% Additive Packages

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 31, 2013
Messages
1,551
Location
Georgia
Apologies if this has been done to death somewhere before my time.

When engineers/tribologists refer to a given percentage of additive package does it have any real meaning to we great unwashed? I have heard reference here to a 30% pack and have been directly told 12% pack by a major supplier engineer. The questions seem to be:

1. Does higher mean anything other than "more"?

2. If it does, does it give us an indication of what those adds may be?

3. Are there steps in between or are there more and indeed less than a given number?

4. Why, outside of cost?

5. Further, could one assume that the addpacks vary all the time in actual production?
 
Most part of the add pack is Disperants and after that, detergents. Together they make 35 to 50% of the add pack of 12 or 30%, so those DD are about 10-15% of the final oil volume. The better the components, the less you need to use to get same results. So, yes a 12% volume of top add pack could be better than a 30% volume.
Besides it depends mostly in the objected performance and specially the base of the oil. A poor base would need more additives, than a great base of an oil.
 
Good data, thanks. Do you think that the packages for a given product vary over a production run, say a year, or is a formulation pretty much set until a major upgrade or other major change?
 
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Good data, thanks. Do you think that the packages for a given product vary over a production run, say a year, or is a formulation pretty much set until a major upgrade or other major change?


As was illustrated by the whole Katrina thing, pretty much if something changes it has to be re-certified. So I doubt it changes much especially during a product run.
 
Mostly tend to set for requirement needs, in theory, because if they change formulation, new tests for the API rating would be needed ...
When they make a better oil, they launch it with new names and marketing.
 
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Apologies if this has been done to death somewhere before my time.

When engineers/tribologists refer to a given percentage of additive package does it have any real meaning to we great unwashed? I have heard reference here to a 30% pack and have been directly told 12% pack by a major supplier engineer. The questions seem to be:

1. Does higher mean anything other than "more"?

2. If it does, does it give us an indication of what those adds may be?

3. Are there steps in between or are there more and indeed less than a given number?

4. Why, outside of cost?

5. Further, could one assume that the addpacks vary all the time in actual production?




Yes, this has been answered before, but below is a possible formula for a Full Synthetic 0W30 (Percentages may be BY VOLUME or by WEIGHT):

Base Oils:pAO 40cSt – 7% (Or suitable polymer), PAO 6cSt – 15%,
PAO 4cSt – 50%, Ester - 10% (Or Alkylated Naphthalene)

PI Package – 8% (A GF5 - Approved PI)

Viscosity Modifier – 2 to 10%

Viscosity – 11.25 cSt, 78 cSt

HTHS – 3.28

NOACK – 10.5%

Quote:
2. If it does, does it give us an indication of what those adds may be?


There is no indication of what the PI package may contain.

Quote:
Further, could one assume that the addpacks vary all the time in actual production?


Not by much. Variations are held to about +, - 2% by computerized blending.
 
Last edited:
Certainly if you change the formula, then you likely have to go through all the expensive engine testing certifications to keep or get SN, GF-5, dexos1, LL-01, MB229.5, ACEA, a bunch of other possible ones, etc., some $$$$!!!
 
Last edited:
Outstanding, thank you all for that. My knowledge base on this was zero to the point of thinking that more is better which seems not to be the case. Taken together then, can we assume that, in practice, the variation in the addpacks as well as in the blend percentages of the (often unnamed or typed) base stocks somewhat renders comparative analysis futile? That is to say, with the level of analysis we see from the labs we use. I am not trying to get a rise out of anyone, this is just one of those times that I'm getting the feeling that the more I know the less I know.

Quote:
2. If it does, does it give us an indication of what those adds may be?


There is no indication of what the PI package may contain.

Quote:
Further, could one assume that the addpacks vary all the time in actual production?


Not by much. Variations are held to about +, - 2% by computerized blending. [/quote]
 
DeepFriar, like other products, we can still identify premium components, like when one oil uses more PAO (better basestock), although the total package counts.
Note the famous MB229.5 "German-Belgian" Castrol 0w-30 for years had an incredible lack of moly, no boron, nothing else really except for detergents and ZDDP visible in a VOA, yet it performed very well, attributed to an effective blend of PAO and esters, etc.
(These days Castrol has added titanium to all it's synthetics across the board in small amounts as an anti-wear booster, but still hasn't jumped on the boron-moly bandwagon for the euro oils, yet has great performance.) See some VOAs, and I think the 0w-30 one may already be out of date because its missing titanium there: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3535964/Castrol_0W-30_Belgium_vs_Castr
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Taken together then, can we assume that, in practice, the variation in the addpacks as well as in the blend percentages of the (often unnamed or typed) base stocks somewhat renders comparative analysis futile?


Not at all.

A UOA, with comparative VOA's as baselines, show the condition of an oil at a specific mileage or time usage.
 
Last edited:
[/quote]

Not at all.

A UOA, with comparative VOA's as baselines, show the condition of an oil. [/quote]

Understood. I guess I was thinking of the baseline VOA's being compared to one another and all the oil company marketing types standing around saying "mine is better". Even with the "known" components of a cursory spectrographic analysis the only real tale is told by the actual product use. The chemical data points that we have are only indicators of the overall "build" of a lubricant. If those data points are the "only" ones that actually matter then job done, no problem. If not.... no real comparison. In the end the often quoted description of all of us as OC seems on the mark. No matter what the oil answer is, it will likely take 200K miles for us to find out. And we're good with that.
grin.gif
 
Last edited:
I think what Molakule was vaguely saying ("condition" of an oil) is that higher TBN, lower wear metals ppm, and viscosity maintained in a VOA mean an oil is performing better over the miles.
 
Originally Posted By: ExMachina
I think what Molakule was vaguely saying ("condition" of an oil) is that higher TBN, lower wear metals ppm, and viscosity maintained in a VOA mean an oil is performing better over the miles.


And molakule is right, of course. Apologies for the splitting of hairs but it is all very interesting to me and I appreciate the willingness of all of you to provide input.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top