Hello, and thanks.
- Thread starter LubricatusObsess
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
OK, I can't resist.
Operating Cylinders Index:
6+8+8+8+1=31
Total Cylinders Index:
31+12+12+6+6+4+4+1+1=77
What color are the diesel engines you work on?
Why, they are red now. They had been black (to hide oil leaks :-o then industrial biege for a loooong time prior.
OK, I can't resist.
Operating Cylinders Index:
6+8+8+8+1=31
Total Cylinders Index:
31+12+12+6+6+4+4+1+1=77
What color are the diesel engines you work on?
Why, they are red now. They had been black (to hide oil leaks :-o then industrial biege for a loooong time prior.
Originally Posted By: Lex94
Pennzoil Ultra Platinum 10w30 has a noack of 5.7
Its the only one you should be using anyway.
Why arent you using Delo 15w30?
Is the SOPUS 10w30 NOACK for the new PUREPLUS variant? There has been much discussion here on the increased NOACK when SOPUS went to the PUREPLUS Group III base stock formulation.
It confuses me how volatility can increase starting from purer base stock (natural gas), unless their control of hydrocracking is less over a purer feedstock (?), resulting in wider spread of base stock viscosity. Just partially-educated guessing. They also must dump a ton of detergent-dispersant additive in it to keep the boiled off fractions from depositing.
For diesel engines, Delo is a great oil, of course. I looked at 540 RAT's film strength test results, in combination with other variables (TBN is no longer so important for low-sulfur fuels), and Mobil 1 TurboDiesel Truck and/or Delvac 1 still lead the pack.
Pennzoil Ultra Platinum 10w30 has a noack of 5.7
Its the only one you should be using anyway.
Why arent you using Delo 15w30?
Is the SOPUS 10w30 NOACK for the new PUREPLUS variant? There has been much discussion here on the increased NOACK when SOPUS went to the PUREPLUS Group III base stock formulation.
It confuses me how volatility can increase starting from purer base stock (natural gas), unless their control of hydrocracking is less over a purer feedstock (?), resulting in wider spread of base stock viscosity. Just partially-educated guessing. They also must dump a ton of detergent-dispersant additive in it to keep the boiled off fractions from depositing.
For diesel engines, Delo is a great oil, of course. I looked at 540 RAT's film strength test results, in combination with other variables (TBN is no longer so important for low-sulfur fuels), and Mobil 1 TurboDiesel Truck and/or Delvac 1 still lead the pack.
Welcome to BITOG.
I noticed you comments about M1 oils after the Castrol event. I also have been a long time user of M1 oils(37 years) and I find today's M1 better than ever(of course engines are as well). You concern about high temp deposits are unfounded in my view based on my own experience with very clean engines with longer than normal OCIs. It was M1 that first developed the 5-30 Honda HTO-06 high temp low deposite spec. Also, even Amsoil in a not "purist" product (100% PAO).
Thank you for joining BITOG, and we all look forward to hearing more from you as time goes by.
Gerald
I noticed you comments about M1 oils after the Castrol event. I also have been a long time user of M1 oils(37 years) and I find today's M1 better than ever(of course engines are as well). You concern about high temp deposits are unfounded in my view based on my own experience with very clean engines with longer than normal OCIs. It was M1 that first developed the 5-30 Honda HTO-06 high temp low deposite spec. Also, even Amsoil in a not "purist" product (100% PAO).
Thank you for joining BITOG, and we all look forward to hearing more from you as time goes by.
Gerald
Last edited:
Hey tig1,
Knowing what changes took place after the Exxon takeover of Mobil, I know the latest formula of Mobil one is not as robust as it was originally. That does not mean it is unsuitable or not an excellent oil. I just think that SOPUS equivalent Group III base stock is the same, but more cleaning agents make it better.
Newer engines run hotter, have tighter tolerance, have cam-phasing oil control valves, and other things they never had before, that are much more sensitive to deposits than engines of yore.
Therefore, I decided to go with SOPUS Ultra Platinum to minimize deposits. Not saying M1 is no good. I tend to keep engines for a long time.
Thanks,
Lubricatus Obsessus
Knowing what changes took place after the Exxon takeover of Mobil, I know the latest formula of Mobil one is not as robust as it was originally. That does not mean it is unsuitable or not an excellent oil. I just think that SOPUS equivalent Group III base stock is the same, but more cleaning agents make it better.
Newer engines run hotter, have tighter tolerance, have cam-phasing oil control valves, and other things they never had before, that are much more sensitive to deposits than engines of yore.
Therefore, I decided to go with SOPUS Ultra Platinum to minimize deposits. Not saying M1 is no good. I tend to keep engines for a long time.
Thanks,
Lubricatus Obsessus
It's not? How is it inferior?
And to the other point, yeah I do too, but I've rarely ever used anything other than M1.
Originally Posted By: LubricatusObsess
Knowing what changes took place after the Exxon takeover of Mobil, I know the latest formula of Mobil one is not as robust as it was originally. That does not mean it is unsuitable or not an excellent oil. I just think that SOPUS equivalent Group III base stock is the same, but more cleaning agents make it better.
Newer engines run hotter, have tighter tolerance, have cam-phasing oil control valves, and other things they never had before, that are much more sensitive to deposits than engines of yore.
Therefore, I decided to go with SOPUS Ultra Platinum to minimize deposits. Not saying M1 is no good. I tend to keep engines for a long time.
And to the other point, yeah I do too, but I've rarely ever used anything other than M1.
Originally Posted By: LubricatusObsess
Knowing what changes took place after the Exxon takeover of Mobil, I know the latest formula of Mobil one is not as robust as it was originally. That does not mean it is unsuitable or not an excellent oil. I just think that SOPUS equivalent Group III base stock is the same, but more cleaning agents make it better.
Newer engines run hotter, have tighter tolerance, have cam-phasing oil control valves, and other things they never had before, that are much more sensitive to deposits than engines of yore.
Therefore, I decided to go with SOPUS Ultra Platinum to minimize deposits. Not saying M1 is no good. I tend to keep engines for a long time.
I know this is off-thread topic, but does anybody see any 'holes' in SOPUS advertising of Pennzoil Pureplus engine oils in terms of desposit cleanliness?
I can't remember how well sequence III engine test correlates to real life driving, but if they ran the tests according to Hoyle and the ring/groove deposits are that different, I don't see a hole in their cleanliness arguement.
Anybody disagree?
I can't remember how well sequence III engine test correlates to real life driving, but if they ran the tests according to Hoyle and the ring/groove deposits are that different, I don't see a hole in their cleanliness arguement.
Anybody disagree?
So you're saying the GTL product is then hydrocracked?
Originally Posted By: LubricatusObsess
Is the SOPUS 10w30 NOACK for the new PUREPLUS variant? There has been much discussion here on the increased NOACK when SOPUS went to the PUREPLUS Group III base stock formulation.
It confuses me how volatility can increase starting from purer base stock (natural gas), unless their control of hydrocracking is less over a purer feedstock (?), resulting in wider spread of base stock viscosity. Just partially-educated guessing. They also must dump a ton of detergent-dispersant additive in it to keep the boiled off fractions from depositing.
Originally Posted By: LubricatusObsess
Is the SOPUS 10w30 NOACK for the new PUREPLUS variant? There has been much discussion here on the increased NOACK when SOPUS went to the PUREPLUS Group III base stock formulation.
It confuses me how volatility can increase starting from purer base stock (natural gas), unless their control of hydrocracking is less over a purer feedstock (?), resulting in wider spread of base stock viscosity. Just partially-educated guessing. They also must dump a ton of detergent-dispersant additive in it to keep the boiled off fractions from depositing.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
So you're saying the GTL product is then hydrocracked?
Originally Posted By: LubricatusObsess
Is the SOPUS 10w30 NOACK for the new PUREPLUS variant? There has been much discussion here on the increased NOACK when SOPUS went to the PUREPLUS Group III base stock formulation.
It confuses me how volatility can increase starting from purer base stock (natural gas), unless their control of hydrocracking is less over a purer feedstock (?), resulting in wider spread of base stock viscosity. Just partially-educated guessing. They also must dump a ton of detergent-dispersant additive in it to keep the boiled off fractions from depositing.
Yes, GTL is hydrocracked. You ask - 'why the heck would they hydrocrack natural gas distallates?'. I say - 'great question'. I suspect it is now cheaper than the catalyst reaction to attain PAO (Group IV). Read the PUREPLUS story on SOPUS website.
I asked SOPUS this question about a year ago and did not receive a reply. This is why the GTL is a Group III and not a Group IV. They hydrolyze the gas into HC liquids, then hydrocrack into base stocks.
So you're saying the GTL product is then hydrocracked?
Originally Posted By: LubricatusObsess
Is the SOPUS 10w30 NOACK for the new PUREPLUS variant? There has been much discussion here on the increased NOACK when SOPUS went to the PUREPLUS Group III base stock formulation.
It confuses me how volatility can increase starting from purer base stock (natural gas), unless their control of hydrocracking is less over a purer feedstock (?), resulting in wider spread of base stock viscosity. Just partially-educated guessing. They also must dump a ton of detergent-dispersant additive in it to keep the boiled off fractions from depositing.
Yes, GTL is hydrocracked. You ask - 'why the heck would they hydrocrack natural gas distallates?'. I say - 'great question'. I suspect it is now cheaper than the catalyst reaction to attain PAO (Group IV). Read the PUREPLUS story on SOPUS website.
I asked SOPUS this question about a year ago and did not receive a reply. This is why the GTL is a Group III and not a Group IV. They hydrolyze the gas into HC liquids, then hydrocrack into base stocks.
The PUREPLUS website is beyond my patience level to tolerate. But given that it is treated alike any other crude feed stock then no wonder it isn't financially advantageous.
Originally Posted By: LubricatusObsess
Yes, GTL is hydrocracked. You ask - 'why the heck would they hydrocrack natural gas distallates?'. I say - 'great question'. I suspect it is now cheaper than the catalyst reaction to attain PAO (Group IV). Read the PUREPLUS story on SOPUS website.
I asked SOPUS this question about a year ago and did not receive a reply. This is why the GTL is a Group III and not a Group IV. They hydrolyze the gas into HC liquids, then hydrocrack into base stocks.
Originally Posted By: LubricatusObsess
Yes, GTL is hydrocracked. You ask - 'why the heck would they hydrocrack natural gas distallates?'. I say - 'great question'. I suspect it is now cheaper than the catalyst reaction to attain PAO (Group IV). Read the PUREPLUS story on SOPUS website.
I asked SOPUS this question about a year ago and did not receive a reply. This is why the GTL is a Group III and not a Group IV. They hydrolyze the gas into HC liquids, then hydrocrack into base stocks.
Originally Posted By: LubricatusObsess
Newer engines run hotter, have tighter tolerance, have cam-phasing oil control valves, and other things they never had before, that are much more sensitive to deposits than engines of yore.
I see people using the above arguments all the time and I think it is misused.
Some engines in some application run hotter.
I don't see how today's average 4, 6, 8 cylinder, naturally aspirated gasoline engine runs significantly hotter than something from 10-15 years ago.
Tolerances have no impact on oil and clearances stayed pretty much unchanged because engines still have to be able to start in extreme cold temperatures and metal/alloy expansion is the same no matter which decade it is used in. This runs in parallel with the "engines running hotter" arguments. One cannot change the engine operating temperature without affecting component clearances. If engines of today were running significantly hotter than before, component clearances would have to be increased, not decreased as some claim.
Cam phasing and other actuation controls that use engine oil as the hydraulic force are not something exactly new, more widely available yes, but it has been used for at least two decades now in production engines. I don't see this as a problem since the oil specs stayed in line with the demands.
Newer engines run hotter, have tighter tolerance, have cam-phasing oil control valves, and other things they never had before, that are much more sensitive to deposits than engines of yore.
I see people using the above arguments all the time and I think it is misused.
Some engines in some application run hotter.
I don't see how today's average 4, 6, 8 cylinder, naturally aspirated gasoline engine runs significantly hotter than something from 10-15 years ago.
Tolerances have no impact on oil and clearances stayed pretty much unchanged because engines still have to be able to start in extreme cold temperatures and metal/alloy expansion is the same no matter which decade it is used in. This runs in parallel with the "engines running hotter" arguments. One cannot change the engine operating temperature without affecting component clearances. If engines of today were running significantly hotter than before, component clearances would have to be increased, not decreased as some claim.
Cam phasing and other actuation controls that use engine oil as the hydraulic force are not something exactly new, more widely available yes, but it has been used for at least two decades now in production engines. I don't see this as a problem since the oil specs stayed in line with the demands.
Originally Posted By: LubricatusObsess
I know this is off-thread topic, but does anybody see any 'holes' in SOPUS advertising of Pennzoil Pureplus engine oils in terms of desposit cleanliness?
I can't remember how well sequence III engine test correlates to real life driving, but if they ran the tests according to Hoyle and the ring/groove deposits are that different, I don't see a hole in their cleanliness arguement.
Anybody disagree?
Perhaps I see a little problem with the way they show the pistons. Notice Penz shows the boss side of the piston, but it's my understanding that the land side is the hotter side of the piston. Correct me if I am wrong. Also M1 oils are not grp 3 base alone, but a blend of base stocks that now is superior to PAO alone. IMO from years of use. Not that there are oils that have grp 4 base stocks exclusively. Also M1 oils have a rich tradition of keeping engines extremely clean as has been documented many times here with pics. Penz products are very good,(I would use them if M1 disapeared) but M1 does not take a backseat to Penz to engine cleanliness.
I know this is off-thread topic, but does anybody see any 'holes' in SOPUS advertising of Pennzoil Pureplus engine oils in terms of desposit cleanliness?
I can't remember how well sequence III engine test correlates to real life driving, but if they ran the tests according to Hoyle and the ring/groove deposits are that different, I don't see a hole in their cleanliness arguement.
Anybody disagree?
Perhaps I see a little problem with the way they show the pistons. Notice Penz shows the boss side of the piston, but it's my understanding that the land side is the hotter side of the piston. Correct me if I am wrong. Also M1 oils are not grp 3 base alone, but a blend of base stocks that now is superior to PAO alone. IMO from years of use. Not that there are oils that have grp 4 base stocks exclusively. Also M1 oils have a rich tradition of keeping engines extremely clean as has been documented many times here with pics. Penz products are very good,(I would use them if M1 disapeared) but M1 does not take a backseat to Penz to engine cleanliness.
Last edited:
kschachn - isn't that freaky? I couldn't believe it when I saw SOPUS or whoever their associate is hydrocracks hydrolyzed methane!
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: LubricatusObsess
I know this is off-thread topic, but does anybody see any 'holes' in SOPUS advertising of Pennzoil Pureplus engine oils in terms of desposit cleanliness?
I can't remember how well sequence III engine test correlates to real life driving, but if they ran the tests according to Hoyle and the ring/groove deposits are that different, I don't see a hole in their cleanliness arguement.
Anybody disagree?
Perhaps I see a little problem with the way they show the pistons. Notice Penz shows the boss side of the piston, but it's my understanding that the land side is the hotter side of the piston. Correct me if I am wrong. Also M1 oils are not grp 3 base alone, but a blend of base stocks that now is superior to PAO alone. IMO from years of use. Not that there are oils that have grp 4 base stocks exclusively. Also M1 oils have a rich tradition of keeping engines extremely clean as has been documented many times here with pics. Penz products are very good,(I would use them if M1 disapeared) but M1 does not take a backseat to Penz to engine cleanliness.
Could be, but the ring area is of most concern to me. Most of these guys have a witches brew of base stocks, the major point being this only began after the 'Exxon & Castrol' incidents. So, per the BITOG posse, trying discern truths from marketing blather is a never-ending ordeal!
Originally Posted By: LubricatusObsess
I know this is off-thread topic, but does anybody see any 'holes' in SOPUS advertising of Pennzoil Pureplus engine oils in terms of desposit cleanliness?
I can't remember how well sequence III engine test correlates to real life driving, but if they ran the tests according to Hoyle and the ring/groove deposits are that different, I don't see a hole in their cleanliness arguement.
Anybody disagree?
Perhaps I see a little problem with the way they show the pistons. Notice Penz shows the boss side of the piston, but it's my understanding that the land side is the hotter side of the piston. Correct me if I am wrong. Also M1 oils are not grp 3 base alone, but a blend of base stocks that now is superior to PAO alone. IMO from years of use. Not that there are oils that have grp 4 base stocks exclusively. Also M1 oils have a rich tradition of keeping engines extremely clean as has been documented many times here with pics. Penz products are very good,(I would use them if M1 disapeared) but M1 does not take a backseat to Penz to engine cleanliness.
Could be, but the ring area is of most concern to me. Most of these guys have a witches brew of base stocks, the major point being this only began after the 'Exxon & Castrol' incidents. So, per the BITOG posse, trying discern truths from marketing blather is a never-ending ordeal!
KrisZ,
It's not really a matter of 'do they work' - the discussion is about how well they work & how long they work.
The objective is to pick the best performance for the buck, I am not insinuating any of the products under discussion not being very good.
fyi.....
L.O.
It's not really a matter of 'do they work' - the discussion is about how well they work & how long they work.
The objective is to pick the best performance for the buck, I am not insinuating any of the products under discussion not being very good.
fyi.....
L.O.
Originally Posted By: LubricatusObsess
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: LubricatusObsess
I know this is off-thread topic, but does anybody see any 'holes' in SOPUS advertising of Pennzoil Pureplus engine oils in terms of desposit cleanliness?
I can't remember how well sequence III engine test correlates to real life driving, but if they ran the tests according to Hoyle and the ring/groove deposits are that different, I don't see a hole in their cleanliness arguement.
Anybody disagree?
Perhaps I see a little problem with the way they show the pistons. Notice Penz shows the boss side of the piston, but it's my understanding that the land side is the hotter side of the piston. Correct me if I am wrong. Also M1 oils are not grp 3 base alone, but a blend of base stocks that now is superior to PAO alone. IMO from years of use. Not that there are oils that have grp 4 base stocks exclusively. Also M1 oils have a rich tradition of keeping engines extremely clean as has been documented many times here with pics. Penz products are very good,(I would use them if M1 disapeared) but M1 does not take a backseat to Penz to engine cleanliness.
Could be, but the ring area is of most concern to me. Most of these guys have a witches brew of base stocks, the major point being this only began after the 'Exxon & Castrol' incidents. So, per the BITOG posse, trying discern truths from marketing blather is a never-ending ordeal!
Yes, ring coking is a problem, that's just one reason I use M1 oils. Never have to worry about. Penz as well. I have seen engines that burned a lot of oil. When the pistons were removed, the rings were seal shut with carbon. Cause" over extended OCIs with dino.
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: LubricatusObsess
I know this is off-thread topic, but does anybody see any 'holes' in SOPUS advertising of Pennzoil Pureplus engine oils in terms of desposit cleanliness?
I can't remember how well sequence III engine test correlates to real life driving, but if they ran the tests according to Hoyle and the ring/groove deposits are that different, I don't see a hole in their cleanliness arguement.
Anybody disagree?
Perhaps I see a little problem with the way they show the pistons. Notice Penz shows the boss side of the piston, but it's my understanding that the land side is the hotter side of the piston. Correct me if I am wrong. Also M1 oils are not grp 3 base alone, but a blend of base stocks that now is superior to PAO alone. IMO from years of use. Not that there are oils that have grp 4 base stocks exclusively. Also M1 oils have a rich tradition of keeping engines extremely clean as has been documented many times here with pics. Penz products are very good,(I would use them if M1 disapeared) but M1 does not take a backseat to Penz to engine cleanliness.
Could be, but the ring area is of most concern to me. Most of these guys have a witches brew of base stocks, the major point being this only began after the 'Exxon & Castrol' incidents. So, per the BITOG posse, trying discern truths from marketing blather is a never-ending ordeal!
Yes, ring coking is a problem, that's just one reason I use M1 oils. Never have to worry about. Penz as well. I have seen engines that burned a lot of oil. When the pistons were removed, the rings were seal shut with carbon. Cause" over extended OCIs with dino.
you'll be right at home her Obsess. Everyone here is a little anal. Some are a whole lot anal. Looking forward to more pswtc.
tig1,
We are probably splitting hairs, and I'd be ashamed to say that SOPUS Marketing has some influence over me, but I will say I never bought Pennzoil prior to SOPUS's buyout!
We are probably splitting hairs, and I'd be ashamed to say that SOPUS Marketing has some influence over me, but I will say I never bought Pennzoil prior to SOPUS's buyout!
Originally Posted By: LubricatusObsess
Could be, but the ring area is of most concern to me. Most of these guys have a witches brew of base stocks, the major point being this only began after the 'Exxon & Castrol' incidents. So, per the BITOG posse, trying discern truths from marketing blather is a never-ending ordeal!
Well, the confusing factor is that the science of all those base stocks (and additives, and how they work together) has progressed since the days when the only base stocks that could possibly be considered "synthetic" were PAO and Ester. PAO doesn't carry anti-wear additives as well as a modern group III+ base stock like SOPUS' (now older) XVHI, their current GTL, or XOM's Visom. Ester has its own issues (low TBN, for example).
Mixing PAO, group III+, and ester base stocks to get an end product with the benefits of each one seems perfectly viable to me, and there's no way I would ever argue that a group III+ stock is not "synthetic." Doesn't matter if it starts out as crude oil feed or natural gas feed. In either case, there's no way to get it by simply cracking the feedstock the way you get conventional basestocks- you HAVE to start rearranging molecules to your liking, and as far as I'm concerned that's the very definition of 'synthetic.' It makes good advertising press to say "oooh, look- we start out with a GAS and it becomes a LIQUID- ohhh, that's super pure and advanced! Gas turning into liquid oil!" But its just marketing glam. Whether those carbon and hydrogen atoms were once in natural gas or once in heavy crude doesn't matter in the end, because atoms have no memory.
Originally Posted By: LubricatusObsess
tig1,
We are probably splitting hairs, and I'd be ashamed to say that SOPUS Marketing has some influence over me, but I will say I never bought Pennzoil prior to SOPUS's buyout!
Truth be told... me either.
But I'll claim that its not so much that SOPUS improved the product (though they probably did), its that technology marches on and SOPUS provided the resources to keep the Pennzoil and QS product lines at or near the front of the advancing technology.
Could be, but the ring area is of most concern to me. Most of these guys have a witches brew of base stocks, the major point being this only began after the 'Exxon & Castrol' incidents. So, per the BITOG posse, trying discern truths from marketing blather is a never-ending ordeal!
Well, the confusing factor is that the science of all those base stocks (and additives, and how they work together) has progressed since the days when the only base stocks that could possibly be considered "synthetic" were PAO and Ester. PAO doesn't carry anti-wear additives as well as a modern group III+ base stock like SOPUS' (now older) XVHI, their current GTL, or XOM's Visom. Ester has its own issues (low TBN, for example).
Mixing PAO, group III+, and ester base stocks to get an end product with the benefits of each one seems perfectly viable to me, and there's no way I would ever argue that a group III+ stock is not "synthetic." Doesn't matter if it starts out as crude oil feed or natural gas feed. In either case, there's no way to get it by simply cracking the feedstock the way you get conventional basestocks- you HAVE to start rearranging molecules to your liking, and as far as I'm concerned that's the very definition of 'synthetic.' It makes good advertising press to say "oooh, look- we start out with a GAS and it becomes a LIQUID- ohhh, that's super pure and advanced! Gas turning into liquid oil!" But its just marketing glam. Whether those carbon and hydrogen atoms were once in natural gas or once in heavy crude doesn't matter in the end, because atoms have no memory.
Originally Posted By: LubricatusObsess
tig1,
We are probably splitting hairs, and I'd be ashamed to say that SOPUS Marketing has some influence over me, but I will say I never bought Pennzoil prior to SOPUS's buyout!
Truth be told... me either.
But I'll claim that its not so much that SOPUS improved the product (though they probably did), its that technology marches on and SOPUS provided the resources to keep the Pennzoil and QS product lines at or near the front of the advancing technology.Yes, technology is passing me by (as my kids remind me), that's why I had to join BITOG to see what's up.
I would like to know why hydrolyzing methane produces liquid HC fractions that require hydrocracking to get the desired base oil, instead of building them up like a PAO.
Maybe I'm not dead yet?
I would like to know why hydrolyzing methane produces liquid HC fractions that require hydrocracking to get the desired base oil, instead of building them up like a PAO.
Maybe I'm not dead yet?
- Status
Similar threads
