monitor (pic) and concluding, it's "the best monitor" because that's what this thread sounds like. Just curious, has anyone experienced (or know of) a lubricant related failure AND successfuly won a warranty claim against say XOM or Chevron, based on their "high" VII treat rates being the leading cause of equipment failure? My guess is that would be a hard sell given the reams of data they have on this subject. It would be malpractice of them to use "high" amounts of VII's if their internal data suggested it was a bad practice for today's modern, turbo charged engines.

But who knows... maybe we've stumbled onto a conspiracy/cover-up here. 🤔
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Adding some more data here, I have these beauties from Mobil:

[Linked Image]


BUT, the SpectraSyn 6 product throws everything for a loop
lol.gif
Unless the density is REALLY high?
21.gif


Interesting.

If you look at this oil, they went bonanza on the DI package -- 20%. If you Google it, an Infineum diesel-oil DI package can have a density over 1.1 g/cc.

https://www.marinefluid.dk/images/s...ts/PDS_Infineum_337_BN_InfineumM7090.pdf

I estimate the density of this oil to be around 0.90.

I wouldn't adjust the density-correction factor or make other changes in the calculation.

I know what is going on here. This particular table is from Infineum, not ExxonMobil. They probably used a different VII with a different polymer concentration in the solvent package. Again we need to remind ourselves that the VII contents reported in these ExxonMobil/Infineum tables are not the actual polymer treat rates but the whole VII package containing the solvent. It wouldn't surprise me if Infineum used a different type of VII in their HDEO guide than what ExxonMobil used in their PCMO guide. I estimate a 5.9% relative VII content for this oil, which actually makes sense because you would expect a fuel-efficient ILSAC GF-5 5W-30 to have more VII than a wear-reducing API CK-4 or ACEA C3 5W-30, the latter two of which have a higher HTHS. So, I think all is good here, and there are no surprises.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top