SR - I agree and do not dispute what you wrote.
Interested in views on Red Line & Neo
- Thread starter oil newbie
- Start date
- Status
I'm glad we got that solved. Now for our next topic. Can we please discuss how many angles fit on a head of a pin?
427Z (assuming you are serious) - yes it actually was. Again I wasn't there, but according to the DVD and various reading material it was full up API.
There was no API certification program back then, but yes the oil was fully tested in all of the API engine sequence tests and passed all of the SAE specifications for SE/CC. In addition, it was reviewed by a military review board and approved under MIL-L-46152. It was the real deal.
For the ancient history buffs, the oil was called Hatcol 2250 and contained Ditridecyl Adipate (diester), an Oronite DI package, a Rohm & Haas dispersant PMA type VII, and a supplemental anti-oxidant. It ran from 1972 to about 1976, at which point Hatco developed an improved version that later passed SF/CC.
For the ancient history buffs, the oil was called Hatcol 2250 and contained Ditridecyl Adipate (diester), an Oronite DI package, a Rohm & Haas dispersant PMA type VII, and a supplemental anti-oxidant. It ran from 1972 to about 1976, at which point Hatco developed an improved version that later passed SF/CC.
The first successful synthetic engine oil was developed by FRED KOHLER a chemist working for the GULF OIL CO. in Plainfield N.J. in 1953. This product was based on nitting hydrocarbon molecules. This lubricant was very successful in gasoline engines. The additive package was also developed by MR.KOHLER and did not have any shortcommings. The problem was cost , at that time it would cost about 16.00 dollars a quart to get it to the public. Gulf oil marketing people thought it would never sell, and it never made it to the public. Now for AMSOIL it had big problems with its first syhthetic, what was it???? wear. Camshafts which rely on anti-wear chemistry were wearing out like crazy because the base stock Amsoil was using was not compactible with the anti-wear package. This gave synthetics a very bad name in general and was not accepted by the consumer. Mobil spent a lot of time working on there synthetic before they released it to the public,, but they had problems to , mostly with seal leaking.
rapid47 - can we have some references, please.
TomNJ - can you verify?
TomNJ - can you verify?
Lots of people were experimenting with synthetic motor oils before 1972, some even using silicones, PAGs, and phosphate esters! Many engines and seals were destroyed, and many rumors circulated about these bad new-fangled oils. The significance of the 1972 date is that this is when a synthetic oil first passed all of the industry specifications and was entitled to be called API SE/CC. I'm sure some synthetic oils may have worked before then, but how do you define "worked" or "good" without standardized tests and specifications? The first PROVEN synthetic oil emerged in 1972.
I did not know Mr. Kohler nor can I find any references to him in the old books, but then my career in synthetic lubricants only goes back 37 years, well after 1953. That does not mean, of course, that he did not formulate a synthetic motor oil back then - synthetic hydrocarbons were certainly known and I imagine many fine chemists were working at it. But the proof is in controlled engine tests, not testimonials.
Regarding cam wear, this was seen in some engine tests where the engine was broken in with all ester formulations, and the polar esters competed with the ZDDP for the metal surfaces, slowing down the protective film formation. Such wear usually occurred in the first couple of hours of break-in, then stopped as the ZDDP won the competition. The only cases of excessive wear I saw from field engines, i.e. broken-in on mineral oils, was where large quantities of silicon (dirt) was present, as in the Houston police test. People at that time were pushing for 50,000 mile OCIs with 25,000 mile filter changes, and dirty engines were common. I don't doubt, however, that there were some cases of bona fide wear with some all ester formulations as the ZDDPs at the time were not balanced for ester basestocks.
Indeed synthetics started out with a very bad reputation as all of the oil and engine companies were against them. And who wouldn't be considering the crazy claims being made at the time. Mobil helped legitimize the name "synthetic", in spite of their leak problems with 5W-20s in old V8s. They were too early with respect to viscosity.
I did not know Mr. Kohler nor can I find any references to him in the old books, but then my career in synthetic lubricants only goes back 37 years, well after 1953. That does not mean, of course, that he did not formulate a synthetic motor oil back then - synthetic hydrocarbons were certainly known and I imagine many fine chemists were working at it. But the proof is in controlled engine tests, not testimonials.
Regarding cam wear, this was seen in some engine tests where the engine was broken in with all ester formulations, and the polar esters competed with the ZDDP for the metal surfaces, slowing down the protective film formation. Such wear usually occurred in the first couple of hours of break-in, then stopped as the ZDDP won the competition. The only cases of excessive wear I saw from field engines, i.e. broken-in on mineral oils, was where large quantities of silicon (dirt) was present, as in the Houston police test. People at that time were pushing for 50,000 mile OCIs with 25,000 mile filter changes, and dirty engines were common. I don't doubt, however, that there were some cases of bona fide wear with some all ester formulations as the ZDDPs at the time were not balanced for ester basestocks.
Indeed synthetics started out with a very bad reputation as all of the oil and engine companies were against them. And who wouldn't be considering the crazy claims being made at the time. Mobil helped legitimize the name "synthetic", in spite of their leak problems with 5W-20s in old V8s. They were too early with respect to viscosity.
which cal poly?
Pabs, you caught me. I was yanking his chain.
The initial ILSAC GF-1 specification first appeared in 1996. Tom looks to be quite the historian.
Now back to counting those angels.
I use Redline in my gearbox (lightweight shockproof) and Neo in my wheels bearings (HP800). The car is a WRX that sees regular outings on a racetrack and I don't mind paying extra for lubricants that solve inherent problems with the car (i.e. notchy gearbox and fried wheel bearings). Engine gets Motul which is expensive (but cheaper than Redline) but will
stll do the job.
For my daily driver (a Forester XT) I wouldn't bother with Redline or Neo and just go with "entry level" synthetic lubricants (i.e. Mobil, Castrol).
stll do the job.
For my daily driver (a Forester XT) I wouldn't bother with Redline or Neo and just go with "entry level" synthetic lubricants (i.e. Mobil, Castrol).
- Status
Similar threads
