I know a company here in Canada that is buying solid OCP (assuming from Lubrizol although Evonik has their hands in that market too) and then offering to solublize it in the base oil of your choice. So if you want OCP+Group III - no problem, Veg Oil or biodegradable base - done, Group I, II or IV same thing. They were at ILMA this year in florida promoting it.
High V.I. oils, on purpose, or consequence??
- Thread starter dailydriver
- Start date
- Status
MolaKule
Staff member
Quote:
Today the biggest supplier of VII must be Lubrizol who in turn get the stuff from Mitsui. Other than a bit of cosmetic cleaning up
Infineum, Afton, Lubrizol, Oronite and other additive companies take individual component chemistry's from RT Vanderbilt, Akzo Nobel, Sumitomo, Mitsui, and many other specialty chemical company's and combine them for additive packages, because no one additive company has the ability to make all of the individual additive components.
Today the biggest supplier of VII must be Lubrizol who in turn get the stuff from Mitsui. Other than a bit of cosmetic cleaning up
Infineum, Afton, Lubrizol, Oronite and other additive companies take individual component chemistry's from RT Vanderbilt, Akzo Nobel, Sumitomo, Mitsui, and many other specialty chemical company's and combine them for additive packages, because no one additive company has the ability to make all of the individual additive components.
MolaKule
Staff member
Should have read:
Quote:
...because no one additive company has the capability (facilities) to make all of the individual additive components.
Quote:
...because no one additive company has the capability (facilities) to make all of the individual additive components.
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
Yes. Correct. Shellvis is polymerically more efficient but last time I looked (a couple of years ago maybe?), in crude terms, Shellvis was cost equivalent to Lz OCP + 20% Group III. If you factor that in to the equation, then the apparent advantage for Styrene-Butadiene evaporates before your eyes. Also, while I'm happy to concede that in 15W40 Euro HDDO, even after you take into account cost equivalence, you might still opt for Shellvis, drop down to any ACEA 3.5 min HTHS xW-30 and Sv looks pants!
No sure I agree with this. I guess you experience is from HDEO oils with high viscosity and low cost targets
SV certainly isn't pants in xW-30 grade (or any grade) top tier PCO oils. Here you are all group III anyway so the 20% addition is irrelevant. In fact on 10W-40 you usually need more group III when formulating with OCP.
Some of the best oils on the market go no where near OCP. OCP is a cost orientated low/mid tier option speaking in general terms.
Yes. Correct. Shellvis is polymerically more efficient but last time I looked (a couple of years ago maybe?), in crude terms, Shellvis was cost equivalent to Lz OCP + 20% Group III. If you factor that in to the equation, then the apparent advantage for Styrene-Butadiene evaporates before your eyes. Also, while I'm happy to concede that in 15W40 Euro HDDO, even after you take into account cost equivalence, you might still opt for Shellvis, drop down to any ACEA 3.5 min HTHS xW-30 and Sv looks pants!
No sure I agree with this. I guess you experience is from HDEO oils with high viscosity and low cost targets
SV certainly isn't pants in xW-30 grade (or any grade) top tier PCO oils. Here you are all group III anyway so the 20% addition is irrelevant. In fact on 10W-40 you usually need more group III when formulating with OCP.
Some of the best oils on the market go no where near OCP. OCP is a cost orientated low/mid tier option speaking in general terms.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Should have read:
Quote:
...because no one additive company has the capability (facilities) to make all of the individual additive components.
Some do. Just not the ones you mention.
Should have read:
Quote:
...because no one additive company has the capability (facilities) to make all of the individual additive components.
Some do. Just not the ones you mention.
Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Should have read:
Quote:
...because no one additive company has the capability (facilities) to make all of the individual additive components.
Some do. Just not the ones you mention.
Which ones? The list MolaKule gave covered the main four (Lubrizol, Infineum, Afton, Oronite) are you telling me there is someone out there that has more facilities and capability for component development?
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Should have read:
Quote:
...because no one additive company has the capability (facilities) to make all of the individual additive components.
Some do. Just not the ones you mention.
Which ones? The list MolaKule gave covered the main four (Lubrizol, Infineum, Afton, Oronite) are you telling me there is someone out there that has more facilities and capability for component development?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
Yes. Correct. Shellvis is polymerically more efficient but last time I looked (a couple of years ago maybe?), in crude terms, Shellvis was cost equivalent to Lz OCP + 20% Group III. If you factor that in to the equation, then the apparent advantage for Styrene-Butadiene evaporates before your eyes. Also, while I'm happy to concede that in 15W40 Euro HDDO, even after you take into account cost equivalence, you might still opt for Shellvis, drop down to any ACEA 3.5 min HTHS xW-30 and Sv looks pants!
No sure I agree with this. I guess you experience is from HDEO oils with high viscosity and low cost targets
SV certainly isn't pants in xW-30 grade (or any grade) top tier PCO oils. Here you are all group III anyway so the 20% addition is irrelevant. In fact on 10W-40 you usually need more group III when formulating with OCP.
Some of the best oils on the market go no where near OCP. OCP is a cost orientated low/mid tier option speaking in general terms.
A telling answer. Am I right in thinking I'm exchanging messages with a bonafide, fully paid-up member of the Milton Hill Mob? Oh joy!
So, Sv 260 (or whatever it's been rebranded as) price vs Lz 7069 price. Twice? That's what a little bird told me. Given that there's never ever enough Sv to go around, maybe twice is an under-estimate! Do the viscometric maths. It doesn't matter that it's all Group III. You can take the credit as Group IV and you end up with much the same answer.
As regards xW-30s, I did specifically say Euro 3.5 min. When oils are HTHS limited (as opposed to KO30 limited), Sv 260 is just too fragile. You end up massively over-compensating on KV100 to make 3.5 (or the 3.45 you usually round up to 3.5). Put this together with the economic credit and Lz wins. Yes you can improve the HTHS performance by shearing down to Sv 250 but then you lose a lot of your polymeric efficiency advantage.
Yeah. I know a lot of top tier uses Sv. Proof it any were needed that some folks have more money than sense...
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
Yes. Correct. Shellvis is polymerically more efficient but last time I looked (a couple of years ago maybe?), in crude terms, Shellvis was cost equivalent to Lz OCP + 20% Group III. If you factor that in to the equation, then the apparent advantage for Styrene-Butadiene evaporates before your eyes. Also, while I'm happy to concede that in 15W40 Euro HDDO, even after you take into account cost equivalence, you might still opt for Shellvis, drop down to any ACEA 3.5 min HTHS xW-30 and Sv looks pants!
No sure I agree with this. I guess you experience is from HDEO oils with high viscosity and low cost targets
SV certainly isn't pants in xW-30 grade (or any grade) top tier PCO oils. Here you are all group III anyway so the 20% addition is irrelevant. In fact on 10W-40 you usually need more group III when formulating with OCP.
Some of the best oils on the market go no where near OCP. OCP is a cost orientated low/mid tier option speaking in general terms.
A telling answer. Am I right in thinking I'm exchanging messages with a bonafide, fully paid-up member of the Milton Hill Mob? Oh joy!
So, Sv 260 (or whatever it's been rebranded as) price vs Lz 7069 price. Twice? That's what a little bird told me. Given that there's never ever enough Sv to go around, maybe twice is an under-estimate! Do the viscometric maths. It doesn't matter that it's all Group III. You can take the credit as Group IV and you end up with much the same answer.
As regards xW-30s, I did specifically say Euro 3.5 min. When oils are HTHS limited (as opposed to KO30 limited), Sv 260 is just too fragile. You end up massively over-compensating on KV100 to make 3.5 (or the 3.45 you usually round up to 3.5). Put this together with the economic credit and Lz wins. Yes you can improve the HTHS performance by shearing down to Sv 250 but then you lose a lot of your polymeric efficiency advantage.
Yeah. I know a lot of top tier uses Sv. Proof it any were needed that some folks have more money than sense...
Who said anything about SV260 ?
Anyhow I've used all types. There is no best just the correct application for the desired output.
This output will create an oil meeting the formulation requirements , after that we can then get a VI number for PDS purposes
Anyhow I've used all types. There is no best just the correct application for the desired output.
This output will create an oil meeting the formulation requirements , after that we can then get a VI number for PDS purposes
Last edited:
Wiggle, wiggle, squirm, squirm...
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
I am thinking about designing a better, more appropriate oil volatility test. So far all I have is the name...the JOACK test! Watch this space...
I'd want something which replicated how much of the oil film disappears from the upper cylinder walls during the power stroke.
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
I would say two things...cost and managing completely unrealistic expectations!
Like every other branch of engineering. I wonder what's the cheapest-to-produce MB 229.5 oil in existence? Lets give that formulator a Nobel Prize.
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
They assemble the oil together with the additive pack, bit by bit, and put the fully formulated oil through its paces on the engines and rigs. Most oils these days are engineered by the additive companies. There is very little true expertise left in the oil companies anymore and the OEMs are worse than useless.
the Shell Tech Center in Houston appears to have those rigs and engines too. Do they not trust their Infineum over-lords? Also, does rig success correlate well to engine tests success (certification)? See the 5:15 point in the youtube video for those clueless oil companies work using rigs etc. for reference:
I am thinking about designing a better, more appropriate oil volatility test. So far all I have is the name...the JOACK test! Watch this space...
I'd want something which replicated how much of the oil film disappears from the upper cylinder walls during the power stroke.
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
I would say two things...cost and managing completely unrealistic expectations!
Like every other branch of engineering. I wonder what's the cheapest-to-produce MB 229.5 oil in existence? Lets give that formulator a Nobel Prize.
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
They assemble the oil together with the additive pack, bit by bit, and put the fully formulated oil through its paces on the engines and rigs. Most oils these days are engineered by the additive companies. There is very little true expertise left in the oil companies anymore and the OEMs are worse than useless.
the Shell Tech Center in Houston appears to have those rigs and engines too. Do they not trust their Infineum over-lords? Also, does rig success correlate well to engine tests success (certification)? See the 5:15 point in the youtube video for those clueless oil companies work using rigs etc. for reference:
Seek and ye shall find...
http://www.google.com/patents/EP2632963A1?cl=en
There's a nice little table in this 2013 patent. The first two columns of the table compare a Styrene-butadiene VI (Sv 261) against OCP (Lz 7077) in a 10W40. Both are European market, nominal 22 SSI, liquid VIs.
Yes, the OCP blend uses more raw rubber (remember it's way cheaper though!) but the really interesting numbers are on the bottom row. What they refer to a TBS (Tapered Bearing Simulator) at 150C is otherwise called HTHS. Both blends have the same KV100 of 14.37 cst but the OCP blend has an HTHS or 4.0 cP whereas the Styrene-Butadiene has a HTHS of just 3.65! Now imagine this is dropped to a 10W30 grade with a KV100 of 12.5 cst max with an HTHS of 3.5 min. It's not hard to see that the Sv blend runs out of KV100 headroom very quickly.
I always think the best way to debate these issues is to let the numbers do the talking for you...
http://www.google.com/patents/EP2632963A1?cl=en
There's a nice little table in this 2013 patent. The first two columns of the table compare a Styrene-butadiene VI (Sv 261) against OCP (Lz 7077) in a 10W40. Both are European market, nominal 22 SSI, liquid VIs.
Yes, the OCP blend uses more raw rubber (remember it's way cheaper though!) but the really interesting numbers are on the bottom row. What they refer to a TBS (Tapered Bearing Simulator) at 150C is otherwise called HTHS. Both blends have the same KV100 of 14.37 cst but the OCP blend has an HTHS or 4.0 cP whereas the Styrene-Butadiene has a HTHS of just 3.65! Now imagine this is dropped to a 10W30 grade with a KV100 of 12.5 cst max with an HTHS of 3.5 min. It's not hard to see that the Sv blend runs out of KV100 headroom very quickly.
I always think the best way to debate these issues is to let the numbers do the talking for you...
Why are you only using SV260 in your examples ?
Who even blends 10W-30 with 3.5 HTHS in Europe ?
Anyone can do a blend study and base that on formulation costs. I imagine from a engine test performance perspective (not basic blend shapes) you can get away with less group 3 by moving away from OCP. Also less polymer solid would see better VW TDI cleanliness. Important if you are going for VW specifications.
Not really sure what you meant by the wiggle squirm comment.
Who even blends 10W-30 with 3.5 HTHS in Europe ?
Anyone can do a blend study and base that on formulation costs. I imagine from a engine test performance perspective (not basic blend shapes) you can get away with less group 3 by moving away from OCP. Also less polymer solid would see better VW TDI cleanliness. Important if you are going for VW specifications.
Not really sure what you meant by the wiggle squirm comment.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
In advanced Organic Chemistry courses we take 1/3 of the semester to discuss polymer science.
For those wanting to further investigate this fascinating aspect of Organic Chemistry, here is one Journal devoted to the topic:
Journal of Applied Polymer Science
This is a great conversation that I am very much enjoying. Thanks all.
That is a great Journal that I have proudly published in a few times. But having said that, I am only a interested amateur when it comes to lubrication chemistry, and each field has it's own minute detail and language. So if the experts could explain a little more long hand, and define a few more acronyms along the way, that would help me (and possibly a few others) follow the conversation a little better. Only a respectful request and only if it doesn't break the flow of an enjoyable thread.
BTW "pants" is it good or bad? Just so I'm clear and not guessing
In advanced Organic Chemistry courses we take 1/3 of the semester to discuss polymer science.
For those wanting to further investigate this fascinating aspect of Organic Chemistry, here is one Journal devoted to the topic:
Journal of Applied Polymer Science
This is a great conversation that I am very much enjoying. Thanks all.
That is a great Journal that I have proudly published in a few times. But having said that, I am only a interested amateur when it comes to lubrication chemistry, and each field has it's own minute detail and language. So if the experts could explain a little more long hand, and define a few more acronyms along the way, that would help me (and possibly a few others) follow the conversation a little better. Only a respectful request and only if it doesn't break the flow of an enjoyable thread.
BTW "pants" is it good or bad? Just so I'm clear and not guessing
Originally Posted By: SR5
BTW "pants" is it good or bad? Just so I'm clear and not guessing
Good to wear them in public. Just sayin'. Laws and such.
BTW "pants" is it good or bad? Just so I'm clear and not guessing
Good to wear them in public. Just sayin'. Laws and such.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Antz Pantz...the best (and one of the best advertisements of all time).
Go get 'em Rex
Antz Pantz...the best (and one of the best advertisements of all time).
Go get 'em Rex
Pants is bad in uk slang
Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
Why are you only using SV260 in your examples ?
Who even blends 10W-30 with 3.5 HTHS in Europe ?
Anyone can do a blend study and base that on formulation costs. I imagine from a engine test performance perspective (not basic blend shapes) you can get away with less group 3 by moving away from OCP. Also less polymer solid would see better VW TDI cleanliness. Important if you are going for VW specifications.
Not really sure what you meant by the wiggle squirm comment.
What specific polymer would you like me to quote in an example?
Agreed, 10W30 3.5 HTHS is a minority grade in European but I'm quite sure you're well aware the big boys operate their engine oil business on a global basis and 10W30 ACEA is usually one of the boxes you need to tick.
If we're talking 10W40, then yes, you might pass say the TU5 with SBR with no Group III but then you would have to add a goodly amount anyway to get below the 13% min Noack spec so part of the apparent advantage is negated.
Regarding VW TDi, I had it from the horse's mouth that the trick is to pass the TDi with uncapped, highly active (and VW AK6 failing) ashless and then titrate in a not insignificant amount of raw PIBSA to pass AK6 and justify the latter under minor mod rules. Highly dubious in my eyes but there you are. Oh, and let's not forget that PIBSA addition will force more Group III into a Noack limited blend.
Why are you only using SV260 in your examples ?
Who even blends 10W-30 with 3.5 HTHS in Europe ?
Anyone can do a blend study and base that on formulation costs. I imagine from a engine test performance perspective (not basic blend shapes) you can get away with less group 3 by moving away from OCP. Also less polymer solid would see better VW TDI cleanliness. Important if you are going for VW specifications.
Not really sure what you meant by the wiggle squirm comment.
What specific polymer would you like me to quote in an example?
Agreed, 10W30 3.5 HTHS is a minority grade in European but I'm quite sure you're well aware the big boys operate their engine oil business on a global basis and 10W30 ACEA is usually one of the boxes you need to tick.
If we're talking 10W40, then yes, you might pass say the TU5 with SBR with no Group III but then you would have to add a goodly amount anyway to get below the 13% min Noack spec so part of the apparent advantage is negated.
Regarding VW TDi, I had it from the horse's mouth that the trick is to pass the TDi with uncapped, highly active (and VW AK6 failing) ashless and then titrate in a not insignificant amount of raw PIBSA to pass AK6 and justify the latter under minor mod rules. Highly dubious in my eyes but there you are. Oh, and let's not forget that PIBSA addition will force more Group III into a Noack limited blend.
Maybe another SV rather than 260. What would you use for a 3.5cP xw-30?
Anyway I'm trying to keep on topic here. More VM is bad for piston deposits. Especially with stuff like PMA. VI is very irrelevant when details we are discussing here are more important, type of polymer, Treat rate and other factors. Base oil solubility will have an impact of dispersant and therefore deposit control which has a knock on effect to VM requirements
Anyway I'm trying to keep on topic here. More VM is bad for piston deposits. Especially with stuff like PMA. VI is very irrelevant when details we are discussing here are more important, type of polymer, Treat rate and other factors. Base oil solubility will have an impact of dispersant and therefore deposit control which has a knock on effect to VM requirements
- Status
