Full vs 100 percent synthetic oil

[RDY4WAR]

Are you SURE Torco is using any Group III base oils in their race oils? I didn’t ask the last time I talked to Ernie (2014) but…I didn’t ask him that. I don’t remember us ever talking about Group III base oils in any of the race oils.


LOL…if I wasn’t so damn sick I’d pick up the phone and call them just so I know. Maybe tomorrow because I feel like microwaved dog crap today.

I stand corrected. I didn't think about their SR-5R oil. That oil is a group IV/V blend. Judging by the SpG, it's a pretty healthy dose of group V. I was thinking of their SR-1R oil which is a tri-synthetic (groups III/IV/V). The specs remind me of LAT's racing oils. Possibly Torco makes LAT's oils. It's been a long time since I looked at those oils.

I'll add my random oil questions to this thread as it seems to be going that way already:

Modern Synthetic Oils & Slow-Leakdown Hyd Roller Lifters: Is this combination potentially a problem or not?

No. In fact, the improved shear stability of synthetic base oils allows the lower viscosity those lifters want without losing hydraulic function.

My understanding is that all the new fuel economy-focused oil-certifications are driving decreasing High-Temp / High-Shear (HT/HS) values for oil, but sheer stability is important when forcing oil through increasingly small hyd lifter passages.

-There was a series of LOONG threads about Morel lifter noise and the conclusion was a pretty authoritative statement that they work better with an oil with an HT/HS of 3.8-4.1 cP. BUT when I look at the SAE viscosity table, it seems to require a 50 weight oil to get to 3.7 cP...

The focus on fuel economy has driven the required HTHS of modern oils lower. This really only pertains to common brand oils in light viscosities like 0W-20 and 0W-16.

Note that group III based synthetic oils will almost always produce a higher HTHS than group IV/V blend synthetics. This is simply due to the higher density of the group III base oil. The exception is when a group IV/V blend has a lot of polyol or adipate ester.

You have to look at the HTHS relative to the kinematic viscosity @ 100°C (KV100). An oil with a KV100 of 10.5 cSt and HTHS of 3.3 cP is more shear stable than an oil with a KV100 of 12.0 cSt and HTHS of 3.3 cP. SAE J300 only requires a minimum HTHS for each grade, no maximums. A 50 grade must have an HTHS ≥3.7 cP but note there's a lot of 40 grades and even some 30 grades with an HTHS ≥3.7 cP.

Red Line HP 5W-30 = 3.7 cP
Red Line HP 10W-30 = 3.7 cP
Driven XP3 10W-30 = 3.7 cP

Some other 30 grades hang in there pretty close.

Amsoil Dominator 10W-30 = 3.6 cP
Driven LS30 5W-30 = 3.5 cP
HPL Bad Ass 5W-30 = 3.5 cP

Where was it stated that Morel lifters like an oil with 3.8-4.1 cP? There's several 40 grade oils that fall in that range.

HPL Bad Ass 5W-40 = 4.0 cP
HPL HDMO 5W-40 = 3.9 cP
Red Line HP 0W-40 = 4.0 cP
Driven DT40 5W-40 = 3.9 cP

Among others. However, the sweet spot for Morel lifters should be in the 3.3-3.7 cP range or about 10-15 cSt KV100. The HTHS is really more relevant to the bearings than it is the lifters.

My understanding is that the HT/HS value is based upon 150 degree C oil temps; the actual viscosity is going to be greater at lower temps, so can you just reduce oil temps to prevent lifters from bleeding down pre-maturely with the same grade of oil?

The HTHS is measured at 150°C and 10^6s-1 shear rate. That's pretty common bearing load in many race engines and hot street engines with power adders. You can reduce bleed down with a lower oil viscosity, but that's not the case with Morel lifters. They bleed down slower than others, hence the need for a lower viscosity oil.

@RDY4WAR: You mentioned earlier that Grade IV base stocks have solubility problems with some additives and mentioned Zinc/ZDDP specifically; does this mean if someone's looking to add their own ZDDP additive to an off-the-shelf oil that they'd be better off starting with an engine oil that appears to be from Grade III basestock? (Which I THINK you can guess at based upon the higher Pour Point temp rating from the SDS?...)

The solubility issues with group IV PAO base oils are solved by blending in low amounts (5-15%) group V ester. Esters are highly polar and aid in additive solubility and response. It can't quite match group III in this regard, but can get pretty close. You would have to bump the ester to the 25+% range to beat group III in solubility which would actually work against you as too much ester can strip anti-wear films. Red Line had issues with this for a while before they lowered the ester content.

The ZDDP supplements are usually blended in a cheap group I carrier oil that'll provide its own solubility. Like mentioned though, any oil that's majority group IV will already have group V blended in to aid in solubility. Some supplements use a polymeric carrier, such as a thick olefin copolymer (liquid rubber), which can cause solubility issues with oils containing group V. Esters will not solubilize polymers. The result is the supplement just globs in the pan and provides no benefit. That or it gels up and clogs your oil filter. I've seen that a time or two.

I never recommend playing backyard chemist with a supplement. Even supplements that have beneficial additives can have adverse affects. For example, a fully formulated oil with a careful balance of ZDDP to detergents and synergy with friction modifier and extreme pressure additives can be thrown out of balance by the supplement, causing the FM and EP additives to become weaker, the detergents diluted, and ZDDP, despite being a higher concentration, is less effective due to lost synergy with other additives. A lot of oil formulating is finding that sweet spot where different additives play well with one another. Additive clash can be a problem if that's not considered.

[Geoff2]

Good points about adding 'extra' ZDDP. But some will never get it.....

[JC565Ford]

What's the complete engine build including rpm, fuel, power adders, bearing clearance, and use of the engine? A 10W-40 is an obsolete grade though some brands still make it.

It's an endurance boat engine. It spends a lot of run time in the 4,000-4,600 rpm range. Sometimes runs up to 12-18 miles in that range. with oil cooler oil temps run in the 210-220 range. the rebuild target is 1,000 hp at 7,200 (currently makes 1,000 at 7.600) NA. No power adders, gasoline 110 octane. If memory serves the rods are at .002 and the mains .00275 - .003 (pretty close to that range). It typically runs M1 15-50.
565 ( 4.60 x 4.25)

[JC565Ford]

I never recommend playing backyard chemist with a supplement. Even supplements that have beneficial additives can have adverse affects. For example, a fully formulated oil with a careful balance of ZDDP to detergents and synergy with friction modifier and extreme pressure additives can be thrown out of balance by the supplement, causing the FM and EP additives to become weaker, the detergents diluted, and ZDDP, despite being a higher concentration, is less effective due to lost synergy with other additives. A lot of oil formulating is finding that sweet spot where different additives play well with one another. Additive clash can be a problem if that's not considered.

So, I shouldn't take 4 qrts of M1 4T 10-40 and blend with 5 qrts M1 10-40 and call it good ? lol

I did run the M1 5-40 Euro oil on the dyno a couple years back.

[xspsi]

PAO is no longer the preferred choice in many applications, even for high end racing oils. Modern day advancements in group III+ base oils have them rivaling PAO even at temperatures >450°F. The major downside of PAO is it's largely non-polar (poor solubility) meaning it can be a struggle to solubilize additives in it and get them to activate. (additive response) It's a pain getting ZDDP and other additives to start working in PAO, especially at lower temperatures. (hence why you don't use "synthetic" for break-in) The additive response of group III base oils are far superior to PAOs and with the same or better performance, there's no real reason to use PAOs unless you're trying to crank the engine over in -40°F weather.

Regarding the use of synthetic as a break-in oil, what are your thoughts on HPL's synthetic break-in oil? From what I've gathered, they appear to be the only company selling/promoting a synthetic break-in oil. Just trying to justify my recent purchase of a 12 qt case.

[RDY4WAR]

It's an endurance boat engine. It spends a lot of run time in the 4,000-4,600 rpm range. Sometimes runs up to 12-18 miles in that range. with oil cooler oil temps run in the 210-220 range. the rebuild target is 1,000 hp at 7,200 (currently makes 1,000 at 7.600) NA. No power adders, gasoline 110 octane. If memory serves the rods are at .002 and the mains .00275 - .003 (pretty close to that range). It typically runs M1 15-50.
565 ( 4.60 x 4.25)

With marine applications, you have a substantially increased threat of water dilution. In order to neutralize that threat, you want a detergent inhibitor (DI) additive package that can hold the water in solution until it can be evaporated out and neutralize it from reacting with sulfur and other contaminants to form acids.

With the sustained 4000+ rpm, you want good anti-foaming and anti-aeration control. No power adders and gasoline make this easier. Because of the sustained load and rpm, as well as the threat of water dilution, I'm recommending a higher viscosity than the clearances would usually call for. Your choice of M1 15W-50 isn't a terrible one, but there are better options. I would recommend a high end HDMO oil. Not the common CK-4 oils on the shelf like Rotella and what not, but a higher end HDMO, preferably with an older CL add pack with high soft based calcium detergent. The higher end HDMOs don't tend to slack on the foam inhibition like the common shelf CK-4 HDMOs so you won't have to worry about aeration control. They'll also give the shear stability you need. This is the direction many of the high end professional race boats (ie: Miss Geico, Huski, etc...) are using with good results.

High Performance Lubricants (HPL) has an HDMO for this application that uses older CI-4+ chemistry and comes in 20W-50. That would be my recommendation. They don't list it on their distribution website (Advanced Lubrication Inc) but you can call to order it. (815) 468-3535

Regarding the use of synthetic as a break-in oil, what are your thoughts on HPL's synthetic break-in oil? From what I've gathered, they appear to be the only company selling/promoting a synthetic break-in oil. Just trying to justify my recent purchase of a 12 qt case.

HPL's synthetic break-in oil uses group III base oil. Group III retains the solubility and additive response characteristics of conventional group I and II. Therefore, it can be used in a break-in oil successfully. Most blenders use group II conventional because it's cheaper and just as effective. HPL doesn't blend conventional oils. They don't even have group I or II base oils on site. For them, it's cheaper and easier to blend it with group III synthetic instead of having to make a dedicated tank and storage for a group II blend.

You want to avoid group IV and V synthetic base oils during break-in due to the solubility and additive response issues I mentioned above. While that can be improved with the addition of group V esters, that's not an option for break-in as esters can work against the ZDDP anti-wear film establishment.

[JC565Ford]

Not the common CK-4 oils on the shelf like Rotella and what not, but a higher end HDMO, preferably with an older CL add pack with high soft based calcium detergent. The higher end HDMOs don't tend to slack on the foam inhibition like the common shelf CK-4 HDMOs so you won't have to worry about aeration control. They'll also give the shear stability you need. This is the direction many of the high end professional race boats (ie: Miss Geico, Huski, etc...) are using with good results.

Thanks for the information ...

For this application would a Rotella 15-40 synthetic be "Bad" ?

[xspsi]

HPL's synthetic break-in oil uses group III base oil. Group III retains the solubility and additive response characteristics of conventional group I and II. Therefore, it can be used in a break-in oil successfully. Most blenders use group II conventional because it's cheaper and just as effective. HPL doesn't blend conventional oils. They don't even have group I or II base oils on site. For them, it's cheaper and easier to blend it with group III synthetic instead of having to make a dedicated tank and storage for a group II blend.

You want to avoid group IV and V synthetic base oils during break-in due to the solubility and additive response issues I mentioned above. While that can be improved with the addition of group V esters, that's not an option for break-in as esters can work against the ZDDP anti-wear film establishment.

I had stumbled on this post from Dave@HPL concerning the use of their synthetic break-in oil: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threa ... 40.339628/

I liked the idea of the extended drain interval after the "normal" break-in period and so decided to purchase it. However, the "internet" resistance to the use of synthetic break-in oil left me questioning if I should use it. Your response cleared things up for me. Thanks, much appreciated!

[JC565Ford]

HPL's synthetic break-in oil uses group III base oil. Group III retains the solubility and additive response characteristics of conventional group I and II. Therefore, it can be used in a break-in oil successfully. Most blenders use group II conventional because it's cheaper and just as effective. HPL doesn't blend conventional oils. They don't even have group I or II base oils on site. For them, it's cheaper and easier to blend it with group III synthetic instead of having to make a dedicated tank and storage for a group II blend.

You want to avoid group IV and V synthetic base oils during break-in due to the solubility and additive response issues I mentioned above. While that can be improved with the addition of group V esters, that's not an option for break-in as esters can work against the ZDDP anti-wear film establishment.

How do the factories run their engines off the assembly line with synthetic oils?

By the shear volume of engines they surely don't run an engine and then drain the oil, or do they ?

[xspsi]

How do the factories run their engines off the assembly line with synthetic oils?

By the shear volume of engines they surely don't run an engine and then drain the oil, or do they ?

I wondered the same. There's an older article on enginebuilder that sheds some light on this (at least for me). https://www.enginebuildermag.com/2014/1 ... nthetic%3F

One thing that was mentioned is that production engines call for a different honing process that apparently creates a "broken-in profile" which reduces the wear time and helps to quickly seat the rings. At least that's how I read it. From a cost perspective, and mass production, this makes sense...synthetic oil goes in, break-in process is quick, and oil stays in for the next 5,000+ miles.

[RDY4WAR]

Not the common CK-4 oils on the shelf like Rotella and what not, but a higher end HDMO, preferably with an older CL add pack with high soft based calcium detergent. The higher end HDMOs don't tend to slack on the foam inhibition like the common shelf CK-4 HDMOs so you won't have to worry about aeration control. They'll also give the shear stability you need. This is the direction many of the high end professional race boats (ie: Miss Geico, Huski, etc...) are using with good results.

Thanks for the information ...

For this application would a Rotella 15-40 synthetic be "Bad" ?

Yes. That oil is Shell's bottom of the barrel, minimum standard oil. It's highly volatile and prone to foaming, as are most common off the shelf HDMOs. It would be a substantial downgrade from the M1 15W-50 you're running now.

[RDY4WAR]

HPL's synthetic break-in oil uses group III base oil. Group III retains the solubility and additive response characteristics of conventional group I and II. Therefore, it can be used in a break-in oil successfully. Most blenders use group II conventional because it's cheaper and just as effective. HPL doesn't blend conventional oils. They don't even have group I or II base oils on site. For them, it's cheaper and easier to blend it with group III synthetic instead of having to make a dedicated tank and storage for a group II blend.

You want to avoid group IV and V synthetic base oils during break-in due to the solubility and additive response issues I mentioned above. While that can be improved with the addition of group V esters, that's not an option for break-in as esters can work against the ZDDP anti-wear film establishment.

How do the factories run their engines off the assembly line with synthetic oils?

By the shear volume of engines they surely don't run an engine and then drain the oil, or do they ?

Typically, there's not a "break-in" per say from the factory. The engines are put on a spintron (or similar) and dry run as more of a function check. The synthetic oil from the factory has a group III base oil.

Many OEMs will say the engine doesn't need a break-in period. However, they're also the same ones who say a quart of oil consumption in 1,500 miles, and 10% leakdown, is "normal" so take that for what it's worth.

[ClassAct]

This is why the Group III classification was such a bullshit deal. This is what happens when courts, with judges who don’t know jack about shit make decisions like that one.

I (for one) don’t call Group III oils “synthetic” because by my definition they are not. When I was selling some oil, the biggest pain in the ass I had was guys wanting to buy the oil I sold and run alcohol with it. After getting burned TWICE I started asking far more questions about the engine than I did before that.

I would absolutely NOT sell a Group IV/V oil to anyone using alcohol.

And then you had all the jack asses that claimed THEY could run a full synthetic on alcohol, but once you finally beat them down enough to tell you who’s oil they were using you’d inevitably find it was Group III based.

So in my world, a Group III a base oil is NOT synthetic nor will it ever be synthetic. IIRC it is a highly re-refined mineral oil. Is it better than Group II base oils? Yes. Is it a real synthetic base oil that didn’t start life as a mineral oil? No.

This leads to all the confusion out there. Another BULLshit ruling by SCOTUS that it should have stayed out of.

[RDY4WAR]

This is why the Group III classification was such a bullshit deal. This is what happens when courts, with judges who don’t know jack about shit make decisions like that one.

I (for one) don’t call Group III oils “synthetic” because by my definition they are not. When I was selling some oil, the biggest pain in the ass I had was guys wanting to buy the oil I sold and run alcohol with it. After getting burned TWICE I started asking far more questions about the engine than I did before that.

I would absolutely NOT sell a Group IV/V oil to anyone using alcohol.

And then you had all the jack asses that claimed THEY could run a full synthetic on alcohol, but once you finally beat them down enough to tell you who’s oil they were using you’d inevitably find it was Group III based.

So in my world, a Group III a base oil is NOT synthetic nor will it ever be synthetic. IIRC it is a highly re-refined mineral oil. Is it better than Group II base oils? Yes. Is it a real synthetic base oil that didn’t start life as a mineral oil? No.

This leads to all the confusion out there. Another BULLshit ruling by SCOTUS that it should have stayed out of.

The best performing oils I've seen in Top Alcohol and Pro Mod use a blend of group III and group IV mPAO. No gelling, no solubility issues, and no wear problems.

I don't speak "conventional" and "synthetic" outside of social media. I care how the oil performs. If there's better results from group III, then group III gets used. I don't really care about the labeling.

[JC565Ford]

How do the factories run their engines off the assembly line with synthetic oils?

By the shear volume of engines they surely don't run an engine and then drain the oil, or do they ?

I wondered the same. There's an older article on enginebuilder that sheds some light on this (at least for me). https://www.enginebuildermag.com/2014/1 ... nthetic%3F

One thing that was mentioned is that production engines call for a different honing process that apparently creates a "broken-in profile" which reduces the wear time and helps to quickly seat the rings. At least that's how I read it. From a cost perspective, and mass production, this makes sense...synthetic oil goes in, break-in process is quick, and oil stays in for the next 5,000+ miles.

I've talked with a few performance engine builders who have told me that with the proper hone technique the rings are seated by the time the engine comes off the engine stand. ... As of yet I've not tested that theory.