Recent Topics
carfax or other vin websites?
by 01_celica_gt
12/18/14 12:46 AM
Hardest I've laughed in awhile.
by Kuato
12/18/14 12:10 AM
OBESE Driver - Cause Driver Side TIRE WEAR?
by SumpChump
12/17/14 10:34 PM
Mixing: VIIs, PPDs, Waxes
by GMorg
12/17/14 08:31 PM
Found a USA made tool at AutoZone
by Merkava_4
12/17/14 08:23 PM
Found beater car....can't decide whether to buy
by Alltherage
12/17/14 07:03 PM
Anyone try "THE BEST Leather Restorer & Protector"
by Errtt
12/17/14 06:58 PM
Parking brake shoes
by ARB1977
12/17/14 06:54 PM
1997 Ford Explorer 4.0 sohc Castrol Edge 0w40
by jfug97
12/17/14 06:20 PM
2008 Trailblazer SS - second UOA with high Fe
by Fulton 1
12/17/14 05:58 PM
Valvoline Blue 15w40 - 11,410 miles - 2014 RAM HD
by Artem
12/17/14 05:49 PM
AW - Concentration or Total Amount Available?
by Peter_M
12/17/14 05:16 PM
Newest Members
vincejr, Julch, JKane, gg1, kosoku
52205 Registered Users
Who's Online
19 registered (Gillsy, Char Baby, CapriRacer, asiancivicmaniac, iontrap, Ducman, 4 invisible), 517 Guests and 202 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
52205 Members
66 Forums
223585 Topics
3544937 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
#3272953 - 02/06/14 07:25 PM Re: Lower NOACK = Better Oil??? [Re: buster]
CATERHAM Offline


Registered: 11/18/05
Posts: 9731
Loc: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
buster thanks for that link (quote), very interesting.
Although I suspect, if the test was done at normal hot operating temp's (200F-250F) even for an appropriate lengthy time period, the total volatility percentage would be still be lower than at the current 482F. The reason being that certain light fraction that do evaporate at the higher temp' wouldn't at the much lower temp' no matter how long the oil is cooked.
_________________________
74 Lotus Europa 5W-50
86 Porsche 928S TGMO 0W-20 25%/M1 0W-40
96 BMW 328i Idemitsu/TGMO 0W-20 70%/M1 0W-40
94 Caterham 7 Sustina 0W-20 80%/0W-50

Top
#3273078 - 02/06/14 09:02 PM Re: Lower NOACK = Better Oil??? [Re: CATERHAM]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 27267
Loc: a prisoner island
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
It never ceases to amaze me how much you like to spread miss information. The December issue of Lubes "N' Greases has an interesting article titled "Volatility: The Inside Story", for those that want to read it.

Some basic facts.
Limiting engine oil volatility has everything to do with controlling oil consumption and oil thickening as a result.
A couple of quotes from the paper:
"The question was, how to maintain healthy engine oil viscosity when vapor losses kept eroding the oil in the sump?"

"Low temperature oil viscosity can suffer when vehicles operate under high-temperature conditions (which volatilize the light ends of the oil and lead to thickening)."


As an engineer, I was trained to go to references and papers not puff pieces...at University, it was explained that volatility of the lubricant in the hot cylinder was significant to the process, and that the issue was primarily cat life, not viscosity/economy

e.g. "Sources and Chracterisitcs of Oil Consumption in a Spark-Ignition Engine" - section 4.2...it's even got pictures

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
buster thanks for that link (quote), very interesting.
Although I suspect, if the test was done at normal hot operating temp's (200F-250F) even for an appropriate lengthy time period, the total volatility percentage would be still be lower than at the current 482F. The reason being that certain light fraction that do evaporate at the higher temp' wouldn't at the much lower temp' no matter how long the oil is cooked.


Like I keep saying, it's NOT about bulk oil temperatures (and 20s that run so cool that it's not a problem)...

http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1634308

Top
#3273261 - 02/07/14 01:49 AM Re: Lower NOACK = Better Oil??? [Re: Shannow]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 27267
Loc: a prisoner island
Originally Posted By: Shannow
e.g. "Sources and Chracterisitcs of Oil Consumption in a Spark-Ignition Engine" - section 4.2...it's even got pictures


Here's the buyable version

http://papers.sae.org/2004-01-2909/

You can google the title and find an MIU PDF.

Google link

At this point I will throw myself upon the mercy of BITOGers in dearest apology for continually spreading mis-information

Top
#3273291 - 02/07/14 05:00 AM Re: Lower NOACK = Better Oil??? [Re: Jeffs2006EvoIX]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 27267
Loc: a prisoner island
http://www.savantgroup.com/ASTMSym04-PEI.pdf

gives the reasons for using Noack...followed by modified procedures.

Quote:
Association of Phosphorus Emission with Oil Consumption and Volatility - Oil consumption caused by oil volatility has always been a concern for automotive engineers because of the associated deposits often formed on piston rings and combustion chambers. Concern that oil volatility could cause phosphorus in the exhaust stream, added to the desire to reduce oil volatility. Consequently, progressively lower formulated engine oil volatility (as measured by the classic Noack volatility test [9-12]) was required for oils meeting API and ILSAC GF-2 (22% loss) and GF-3 (15% loss) specifications.


Same researchers...in "Phosphorus Emission Index (PEI) Studies Of ZDDP in Engine Oils" (Googlable, and has pictures)

Quote:
Temperatures of 250įC at which the special Noack was normally run to generate PEI values (PEI250) reflected reported upper-cylinder, ring-belt temperatures


Demonstrates that longer exposure, at lower temperatures still liberated volatile phosphorus...

Both indicate that volatility and phosphorus levels don't either equal cat poisoning, but can be cumulative...and (really interestingly) that certain additive chemistries allow higher ZDDP species, with lower cat poisoning ability.

Top
#3274490 - 02/08/14 05:51 AM Re: Lower NOACK = Better Oil??? [Re: Jeffs2006EvoIX]
bobbydavro Offline


Registered: 02/01/09
Posts: 146
Loc: 3rd rock from the sun
250C is the temperature of the NOACK test. Ring pack temperatures often exceed this, so yes Noack is releveant.

However two oils can both have a 10% NOACK but with a very different base oil mix. One could be all 5cSt base oil, the other a mix of 4 and 6 cSt. What is important for oil consumption is the smount of light ends as the engine is effectively a distillation tower.


The IIIGB is a Phos volatility test, important for catalyst protection, and has zero correlation with Noack





Edited by bobbydavro (02/08/14 05:52 AM)

Top
#3431880 - 07/22/14 03:07 AM Re: Lower NOACK = Better Oil??? [Re: CATERHAM]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 27267
Loc: a prisoner island
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: Shannow
It's obvious that some people don't get the concept of Noack...it's not something that has anything to do with the temperature of the oil in the sump...absolutely nothing to do with sump temperature...oils don't "run cool enough" for Noack to be irrelevant no matter how the science "feels"

It's supposed to represent what happens to the oil that is left above the rings on the downstroke (the rings are hydrodynamically lubricated on the upstroke when the piston speeds up, so the oil has to be the film that has been on the wall, exposed to the heat, oil pressure doesn't get it there).

Studies show that this oil is enriched in additives, so must be so as the oil evaporates off...smaller engines with greater BMEP are MORE likely to have cylinder temperatures that evaporate more.

Noack IS relevent, has nothing to do with sump temperatures and turbos

It never ceases to amaze me how much you like to spread miss information. The December issue of Lubes "N' Greases has an interesting article titled "Volatility: The Inside Story", for those that want to read it.

Some basic facts.
Limiting engine oil volatility has everything to do with controlling oil consumption and oil thickening as a result.
A couple of quotes from the paper:
"The question was, how to maintain healthy engine oil viscosity when vapor losses kept eroding the oil in the sump?"

"Low temperature oil viscosity can suffer when vehicles operate under high-temperature conditions (which volatilize the light ends of the oil and lead to thickening)."


Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
The Noack spec' of an oil doesn"t concern me much as it has no effect that I can detect, besides no synthetic has a poor Noack.
It is important to the OEMs primarily for emission control reasons and therefore if the oil is on a recommended company list it's Noack is acceptable.


http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3431515/Re:_Castrol_0w40_vs_Mobil_1_0w#Post3431500

Guess that you DID read the links after accusing me of continually spreading misinformation...

Top
#3431987 - 07/22/14 08:14 AM Re: Lower NOACK = Better Oil??? [Re: Jeffs2006EvoIX]
OVERKILL Offline


Registered: 04/28/08
Posts: 26820
Loc: Ontario, Canada
popcorn
_________________________
Network Engineer
02 Expedition
01 BMW ///M5
06 Charger R/T

Top
#3431992 - 07/22/14 08:20 AM Re: Lower NOACK = Better Oil??? [Re: Shannow]
riggaz Offline


Registered: 01/26/10
Posts: 337
Loc: England
Originally Posted By: Shannow

It's supposed to represent what happens to the oil that is left above the rings on the downstroke (the rings are hydrodynamically lubricated on the upstroke when the piston speeds up, so the oil has to be the film that has been on the wall, exposed to the heat, oil pressure doesn't get it there).



Isn't that boundary lubrication?

I think engines are usually are a mix of hydrostatic and boundary.


Edited by riggaz (07/22/14 08:23 AM)

Top
#3530992 - 11/06/14 05:45 AM Re: Lower NOACK = Better Oil??? [Re: Jeffs2006EvoIX]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 27267
Loc: a prisoner island
Bump again...still trying to work out how I got from purveyor of misinformation to part of the common knowledge...but still discountable.

Top
#3532134 - 11/07/14 12:08 PM Re: Lower NOACK = Better Oil??? [Re: Shannow]
Nathan Offline


Registered: 08/15/07
Posts: 44
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Bump again...still trying to work out how I got from purveyor of misinformation to part of the common knowledge...but still discountable.


You called his bluff! I think his ego is a little bruised from being pwned on the forum where he's gained so much admiration for his backyard brews.

I for one, thank you for posting such relevant and referenced information. If the whole internet posted like you, I think we could actually learn something and evolve a little faster.

BTW I clicked on this thread because I have a 2014 Mazda3 2.5L with DI. I opted to get the 5w-20 Amsoil SS instead of the 0w-20 because it has a 5.5 NOACK vs 9.3 on the Ow-20.

Did I done good, boss? laugh

Top
#3532224 - 11/07/14 02:27 PM Re: Lower NOACK = Better Oil??? [Re: Jeffs2006EvoIX]
bobbydavro Offline


Registered: 02/01/09
Posts: 146
Loc: 3rd rock from the sun
Love it! This guy looks at VI like some measure of performance.

Top
#3532388 - 11/07/14 06:13 PM Re: Lower NOACK = Better Oil??? [Re: Jeffs2006EvoIX]
JAG Offline


Registered: 10/23/05
Posts: 4548
Loc: Fredericksburg, VA
Shannow, you are a top notch poster of good information. Keep it up!
_________________________
2003 VW GTI 1.8T 20th Anniversary Edition
2015 Dodge Challenger SXT - Super Track Pak

Top
#3532627 - 11/08/14 02:20 AM Re: Lower NOACK = Better Oil??? [Re: bobbydavro]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 27267
Loc: a prisoner island
Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
Love it! This guy looks at VI like some measure of performance.


also reneges on his bets about it...

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3378475/Re:_Toyota_TGMO_0W-20_SN_VOA_w#Post3378475

Top
#3537375 - 11/13/14 06:20 PM Re: Lower NOACK = Better Oil??? [Re: Jeffs2006EvoIX]
benjy Offline


Registered: 08/23/10
Posts: 203
Loc: pa
i would think noack gained importance in todays direct injected carbon prone engines. burnt vapors from weaker oils may speed up deposits. face it we are the test bed for DI, $50,000 Audi with carbon issues at lo miles stinks!!! i guess they are getting better but until someone goes at least 200,000 miles without issue i consider it unproven tech!!!!

Top
#3544146 - 11/21/14 12:25 PM Re: Lower NOACK = Better Oil??? [Re: Jeffs2006EvoIX]
wemay Offline


Registered: 04/04/12
Posts: 2621
Loc: S. Florida
Originally Posted By: Jeffs2006EvoIX
Originally Posted By: Shannow
It's obvious that some people don't get the concept of Noack...it's not something that has anything to do with the temperature of the oil in the sump...absolutely nothing to do with sump temperature...oils don't "run cool enough" for Noack to be irrelevant no matter how the science "feels"

It's supposed to represent what happens to the oil that is left above the rings on the downstroke (the rings are hydrodynamically lubricated on the upstroke when the piston speeds up, so the oil has to be the film that has been on the wall, exposed to the heat, oil pressure doesn't get it there).

Studies show that this oil is enriched in additives, so must be so as the oil evaporates off...smaller engines with greater BMEP are MORE likely to have cylinder temperatures that evaporate more.

Noack IS relevent, has nothing to do with sump temperatures and turbos


In relation to DI fuel delivery and intake valve deposits perspective the above statement makes sense. High Saps having more detergents higher NOACK would equate to more vapor going out the valves and being recirc'd.

So in essence in a DI motor particularly this may prove that low saps and low NOACK WOULD equate to a lower risk of deposit formation.

So do manufacturers like VW stating to use 502 oils in North America (amongst other places) is for the sole purpose of having an oil that can last for their 10k mile oil changes. Not necessarily that 502 oils provide better lubrication or what not. Correct?

That M1 ESP 5w30 is looking real good to me now. Low Saps AND low NOACK. Just need way more frequent changes.

I feel some folks actually feel 502 oils actually "lubricate" better due to all the additives. I disagreed.

Jeff


Title with Link of an interesting article below...

Turbocharged Direct injection
Is
Engine Oilís Next Big Hurdle


http://gf-6.com/sites/default/files/Turb...ig%20Hurdle.pdf
_________________________
14 Sonata GLS 2.4 - 5w30 MAG1 dexos
13 Santa Fe S 2.0T - 5w40 Kendall GT-1
www.pqiamerica.com
www.toptiergas.com

Top
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2