Noak and wear

[BlindBaby]

I've read the Noak thread and understand what it means, but it raises a question; does a higher Noak number mean more engine wear?

I have read that Mobil 1 seems to give a little ground to its peers in the engine wear category, so when looking at UOAs what number determines if the engine wear is low or high and why does Mobil 1 perform in this manner?

 

[Oil Changer]

Noack replaces base stock as the new BITOG OCD. Noack is meaningless to 99.9% of the populous. Buy any SN oil and the Noack value will exceed any (except in the rarest of circumstances and I'd like for someone to list a vehicle or vehicles that demand a Noack less than 15%) new car requirement. This obsession over Noack lately is insane.

Where have you read that, "Mobil 1 seems to give a little ground to it's peers in the engine wear category..."? That too is nonsense. What do you mean by that?

Aluminum, lead, iron, copper, and chromium are the numbers to look at on UOAs for wear. Every engine is different and most numbers track higher the longer the oil is in use. So knowing this, how does, "Mobil 1 perform in this manner"? What manner?

 

[Falken]

I feel differently about this value.

If an oil is more volatile, on the upper end of the SN spec, it may lead to more engine deposits and sludging in extended drains.

Noack% also seems to track with film strength. The lower the Noack% the higher PSI film strength.

If you are using a highly volatile oil, it may lead to more piston deposits and lead to stuck rings with amber crusts.

Base stock isn't meaningless IMO.

If you have ~5% Noack base stock with the same additive pack as an oil that has 11% Noack, I'd say the lower Noack oil is better.

Also, if you have an engine that runs hot, low Noack oil is better.

So, apples to apples base stock, the oil with the lower Noack is the better oil, generally speaking, and if they are the same price at the same time, it is the far superior choice.

 

[Oil Changer]

5 "ifs" and a couple "mays" in your response with a lot of speculation. Any SN/dexos oil, even on the high end, will prevent the maladies you described and is a lower value than what we have all been using for years without issue.

Who here is using a, "highly volatile oil"? Are you? What is your definition of a highly volatile oil? What oil has the same additive pack with such widely differing Noack values? The answer is zero.

Base stock is not meaningless. It used to be someone would register and their first post would ask what oil is all PAO/POE. Now they ask what oil has a Noack of 5% or less.

If you have a hot running engine, fix your cooling system. That is a far better solution than searching for an oil with the lowest Noack value.

"Apples to apples", "generally speaking", "if they are the same price at the same time" and "far superior" all in the same sentence? Really?

 

[NMBurb02]

Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
Any SN/dexos oil, even on the high end, will prevent the maladies you described and is a lower value than what we have all been using for years without issue.

Wait a minute. You're changing your answer from any SN spec oil to SN/dexos spec oil. SN has a max allowable Noack of 15% whereas dexos specs a max of 13%. So any GM engine requiring a dexos spec oil will not be fine with any SN oils (namely those with Noacks of 13.1% to 15%). And while you may feel Noack is not all that important of a spec, GM seems to think that it is.

And hot running engines are not the only ones that reach oil temps of 250C (the Noack performance test temp), as I believe (is that an acceptable term?) I have read on BITOG that oils regularly reach that temp in certain parts of normally functioning engines.

 

[wemay]

Is Noack a biproduct of an oil meeting dexos due to formulation, or is it one of the requirements?

 

[FetchFar]

SN NOACK limit: 15%
dexos1: 12%
MB 229.5: 10%

Upper piston ring temperatures get hottest, testing the limits, and the NOACK test temperature is 482 degrees Farenheit for 1 hour, above the flash point of most oils. Yes it matters for ring sticking gunk.

 

[FetchFar]

Best NOACK I've ever seen is Pennzoil Platinum 10W-30 at 5%. Oddly their other weights and Ultra has worse.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: wemay
Is Noack a biproduct of an oil meeting dexos due to formulation, or is it one of the requirements?

It's one of the requirements.

 

[Oil Changer]

I didn't change anything; I was being generous by adding dexos. Name one oil that meets GM's new vehicle warranty requirements that doesn't have the required Noack value. I'll help, you won't find one. Furthermore, we agree more than you will admit. The dexos standard is tough. That's why even the best oils still have double-digit values. Much like the PAO/POE craze of the past where people thought all or more made the oil "the best", having a lesser Noack value does not necessarily make it a better oil. As always, it's the complete package.

The issue I have is this ridiculous obsession with people thinking that an oil with a Noack higher than 5% is somehow no good. This craze is no different than searching for an oil that has all PAO for base stock. Fool's errand. There is not one oil that is name brand, SN, or dexos that will not fully protect 99.9% of the vehicles on the road.

Other responses already addressed your second paragraph.

Edited to add: Are there any oils that are dexos licensed and NOT SN? I don't think so.


Originally Posted By: NMBurb02
Wait a minute. You're changing your answer from any SN spec oil to SN/dexos spec oil. SN has a max allowable Noack of 15% whereas dexos specs a max of 13%. So any GM engine requiring a dexos spec oil will not be fine with any SN oils (namely those with Noacks of 13.1% to 15%). And while you may feel Noack is not all that important of a spec, GM seems to think that it is.

And hot running engines are not the only ones that reach oil temps of 250C (the Noack performance test temp), as I believe (is that an acceptable term?) I have read on BITOG that oils regularly reach that temp in certain parts of normally functioning engines.

 

[Kuato]

Originally Posted By: BlindBaby
I've read the Noak thread and understand what it means, but it raises a question; does a higher Noak number mean more engine wear?

I have read that Mobil 1 seems to give a little ground to its peers in the engine wear category, so when looking at UOAs what number determines if the engine wear is low or high and why does Mobil 1 perform in this manner?



Higher Noack doesn't mean more wear, but more potential for burning off.

Wear metals as mentioned will basically show your wear. (Insert discussion here as to whether an engine teardown is required to compare wear)

M1 is good oil, but shows higher wear in some engines, most notably the Jeep 4.0.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Kuato
Higher Noack doesn't mean more wear, but more potential for burning off.

Right. And if this goes on for a long time (like during an extended OCI), then you may eventually wind up with thickened up oil and potentially sludge deposits. When the oil thickens out of grade, it may no longer offer the required lubrication, and this may eventually lead to increased wear. Notice my intentional use of operative 'may' and not 'will'. Some thinning or thickening during an OCI is normal and usually no cause for concern - engine manufacturers take things like these into account.

 

[FetchFar]

Near as I can tell from a little web tech paper research, top piston ring groove temperatures can be around 500 degF, and the NOACK test is at 482 degF. Piston deposits come from this. More oil vaporizes (lower noack) up there. We don't want that.

 

[CATERHAM]

And most thickening that does occur in extended OCIs is not due to lighter oil fractions having evaporated off but rather oxidation.
Noack is more important to the OEMs for a number of reasons but to the end user a couple of percentage points one way or the other will have no discernible effect either in terms of oil consumption, oil thickening or engine deposits.
I use Noack more of a guide to base oil type and since I use synthetic oils exclusively they automatically have low Noack spec's but I never choose an oil based on it.
Chasing Noack as some members do for it's own sake is a mugs game.

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
.
I use Noack more of a guide to base oil type and since I use synthetic oils exclusively they automatically have low Noack spec's but I never choose an oil based on it.
Chasing Noack as some members do for it's own sake is a mugs game.


Makes me wonder if oil specs could just use performance measures, not physical parameters really. For example, as long as an oil has low consumption, doesn't carbon-up the rings, has low wear, low foaming, rust, etc., then who cares what its made of and/or what physical parameters it has?

 

[Oil Changer]

About 90% of the BITOG membership.

Originally Posted By: FetchFar
then who cares what its made of and/or what physical parameters it has?

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar
then who cares what its made of and/or what physical parameters it has?

What it's made of is irrelevant. It is not part of any manufacturer oil specification or test criteria. Physical parameters such as Noack on the other hand are, so it must be important.

 

[NMBurb02]

Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
I didn't change anything; I was being generous by adding dexos. Name one oil that meets GM's new vehicle warranty requirements that doesn't have the required Noack value. I'll help, you won't find one. Furthermore, we agree more than you will admit. The dexos standard is tough. That's why even the best oils still have double-digit values. Much like the PAO/POE craze of the past where people thought all or more made the oil "the best", having a lesser Noack value does not necessarily make it a better oil. As always, it's the complete package.

The issue I have is this ridiculous obsession with people thinking that an oil with a Noack higher than 5% is somehow no good. This craze is no different than searching for an oil that has all PAO for base stock. Fool's errand. There is not one oil that is name brand, SN, or dexos that will not fully protect 99.9% of the vehicles on the road.

Other responses already addressed your second paragraph.

Edited to add: Are there any oils that are dexos licensed and NOT SN? I don't think so.


Originally Posted By: NMBurb02
Wait a minute. You're changing your answer from any SN spec oil to SN/dexos spec oil. SN has a max allowable Noack of 15% whereas dexos specs a max of 13%. So any GM engine requiring a dexos spec oil will not be fine with any SN oils (namely those with Noacks of 13.1% to 15%). And while you may feel Noack is not all that important of a spec, GM seems to think that it is.

And hot running engines are not the only ones that reach oil temps of 250C (the Noack performance test temp), as I believe (is that an acceptable term?) I have read on BITOG that oils regularly reach that temp in certain parts of normally functioning engines.

Yes, you did change. First, you said SN would do fine in 99.9% of cars and you wanted someone to point out any vehicles that require Noack less than 15%. In your next post, you lumped SN and dexos into the same category, which they are not. One of the differences between SN and dexos is Noack, so unless GM vehicles requiring dexos oils make up less than 0.1% of vehicles on the road, then your original assertion that 99.9% of vehicles are fine with SN (and therefore Noack of up to 15%) is wrong. And FetchFar pointed out that MN 229.5 has an even lower Noack requirement of 10%. So there are a lot of vehicles for which the OEMs feel a Noack of 15% is too high.

And I doubt there are any dexos oils that do not meet SN, but there definitely are SN oils that do not meet dexos specs, which was my point.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
.
I use Noack more of a guide to base oil type and since I use synthetic oils exclusively they automatically have low Noack spec's but I never choose an oil based on it.
Chasing Noack as some members do for it's own sake is a mugs game.


Makes me wonder if oil specs could just use performance measures, not physical parameters really. For example, as long as an oil has low consumption, doesn't carbon-up the rings, has low wear, low foaming, rust, etc., then who cares what its made of and/or what physical parameters it has?


I agree it's performance that is the bottom line and the best performing oils are synthetic, but that doesn't mean choosing synthetic will automatically produce an oil with the particular attributes that you favour. It's true that many members get caught up with base oil chemistry, putting high value on PAO, Ester and GTL as an end in itself while many GP III oils can still outperform.

Yes it's only performance that matters and how the formulator achieves it doesn't matter.

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
then who cares what its made of and/or what physical parameters it has?

What it's made of is irrelevant. It is not part of any manufacturer oil specification or test criteria. Physical parameters such as Noack on the other hand are, so it must be important.


Strictly thinking of performance only, the physical parameters and chemistry/materials are only a means to an end. For example, I read another post on BITOG about the Ceratec ceramic-based additives sold by LubroMoly, and that post indicated he would "never" want to use a hard-particle ceramic in his oil. Yet, as MolaKule once indicated, the Nissan Ester oil uses nano-particle 5nm-sized diamond dust, a hard ceramic that tribologists patented to work with the DLC. .... My point is, lets not restrict ourselves to any rules about materials or chemistry, when all we want is for an oil to protect our engine (performance).