Hyperlubrication!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes a friend of mine who has used Mecacyl in his tranny for the last 22'000km will do an oil analysis soon. However what is the TBN? What other measurement would be interesting to know when performing the oil analysis?

If the TBN is an index of anti-corrosive ability of the oil, is this possible that it remains unchanged although there is a corrosive effect from chlorine? I ask this because if the anti-corrosive package in the oil is aimed at fighting only specific acids (maybe produced by Sulfur-Phosphorous EP additives), it won't fight hydrochloric acid that is produced by the chlorinated compounds because as chlorine is not part of the orginal forumula of oil, its anti-corrosive package is not designed to deal with it.
Is this possible or does the anti-corrosive package of the oil protect for any acid agression?

Many thanks

[ June 13, 2004, 03:28 AM: Message edited by: kilou ]
 
quote:

Originally posted by kilou:
Yes a friend of mine who has used Mecacyl in his tranny for the last 22'000km will do an oil analysis soon. However what is the TBN? What other measurement would be interesting to know when performing the oil analysis?

Many thanks


Talk to Terry Dyson/Dyson Analysis
 
Using the Total Base Number (TBN) as a screener may not necesarily give you the true answer as that would just measure the level of basic ingredients in the oil that may or may not have been affected by the presence of the chorinated hydrocarbon additive. A more positive way would be to test for the presence of chlorine as most if not all currently formulated engine oils do not use chlorine containing additives. There is a field test kit procedure that would give you the answer, it is ASTM D 5384 (Field Test Kit Method for Chlorine in Used Petroleum Products).
 
Do you know where I can get one of those kit in Europe? It seems that oil analysis is something rather specific to the US. I've not heard much about it here in Switzerland.

Anyway if this product were harmful, what would be the best solution for me:

Drain the oil and pour in fresh oil NOW?

or

run for 10'000km or 20'000km with the actual mix and then drain it and pour in fresh oil?

I ask this because I don't want to spend money for 25 successive oil drains. I suppose that waiting and thus wearing some of the chlorine compounds before draining the oil would allow to remove more stuff than draining now while the stuff is new and bonds really well to the metal surfaces. What do you think of this?
 
quote:

Originally posted by MolaKule:
Complete draining and a replacement should be sufficient if you're wanting to get rid of most traces of the additive.
You save me Molakule
smile.gif
I think I'll do this next week! But now I need to find a good transmission oil that is 75W80 GL5 but non corrosive to brass synchronizer...................this is another problem
frown.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by MolaKule:
IF you know (knew) the original tbn of the mix fluid you could do a comparison.

I have my actual mix which has approximately 1000km and I have some new fresh oil. What I could do is sample some of my actual mix, then drain the gearbox and pour in fresh new oil (same brand and type than I poured with the additive). I then drive 1000km and resample the oil.

That way, I would have 2 samples that have been driven for 1000km, one with the chlorinated additive and the other with "only" oil. Would the TAN and TBN of both sample become comparable then to say what were the effects of the additive on the oil?
 
quote:

Would it be easy enough to do a UOA on oil treated with whatever and see if the TBN took a drop?

If these chlorinated oil additives have issues, it would show up in the UOA, right?

Until then, all the pro/con arguments are just hearsay.

IF you know (knew) the original tbn of the mix fluid you could do a comparison.

This is why I always suggest you send a fluid mix (VOA) to Terry before you install it to see what you have and then you can compare it to any later UOA's.

As Rugerman1 said, Terry Dyson can do a complete analysis with all elements showing and the resulting tbn/TAN. It is going to cost more than a basic analysis.


Complete draining and a replacement should be sufficient if you're wanting to get rid of most traces of the additive.

Again I want to emphasize:

Before you add any additive or supplement to an engine or transmission, send a sample to [email protected] and pay for some knowledge about the fluid before blindly going into an experiment.

[ June 13, 2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
 
Kilou - You should try the Redline 75W90NS as it has transformed cold weather shifting in my Subaru Outback. Theres a guy from Sweden who posted here or on ultimatesubaru.net who uses it and found the same major improvement in cold shifting and Sweden would be as cold if not colder than Switzerland wouldn't it? RL gear oils are worth the money IMO.
 
offtopic.gif


quote:

Some people have criticized me a while ago when I mentioned how I do my oil changes: I let the old oil drain out overnight, then turn the "oil-less" engine without ignition in the morning to get the remaining oil out of the oil pump. After filling the crankcase with fresh oil, I crank the engine again to prime the oil pump. When I start the engine, it will have oil pressure much faster than any other way.

While off-topic, I would criticize him too. Just plain dumb.
 
quote:

Originally posted by sprintman:
Kilou - You should try the Redline 75W90NS as it has transformed cold weather shifting in my Subaru Outback. Theres a guy from Sweden who posted here or on ultimatesubaru.net who uses it and found the same major improvement in cold shifting and Sweden would be as cold if not colder than Switzerland wouldn't it? RL gear oils are worth the money IMO.

I yet asked Redline and they do not recommend this oil for my application since my gearbox calls for a 75W80 and not a 75W90 oil. Subaru trannies call for 75W90 oils and in that respect, the Redline 75W90NS is an improvement over other 75W90 but not in my case. Due to the 90 index and despite the fact it is a 75W, this oil remains too thick for my gearbox when cold. Its viscosity at 40°C is more than twice the one of my actual synthetic blend oil! Redline have a 75W80 GL5 called lightweight but Redline told me this would not be appropriate for use in a synchromesh gearbox...
 
quote:

Originally posted by kilou:
Redline have a 75W80 GL5 called lightweight but Redline told me this would not be appropriate for use in a synchromesh gearbox...

What other type of gearbox would you use it in?

Wouldn't MTL the oil to go for? 75w80 GL3/4.

[ June 14, 2004, 02:23 AM: Message edited by: theguru ]
 
No my specifications are 75W80 GL5 only! I need the GL5 package and I need the 75W80 grade. MTL is a GL4 and Lightweight is a GL5 which is too slippery for synchromesh gearboxes.
 
I'm confused. You say you need GL5 but GL5 is too slippery!

If it is the grades that don't fit maybe you can mix grades together to get what want. Many do this.

Exactly what vehicle is it you are putting this in?

[ June 14, 2004, 06:09 AM: Message edited by: theguru ]
 
My car is a Volvo S40 but it has an engine and gearbox that are only available in Europe. It uses a Renault gearbox.

Not all GL5 are too slippery. The lightweight Redline oil is too slippery because it contain special additive for limited slip differential. The 75W90NS which is also a GL5 (NS=non slippery) has not these additives but it is a 75W90 so not suitable for my gearbox. I definitely need 75W80 GL5 for my gearbox. But I think we are off topic here. Maybe we can go on with this discussion on oil on the other topic I started in the Transmission oil section and keep this thread here for hyperlubrication.
 
quote:

Originally posted by mojo:
I have one basic question -
"The re-synthesized petroleum molecules of PP Formula 7 are specifically designed to be used in combustion engines. They have undergone a significant molecular transformation. Their size is too small to be filtered out.
These magnetic molecules are very dense, so they have a high load factor wear"
How can you re-synthesize petroleum molecules to have them become magnetic? Petroleum hydrocarbons typically have little polarity.


When they form a covalent bond to the free iron ions does the resulting bond create a magnatite from a hematite?
 
I don't want to appear stupid, but what in the word is a magnatite and a hermatite? In all the organic chemistry that I have taken, I have never seen these terms (whataever they are) used.
 
quote:

Originally posted by mojo:
I don't want to appear stupid, but what in the word is a magnatite and a hermatite? In all the organic chemistry that I have taken, I have never seen these terms (whataever they are) used.

http://mineral.galleries.com/minerals/oxides/magnetit/magnetit.htm

http://mineral.galleries.com/minerals/oxides/hematite/hematite.htm

Perhaps the original poster was refering to changing a non magnetic form of iron (rust) to a magnetic form after the covalent bond is formed.

I never really liked chemistry so my answer may be way off base.
dunno.gif
 
Thanks for the clarification. Inorganic chemistry and organic chemistry may both be types of chemistry, but are somewhat different to say the least.
 
quote:

How can you re-synthesize petroleum molecules to have them become magnetic?

All synthesis is molecular transformation. Hype.

You cannot magnetize non-magnetic organic molecules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top