Amsoil
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
From: Anderson, S.C.
Originally Posted by XxMerlinxX' timestamp='1381878228' post='22829384
If by "cold weather" you mean below -10F, then yes. Otherwise, a 5w oil is going to be a better choice for cold starts.
0w oils typically don't become less viscous ("thinner") than their 5w counterparts until temperatures get down to about 0f to -10f degrees. For some reason people think that the first number in 0w30 is the "weight" of the oil when the engine hasn't been started. It's not. The "W" in 0w30 stands for "winter" not "weight", and specifically refers to a test conducted at a temperature of 0f degrees. So if you're using 0w30 oil to combat engine wear at startup, but are doing it in a climate that never sees temperatures that low, you're likely using a thicker oil than you think or is called for.
You should read some more about oil and the SAE J300 spec in particular so you get your temperatures right, to start with.
Sure, the SAE grades are a range.
Sure, depending on the oil composition, you will find (usually cheap and dino) 5W oil that are as thick - or thicker - that real syn 10W oils at the same not-so-low temperatures.
Except for the odd-one-out (AFAIK Castrol 0W-30) true syn 0W oils ARE always thinner and catch up with their 5W-10W counterparts when they get warm.
One other thing: if Castrol uses the description "Highly refined base oil" in the MSDS for their "synthetic" oils.... it's NOT group 5, or 4.
They do not even specify the CAS numbers.
Most likely Hydrocracked Group 3, and that's not bad stuff but no true syn.
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,953
Likes: 25
From: 17 ft below sea level.
Yeah.. that's clear.
More viscous?
http://dictionary.re...wse/viscous?s=t
As in: thicker?
But they flow better, as they are
Mmmmkay....
I say: as long as the 100C viscosity of your xxW-30 weight oil is between 10-11 cSt (that will rule out the thick 0W's like the Castrol),
the 0W type oil will be thinner when it gets colder, even at 0F.
You can't predict this with 5W's or 10W's.
If you don't see temperatures as low as 0F, which is the vast majority of the US, then switching to a 0w30 isn't going to be the be-all-end-all for startup engine wear, because other 5w oils will be more viscous, meaning more quickly and easily utilized by the engine at startup.
http://dictionary.re...wse/viscous?s=t
As in: thicker?
But they flow better, as they are
more easily utilized?
Mmmmkay....
I say: as long as the 100C viscosity of your xxW-30 weight oil is between 10-11 cSt (that will rule out the thick 0W's like the Castrol),
the 0W type oil will be thinner when it gets colder, even at 0F.
You can't predict this with 5W's or 10W's.
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
From: Anderson, S.C.
If you don't see temperatures as low as 0F, which is the vast majority of the US, then switching to a 0w30 isn't going to be the be-all-end-all for startup engine wear, because other 5w oils will be more viscous, meaning more quickly and easily utilized by the engine at startup.
http://dictionary.re...wse/viscous?s=t
As in: thicker?
But they flow better, as they are
Mmmmkay....
I say: as long as the 100C viscosity of your xxW-30 weight oil is between 10-11 cSt (that will rule out the thick 0W's like the Castrol),
the 0W type oil will be thinner when it gets colder, even at 0F.
You can't predict this with 5W's or 10W's.
more easily utilized?
Mmmmkay....
I say: as long as the 100C viscosity of your xxW-30 weight oil is between 10-11 cSt (that will rule out the thick 0W's like the Castrol),
the 0W type oil will be thinner when it gets colder, even at 0F.
You can't predict this with 5W's or 10W's.
As I said, both of those 5w are thinner at normal startup temps than their 0w counterparts.
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,953
Likes: 25
From: 17 ft below sea level.
Hmm...
Since when is an oil with a 100C visc of below 9.3 cSt a 30 weight?
Since today?
Because you say so?
Where did you get that data?
It can't be right.
Now, if 2 out of 4 allready are (let's say..) open for debate, what about the rest?
Since when is an oil with a 100C visc of below 9.3 cSt a 30 weight?
Since today?
Because you say so?
Where did you get that data?
It can't be right.
Now, if 2 out of 4 allready are (let's say..) open for debate, what about the rest?
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
From: Anderson, S.C.
I got the numbers from the product data sheets from each manufacturer. That was another typo on my part, that's actually the 0w20 100* reading. Putting in the correct 12.2cST doesn't change anything other than bring the curve closer to the others though, it's still easily thicker than those mentioned.
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,854
Likes: 3,404
From: Foothills East of Sacramento
It looks like the Penn and the two Mobils are pretty darn close in viscosity. You can see all pretty much equal out (as expected) as the operating temp is approached.
So you want something less viscous on start up to reduce wear.
So you want something less viscous on start up to reduce wear.
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,953
Likes: 25
From: 17 ft below sea level.
Soo... out of the 4 oils you used to prove your point 2 were 20 weights... (and they don't count)
Nevertheless.. congratulations
for finding a (as in 1) 10-11 cST 0W-30 that is thicker (more viscous... ) than a 5W-30 at 0C.
Can't find the MSDS of the 0W-30 Mobil 1 AFE 0W-30, link just gives a 404.
Based on the VI of 166, the V40 and V100 I think non of the numbers are impressive, TBN of 9.1 is also...
Too bad Mobil 1 does not publish the CCS.
Could be GroupIII hydrocracked dino, beefed up with VI to (barely?) pass the 0W rating.
What I would call a "marketing = cheater 0W-30"
A properly formulated 5W is the better choice in that case, sure.
Compare it to Amsoil - and why not, this is an Amsoil post - AZO and - if one can still find the data - good'ol SSO.
Case closed.
Nevertheless.. congratulations
for finding a (as in 1) 10-11 cST 0W-30 that is thicker (more viscous... ) than a 5W-30 at 0C.Can't find the MSDS of the 0W-30 Mobil 1 AFE 0W-30, link just gives a 404.
Based on the VI of 166, the V40 and V100 I think non of the numbers are impressive, TBN of 9.1 is also...
Too bad Mobil 1 does not publish the CCS.
Could be GroupIII hydrocracked dino, beefed up with VI to (barely?) pass the 0W rating.
What I would call a "marketing = cheater 0W-30"
A properly formulated 5W is the better choice in that case, sure.
Compare it to Amsoil - and why not, this is an Amsoil post - AZO and - if one can still find the data - good'ol SSO.
Case closed.
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 29,812
Likes: 5,408
From: Ontario Canada
I just took delivery of a case of Amsoil 5w40 European Full SAPS formula, I used their low SAPs 5w40 formula in the past, I'm glad that they introduced a mid-SAPs and full SAPs formula in that viscosity recently.
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
From: Anderson, S.C.
The first chart has the correct Ultra 5w30 numbers, AMSOil's 0w30 AZO, Redline's 0w30, and Quaker State 5w30 Ultra Durability. Couldn't find a data sheet for the SSO since it's been discontinued. As I said, both 5w30s are still thinner than the 0w30s at regular temperatures. What was that about "case closed"?
And just in case you need more examples, since the AZO has been the thinnest 0w30 I've seen yet, I reused it plus added Valvoline Maxlife FE 5w30, Motul 8100 Eco-nergy 5w30, and Pennzoil Platinum 5w30. That makes six 5w oils that are thinner than the "best" 0w oils mentioned. So no, your statement that "true syn 0W oils ARE always thinner" is incorrect. Feel free to now grasp at whatever straws you like.
