POLL: Which HDDEO Grades would you like more of.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: Solarent
... Assuming ..... that no sacrifice in engine durability would happen ...


You've set a condition (no change in wear protection) that is already evident today in our lubes. 10w-30 protects every bit as well as 15w-40, yet personal preference for "thicker


How have you arrived at the above statement? Mfg's switching to a lighter lube as a factory fill are certainly not proof IMO. And the oil mfg's teardown studies don't show much other than an that larger diesel engines can make it to 500-750k miles, the time when typical when they come off lease.

I have not seen any end of life/failure testing when it comes to the thinner vs thicker debate so if I missed on please post a link to it. Not trying to be adversarial but please help me understand.
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: 3311
How have you arrived at the above statement? Mfg's switching to a lighter lube as a factory fill are certainly not proof IMO. And the oil mfg's teardown studies don't show much other than an that larger diesel engines can make it to 500-750k miles, the time when typical when they come off lease.

I have not seen any end of life/failure testing when it comes to the thinner vs thicker debate so if I missed on please post a link to it. Not trying to be adversarial but please help me understand.
smile.gif



Dnewton may have his own response, but here is my take on your question:

The API CJ-4 category is the benchmark for HDDEO in North America, of the 16 different tests that have specifications, only 5 of them are appreciatively concerned with wear:

Caterpillar 1N - the wear requirement on this test is No Piston/Ring/Liner Scuffing visible.
Mack T-12 - This test evaluates Topr ring weight loss, cylinder liner wear, ppm of lead(and it's delta) in the used oil.
Cummins ISM - This test evaluates crosshead weight loss, top ring weight loss, injector adjusting screw weight loss.
Cummins ISB Evaluates Tappet/Cam Wear
GM 6.5L RFWT Looks at average Pin wear

This is the standard to which all CJ-4 oils (regardless of viscosity grade) are held to. In my previous post about types of wear, I emphasized that different grades/additive package designs can be more or less effective at protecting from specific wear types. As an oil gets thinner, different lubricating regimes and related wear patterns emerge. Note that in testing the wear is measured primarily by weight loss. What causes this wear or what type of wear becomes second to resulting loss in weight of the measured components. When the formula changes (ie by going to a lower viscosity) then the types of wear and causes are relevant to the formulator as they must adjust the formula to meet the same standard performance.

The rest of the testing centers around ensuring the oil stays in grade, that deposits and sludge are kept to controllable levels and that after-treatment exhaust systems remain effective.

When we upgrade to PC-11, all the CJ-4 tests will remain in force additionally some more severe tests are being added these include the Mack T13 and the CAT Aeration Test, and a more severe limit for XW-40 in the Bosch Shear Stability Test.

Because the wear testing limits remain the same, the oils are all required to maintain the same level of durability. A rising desire for fuel economy gains means that lower viscosity oils are being proposed that still pass all of the CJ-4 tests.

For that reason a 5W30, 10W30 and 15W40 all assure similar levels of protection with the lower grades offering improved fuel economy (and arguably better protection against certain types of wear due to changes to the additive package and increased use of synthetics).
 
Solarent,

I understand an oil can meet a spec, and CJ-4 is a great one, but specially I'm looking for the information/testing that shows "everybit as well" as Dnewton states and "arguably better protection against certain types of wear due to changes to the additive package and increased us of synthetics" you stated with respect to thinner vs thicker oils. Thinner xw30 Oils meeting the same CJ-4 requirements as 15w40 of course.
 
My personal benchmark for engine oil is also CJ-4, and I use that standard for both Diesel and gasoline applications in the appropriate grades.

We still see however, one oil company advertising with graph charts, their CJ-4 products being X% better than competitors A, B and C.

People who take an interest in mathematics, love to extract algorithms all day long.
(Why live a healthy lifestyle, your going to die anyway and the first billion years is just the beginning of the end?)

If CJ-4 is the last word and the standard is set, then the question is not a hypothetical one.
 
Originally Posted By: 3311
I understand an oil can meet a spec, and CJ-4 is a great one, but specially I'm looking for the information/testing that shows "everybit as well" as Dnewton states and "arguably better protection against certain types of wear due to changes to the additive package and increased us of synthetics" you stated with respect to thinner vs thicker oils.

Take a look at the datasheet of Mobil Delvac 1 LE 5w-30. It meets just about every builder approval available, including many that aren't available on various 15w-40s and 0w-40s, and even some 5w-40s. It also meets an ACEA specification that can only be met by one competitor, off the top of my head.
 
Originally Posted By: 3311
Solarent,

I understand an oil can meet a spec, and CJ-4 is a great one, but specially I'm looking for the information/testing that shows "everybit as well" as Dnewton states and "arguably better protection against certain types of wear due to changes to the additive package and increased us of synthetics" you stated with respect to thinner vs thicker oils. Thinner xw30 Oils meeting the same CJ-4 requirements as 15w40 of course.



Read the UOA normalcy article; I clearly document the wear rates of many different examples in macro date; over 10,000 UOA were studied. Then once you understand that mantra, look at other individual UOAs and compare/contrast them.

For example, in the UOA Normalcy study, I was able to separate out all the 4.6L Ford engines that ran on various grades. As much as folks want to believe that "thicker is better", the data shows otherwise. Those engines generally survive just fine, and wear rates are NOT affected outside of typical statistical variance, regardless if you use 5w-20, 5w-30, 10w-30, or 10w-40. That engine just does not really care about which grade you use. Admittedly, there are OTHER reasons to perhaps use a particular grade; VVT systems that use oil pressure in tight clearances may not operate as well with thicker lubes, but when it comes to WEAR RATES, the grades don't have any major effect at all. More than 500 UOAs were studies just on the 4.6L engine alone.

The same info is evident in the Dmax engine UOAs. Those few who run thinner lubes (like me, using 10w-30 rather than the market standard 15w-40) see absolutely no change in wear rates with the thinner grades. 500+ UOAs don't lie. And you can even see the specific examples of my UOA and another member here.


As for the info regarding "certain types of wear" as claimed by Solarent, I do agree with him. Thinner lubes will have a slightly thinner film barrier, but additives can shift things in favor of the lube, regardless of the grade.

Further, you cannot avoid the topic of the TCB (tribo-chemical barrier). Well documented in the SAE study 2007-01-4133 and also discussed at length in the normalcy article.


The science and facts are well detailed in my article. Please read it. If you disagree with my assertions, then please show me the credible study data you've developed to counter mine.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Further, you cannot avoid the topic of the TCB (tribo-chemical barrier). Well documented in the SAE study 2007-01-4133 and also discussed at length in the normalcy article.


That the one where they took the used engine oils, and put them in a pin/disk ?

That doesn't have any bearing on the topic of grades, nor HTHS, just that half broken ZDDP is more reactive than fresh...in a pin/disk apparatus.
 
Originally Posted By: 3311
I understand an oil can meet a spec, and CJ-4 is a great one, but specially I'm looking for the information/testing that shows "everybit as well" as Dnewton states and "arguably better protection against certain types of wear due to changes to the additive package and increased us of synthetics" you stated with respect to thinner vs thicker oils. Thinner xw30 Oils meeting the same CJ-4 requirements as 15w40 of course.


So, to sum up:

Oils that meet CJ-4 are all kept to the same wear rate as measured by weight loss of key components. This is not affected by viscosity as all grades are held to the same minimum standards.

Oils that were field tested and reported in UOA by dnewton's normalicy article correlates with those results showing that by engine type, wear rates remained the same regardless of viscosity.

How much clearer can we make it?

----
As far as further data goes: Engine test results are not published online, although they are sometimes referenced in SAE papers like these two: 2013-01-0331; 2014-01-2792

I'm sure everyone doesn't want me to bore them with the details of how base oil selection and additives are being developed to provide better protection for thinner viscosity oils than traditional 15W40.
But if you are interested here is a look at the approach from one major additive supplier http://www.hddeo.com/advanced-lubrication

(the SAE papers referenced above also draw similar conclusions and represent thoughts from Infineum and Oronite - two other major additive suppliers).
 
Someone just spent 20 years of their life comparing 10,000 data inputs from a meaningless experiment expecting different results.

If that was me, I would go on a rant too.
"Wear rates as measured by weight loss of key components".

How does that differ from extracting wear rates from UOAs?

I can answer that.
One is real, the other imagined.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: used oil
If that was me, I would go on a rant too.
"Wear rates as measured by weight loss of key components".

How does that differ from extracting wear rates from UOAs?

I can answer that.
One is real, the other imagined.


I disagree, a properly run UOA program - where trends are followed over a long period, can give some indication of wear. It's not as precise as measuring weight loss, but the statistical trend is still valuable.

I would never certify an oil for a specification using UOA alone without engine teardowns and measurements (one of the reasons those tests are so expensive) but for in the field, if I was managing a fleet, a well run UOA program can be invaluable to avoiding catastrophic failures and evaluating oil drain interval length.
 
Originally Posted By: used_0il
Someone just spent 20 years of their life comparing 10,000 data inputs from a meaningless experiment expecting different results.

If that was me, I would go on a rant too.
"Wear rates as measured by weight loss of key components".

How does that differ from extracting wear rates from UOAs?

I can answer that.
One is real, the other imagined.




I didn't take me 20 years.

I do statistical process quality control for a living. I used to run PM maintenance programs at Ford before I moved to a different industry. I know how to write programs and use raw data to come to meaningful (not meaningless) conclusions.

Further, SPC analysis is used in every single walk of life these days. From production manufacturing, to water purification sampling, to medical trials, to food processing, and everything conceivable in-between.

My data comes from Blackstone, which represents REAL WORLD DATA and not hypothetical conjecture or opinions. My world is real; I can assure you of that.



PS - btw, the various methods of estimating wear (such as electro bombardment, % mass loss, and iso-scope technology, compared and contrasted to UOA anayals) are proven to be reasonably in concurrence; this, too, has been shown in SAE studies. There are times when ALT methodology fails to represent real world experience, but that is not part of the article I wrote nor the data I used, so that topic is not germane to my comments herein.

I would challenge you, rather than just hurling insults and conjecture, to actually cite your sources and quote them specifically if you're going to want to "debate" this rather than just "argue".
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: 3311
Solarent,

I understand an oil can meet a spec, and CJ-4 is a great one, but specially I'm looking for the information/testing that shows "everybit as well" as Dnewton states and "arguably better protection against certain types of wear due to changes to the additive package and increased us of synthetics" you stated with respect to thinner vs thicker oils. Thinner xw30 Oils meeting the same CJ-4 requirements as 15w40 of course.



Read the UOA normalcy article; I clearly document the wear rates of many different examples in macro date; over 10,000 UOA were studied. Then once you understand that mantra, look at other individual UOAs and compare/contrast them.

For example, in the UOA Normalcy study, I was able to separate out all the 4.6L Ford engines that ran on various grades. As much as folks want to believe that "thicker is better", the data shows otherwise. Those engines generally survive just fine, and wear rates are NOT affected outside of typical statistical variance, regardless if you use 5w-20, 5w-30, 10w-30, or 10w-40. That engine just does not really care about which grade you use. Admittedly, there are OTHER reasons to perhaps use a particular grade; VVT systems that use oil pressure in tight clearances may not operate as well with thicker lubes, but when it comes to WEAR RATES, the grades don't have any major effect at all. More than 500 UOAs were studies just on the 4.6L engine alone.

The same info is evident in the Dmax engine UOAs. Those few who run thinner lubes (like me, using 10w-30 rather than the market standard 15w-40) see absolutely no change in wear rates with the thinner grades. 500+ UOAs don't lie. And you can even see the specific examples of my UOA and another member here.


As for the info regarding "certain types of wear" as claimed by Solarent, I do agree with him. Thinner lubes will have a slightly thinner film barrier, but additives can shift things in favor of the lube, regardless of the grade.

Further, you cannot avoid the topic of the TCB (tribo-chemical barrier). Well documented in the SAE study 2007-01-4133 and also discussed at length in the normalcy article.


The science and facts are well detailed in my article. Please read it. If you disagree with my assertions, then please show me the credible study data you've developed to counter mine.

I read it and missed the statistical breakdown/analsys of the various grades. Please post it up, thanks!
 
Chevron has taken their 10w30 Delo LE up to 70,000 mile OCI's on Detroit DD15 motors, which have OEM recommended OCI's of 50,000 miles, running same freight in same areas that counterpart engines are using 15w40, and have found no additional wear, but definite mpg improvement. All the major commercial diesel engine folks are factory filling with 10w30. Seems like it works. But old ways are hard to change.
 
You didnt list 15/50 or 20/50!
I want the above!

I currently use CJ4 15/50 Mystik semi, one of the few players in the USA (but not overseas) other then Amsoil that I know of.

Im amazed that its so hard to buy HEDOs in 15/50 or 20/50.
 
Last edited:
Hi,

Originally Posted By: alarmguy
You didnt list 15/50 or 20/50!
I want the above!

I currently use CJ4 15/50 Mystik semi, one of the few players in the USA (but not overseas) other then Amsoil that I know of.

Im amazed that its so hard to buy HEDOs in 15/50 or 20/50.



I have been involved with heavy high speed diesel engines - from US, Euro, Japan - for nearly 60 years and I can only recall the DD 2 Stoke engine calling for an SAE50 lubricant. It is possible that Deutz and some Marine or other specialised applications needed a SAE50 viscosity.

In all the applications I've been involved with there was never a need for a SAE50 lubricant even here in OZ!

It is very hard to change established servicing practices amongst Fleet Owners - they tend to stick with the "known" rather than enter the "unknown".

As well, standardisation is critical in most applications - especially where diesel and petrol powered vehicles share the same servicing points

In the 1980s most Japanese diesel engine manufacturers didn't approved synthetics in their engines - some OEM's Engineers were quite adamant not to - I did with great success

In the late 1990s when I was field testing for certain Oil Companies some Fleet Owners were aghast at the thought of using a semi-synthetic 15W-40 lubricant especially at twice the mineral lubricant's OCI. It was the same reaction in the US. When I went to field testing a 5W-40 synthetic - the reaction was even worse!!! I went out to 90k kms OCI average in my own vehicles over several years

Today I use a very modern HDEO - Delvac 1 LE 5w-30
 
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,

Originally Posted By: alarmguy
You didnt list 15/50 or 20/50!
I want the above!

I currently use CJ4 15/50 Mystik semi, one of the few players in the USA (but not overseas) other then Amsoil that I know of.

Im amazed that its so hard to buy HEDOs in 15/50 or 20/50.



I have been involved with heavy high speed diesel engines - from US, Euro, Japan - for nearly 60 years and I can only recall the DD 2 Stoke engine calling for an SAE50 lubricant. It is possible that Deutz and some Marine or other specialised applications needed a SAE50 viscosity.

In all the applications I've been involved with there was never a need for a SAE50 lubricant even here in OZ!

....


THe question was which would you like to see more of, my answer 20/50 diesel. Its easier to find in other countries by the same companies who sell 15/40 here.
THere are sources here of course and I mentioned them above. True, one might call it a specialized application but I wish I had more choices then I have, even though, I am perfectly happy with the Mystic 15/50. In fact, maybe I am better off with limited choices, so I dont drive myself crazy!

I think there is a market for it but I guess not if others dont sell it here. First there are some who would use it in hotter climates, me? I use it because the maker of my motorcycle requires it!
I am one who tends to believe what the maker of a product suggests rather then black magic and smoke and mirrors of marketing or what people may or may not think.

My bike along with 50% or so of all motorcycles sold in the USA over 600cc requires the manufacturers oil or diesel oil in the prefered 20/50 weight and second choices of lessor weights.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Today I use a very modern HDEO - Delvac 1 LE 5w-30

Thanks for that post, Doug. I would assume that if there aren't a lot of builder's approvals on a 50 grade HDEO (not to mention not a specified grade), they won't be selling a lot of it. I would like to see more 5w-30 HDEOs. Imperial Oil didn't have any 5w-30 HDEO for a while, after they got rid of the XD-3 CI-4 (I believe that was the spec), and now have the Delvac 1 LE 5w-30 available at a fantastic price.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top