Synthetic oil



ChryslerMiniVan.net is the premier Chrysler Minivan Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Synthetic oil

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    7
    Thanks for all the input.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    Chrysler Minivan Forums
    Advertisements
     

  3. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    16,701
    Quote Originally Posted by GCTruckster View Post
    Essentially, oils with less VIIs tend to be more shear stable and there are some excellent 0W20, 0W30 oil with no VIIs or very little of them, but they are boutique oils like Red Line and Amsoil, which is a warranty liability since they oftentimes lack API and manufacturer certifications.

    This brings me to SAE30, non detergent oils for snow blowers, mowers etc. These oil have no VIIs and no detergents, and they are extremely shear stable. That is why these machines don't seem to be affected. Also, these small engines are splash lubricated, not pressure fed by an oil pump, which makes it possible to operate with SAE30 oils in such a wide range of temperatures.

    Unfortunately using non detergent, monograde oils in modern engines (that is pretty much anything made for the last 30 or so years) has more disadvantages than the one advantage (shear stability) they offer. That's not to say that some, living in mild climates, could not get away with it, but at the very least I would pick something with detergents and other additives.
    Synthetic motor oils, whatever synthetic means these days, supposedly require less additives than conventional oil. Regardless of that, additive packages exist and a synthetic oil with a mediocre additive package may not perform as well as a conventional oil with a very good additive package. That's from Royal Purple at http://royalpurpleconsumer.com/wp-co...r_MotorOil.pdf

    As to shear stability, Synlube at http://www.synlube.com/ says:
    SynLube™ Lube-4-Life® Motor Oil is 100% Synthetic Motor Oil that does not use any Petroleum Base Stock, not even as a Carrier Oil for the Additives.
    Sub-micronic colloidal particles provide the unique performance and longevity.
    It is the FIRST and still the ONLY Synthetic Motor Oil that does not need to be changed for up to 15 years or 150,000 miles in most vehicle applications.
    That may be just more synthetic oil "kool aid" but, somebody must be using the product.

    Small engine manufacturers are now specifying multi grade motor oil like 5W-30 and 10W-30 conventional plus synthetic oils as well. I assume they aren't so concerned now about a 30 weight becoming a 5 weight with overly extensive use (no oil changes).

    Mono-grade motor oils have an "additive package" and meet API SC, SD, SF, SG, SL, SM, SN. One such "additive package" supplier: http://danagroups.com/tag/sae-50-mon...itive-package/
    2007 GC SXT - Magnesium - S&G - 3.8L - 173,000 kms
    2002 GC Sport - Stone White - 3.3L - 358,500 kms
    2003 Jeep TJ Sport - 4.0L - 279,000 kms

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Jeepman For This Useful Post:

    JC1 (02-17-2017)

  5. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    61
    Most of the very thin oils like this use pour point depressants, not viscosity improvers, to obtain their low viscosity rating. That is, they start with a 20 weight oil and add a pour point depressant until it pours like a 0 weight oil at low temperatures. Thus they tend to thicken with age, not thin with age. If you look at the results at Bob is the Oil Guy for oils like these, you can see these ultra-thin oils thickening as they age.

    My personal experience with the Pentastar is that it runs quieter on 5w20 than it runs on 5w30 because 5w30 is too thick for the hydraulic lash adjusters and results in them not pumping up adequately when the engine is cold, resulting in a lot of valve clatter. I've never owned one that specified 0w20. I wouldn't hesitate running 0w20 however, because if you look at the specs on 5w20, it's still thicker when cold than is ideal for this engine, and is no thinner when hot than the 5w20 that has proven to work quite well in this engine.
    My other car is a Jeep.

  6. Remove Advertisements
    Chrysler Minivan Forums
    Advertisements
     

  7. #14
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    8,398
    Quote Originally Posted by GCTruckster View Post
    Personally I believe 0W20 has no business being in this engine and in such a heavy vehicle. Honda, Toyota and Subaru have plenty of oil consumption problems with their engines requiring 0W20 oils and in much smaller vehicles as well. Most 0WXX oils have to use a lot of Viscosity Index Improvers and Pour point depressants in order to classify for the 0W rating. While these additives make the oil more pumpable at extremely low temperatures, they degrade pretty quickly and can cause varnish, which can gum up the rings.
    The above is incorrect, many (most, all?) high quality synthetic base stock oils meet the 0W-20 grade specification with exactly zero viscosity index improvers, some even meet the 0W-30 grade specification with additives. Grades like 0W-40, something of a rare bird, use very few additives to reach that grade.

    As for 0W-20 being inappropriate for heavy vehicles, nonsense, 0W-20 and 5W-20 have been used successfully in heavy vehicles for nearly two decades now.
    Sold: 1998 DGC Sport 3.8 (Final odo: 178,000 miles)
    Sold: 1998 Chrysler T&C LXi 3.8 (Final odo: 190,000 miles)
    Sold: 2003 DGC ES 3.8 (Final odo: 172,000 miles)
    1999 Chrysler T&C Limited 3.8 (Current odo: 200,000+ miles)
    2001 Honda Accord EX-L V6 (4-Speed automatic)
    2006 Acura TL 6-Speed
    2016 Mazda3 s Grand Touring 5-Door (6-Speed manual)

  8. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    216
    Quote Originally Posted by shipo View Post
    The above is incorrect, many (most, all?)

    Lol, so which one is it, many, most or all? You sound confident in your statement, so please don't hold back and post some examples.
    I'll give you a hint, most synthetics are group III and they cannot meet the MRV and CCV requirements all by themselves for 0W rating. They need a healthy dose of VIIs. Only PAO, I believe (I will check it later) can.

    2015 Dodge // Grand Caravan Crew
    2006 Mazda 3 2.0L
    1995 Kawasaki Ninja 500

  9. #16
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    8,398
    Quote Originally Posted by GCTruckster View Post
    Lol, so which one is it, many, most or all? You sound confident in your statement, so please don't hold back and post some examples.
    I'll give you a hint, most synthetics are group III and they cannot meet the MRV and CCV requirements all by themselves for 0W rating. They need a healthy dose of VIIs. Only PAO, I believe (I will check it later) can.
    It appears you're operating with very old and out of date data. The original crop of Group III oils do in fact exhibit the properties you describe above. That said, refining techniques have gotten to the point where Gas to Liquid (GTL) sourced Group III base stocks outperform PAO based oil.
    Sold: 1998 DGC Sport 3.8 (Final odo: 178,000 miles)
    Sold: 1998 Chrysler T&C LXi 3.8 (Final odo: 190,000 miles)
    Sold: 2003 DGC ES 3.8 (Final odo: 172,000 miles)
    1999 Chrysler T&C Limited 3.8 (Current odo: 200,000+ miles)
    2001 Honda Accord EX-L V6 (4-Speed automatic)
    2006 Acura TL 6-Speed
    2016 Mazda3 s Grand Touring 5-Door (6-Speed manual)

  10. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    216
    You're right, my information may be out of date, circa 2013 when the only producer of GTL base stocks was Shell and they only used it in their own products. Can you give me some examples of other manufacturers, such as XOM, BP and others using GTL?

    As far as GTL being superior to PAO, please stop spreading misinformation. GTL is still a Group III+ and there is a reason why a lot of blenders using Group III and Group III+ also mix PAO, esters or Group V to get the low temperature properties they desire. If GTL was superior, there would be no need to blend with expensive PAOs, esters etc.

    2015 Dodge // Grand Caravan Crew
    2006 Mazda 3 2.0L
    1995 Kawasaki Ninja 500

  11. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by GCTruckster View Post
    a lot of blenders using Group III and Group III+ also mix PAO, esters or Group V to get the low temperature properties they desire.
    Group V oils are usually blended into Group III oils due to the detergent qualities of Group V oils, not due to low temperature properties. Low temperature properties are only one of the things that oil manufacturers are trying to do with their formulations. Detergency (to prevent sludge and deposit buildups) and anti-wear/anti-gall properties, for example, being important too.

    I'm reluctant to substitute theoretical notions of what things "should" be for what we're seeing on the oil analysis forums, where we're seeing these oils maintain their viscosity rather than thinning out. Indeed, people using oil analysis to test oil change intervals are having to change their oil not because the oil has become too thin, but, rather, because it has become too thick.
    My other car is a Jeep.

  12. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    216
    Quote Originally Posted by badtux View Post
    Group V oils are usually blended into Group III oils due to the detergent qualities of Group V oils, not due to low temperature properties. Low temperature properties are only one of the things that oil manufacturers are trying to do with their formulations. Detergency (to prevent sludge and deposit buildups) and anti-wear/anti-gall properties, for example, being important too.

    I'm reluctant to substitute theoretical notions of what things "should" be for what we're seeing on the oil analysis forums, where we're seeing these oils maintain their viscosity rather than thinning out. Indeed, people using oil analysis to test oil change intervals are having to change their oil not because the oil has become too thin, but, rather, because it has become too thick.
    Of course base stocks aren't chosen only based on their cold temp properties, I never implied such a thing. However the cold and hot temperature properties are a very important aspect that is mainly controlled by the base stock. Then, in addition to the base stock, pour point depressants and viscosity index improvers are added to achieve a desired rating.
    As a general rule of thumb, the better the base stock and the less of a viscosity spread between the cold and hot ratings, the less of VIIs need to be added. That is why, for example, 10w30 oils, even non synthetic ones, are so shear stable because they do not have a lot of VIIs to give them the viscosity spread and the monograde oils, which do not have any VIIs are even more shear stable despite being non synthetic.


    As to the oil thinning or thickening point, you have to realize that there are several types. The oil thinning refers to the High Temperature, High Shear (HTHS) viscosity, which is a minimum viscosity an oil has to maintained when it is fully stressed. This is the shearing I was referring to, sorry for not being more specific. The thickening you mentioned, is caused by oxidation and high temperatures, but it is a bit weird to explain, because such an oil will be thicker and harder to pump when cold and at normal temperatures, but it's HTHS viscosity will be lower, meaning that in the engine areas where the oil is under high temperatures and shear, like main bearings, or cam lobes, it will actually be too thin and protect less.

    2015 Dodge // Grand Caravan Crew
    2006 Mazda 3 2.0L
    1995 Kawasaki Ninja 500

+ Reply to Thread

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts