A Short Time Line for Development

[bluesubie]

I wonder what the chances are of GF-6 being delayed again are?

Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
That's kind of like saying the smile that da Vinci put on the Mona Lisa needs some touching up.

Then how do you get just a little more HTHS (thicker oil films) while still benefiting from all that effort to improve BL/mixed lubrication? Thickening is very tempting here.

Find an oil that uses the same base stocks and the same additive levels across different viscosities and mix them to boost HTHS.

Of course, finding out that information might be a challenge. Then there's the mixing debate.

 

[ExMachina]

Originally Posted By: bluesubie
Find an oil that uses the same base stocks and the same additive levels across different viscosities and mix them to boost HTHS.

Of course, finding out that information might be a challenge. Then there's the mixing debate.

Thats the problem. With the new GF-6B oils, as some above have pointed out, using high-tech advanced metal-to-metal AW/FM additives to combat the physical tendency of the thin oils to get near-zero oil film thickness at times, the new oils will be a radical departure from the current crop of 0w-20's out there. Yet, those new chemicals are very effective, so desired. By raising HTHS and KV100 by about 10%-20%, one can get thicker oil films and something that performs exceptionally well during inevitable metal-to-metal contact. Ideally we want to add thicker base oil (no or little additives) to raise viscosity, with a treat rate of 5%-10%, as in adding in some STP Engine Treatment for example. I just don't buy that it "dilutes" an engine oil's additives PPMs enough to matter, although what little additives STP does have could be clashing with the new oils in some way.

 

[Solarent]

Originally Posted By: ExMachina

Thats the problem. With the new GF-6B oils, as some above have pointed out, using high-tech advanced metal-to-metal AW/FM additives to combat the physical tendency of the thin oils to get near-zero oil film thickness at times, the new oils will be a radical departure from the current crop of 0w-20's out there. Yet, those new chemicals are very effective, so desired. By raising HTHS and KV100 by about 10%-20%, one can get thicker oil films and something that performs exceptionally well during inevitable metal-to-metal contact. Ideally we want to add thicker base oil (no or little additives) to raise viscosity, with a treat rate of 5%-10%, as in adding in some STP Engine Treatment for example. I just don't buy that it "dilutes" an engine oil's additives PPMs enough to matter, although what little additives STP does have could be clashing with the new oils in some way.


I think that you are completely missing the point of the GF-6B oils. The whole reason these oils are being designed is to achieve the fuel economy benefits of oils with lower HTHS and less viscous drag. These oils will be optimized to provide better protection. The new GF-6A will also have some great technology from an additive side and will provide all the performance you want at the higher HTHS.

Additives like STP do dilute the total balance of arrives in the formula. Typically in PCMO the DI makes up 8-10% and then from 5-10% VM. If you add more Thickener (say 10%) then not only do you throw the oil out of grade, increase the likelihood of deposits and can reduce the effectiveness of the DI pack.

I'm not against sweetening the blend with the right additives - especially when using the right ones. But I don't understand why you would take a perfectly good oil (even a hypothetical one) and change the additive balance when there will be perfectly good oils with your desired viscosity profile already available.

 

[ExMachina]

Solarent ^^^ sorry I'm not being clear or something, because you're still not understanding.

First of all, we already said in the thread above that the GF-6B oils will be so thin that they will likely have to use some advanced additives+basestocks not needed in higher HTHS/KV100 oils.
Now take that as fact, assume it for now.
Secondly, most engines these days call for an HTHS of 2.6, many times 3.0, and the euro engines get over 3.5, using current oil technology.

Therefore, if one wanted to combine the GF-6B's thin oils with the desirable HTHS of 3.0 for thicker oil films, one would think about how to slightly increase viscosity of a new GF-6B oil, getting the best new Boundary Lubrication tech with an acceptable HTHS for cars on the road today.

For example, if you own a 2012 GM car that calls for a 0w-20 or 0w-30 dexos1 oil, you wouldn't be allowed to use a GF-6B oil unless you could raise its HTHS to 2.9 or so by adding a small amount of thickener. (Stribeck, load, viscosity, journal bearings, you know.) A small amount of thick oil basestock added might "dilute" the total additives down by only 5 or 10 per cent, not much.

 

[Benito]

Originally Posted By: ExMachina
you wouldn't be allowed to use a GF-6B oil unless you could raise its HTHS to 2.9 or so by adding a small amount of thickener.


Who is doing the disallowing and allowing of your mixology? Your wife?

 

[fsskier]

"Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread"

Says it all, maybe?

 

[ExMachina]

Originally Posted By: Benito
Who is doing the disallowing and allowing of your mixology? Your wife?

You have a lot to learn about load, viscosity, bearing surface area, hydrodynamics, etc. if you have to ask that. Also, engines now often specify >2.8 HTHS, very common.
Also you are totally missing the main point: GF-6B oils alone are targeted to have the same or slightly worse wear performance as current thicker oils. Combining BL/MH performance of a new GF-6B oil with better load carrying of a 2.9 or so HTHS would be superior.
If you looked into "Motor Oil 101", this wouldn't be so difficult for you.

 

[ExMachina]

Originally Posted By: fsskier
"Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread"Says it all, maybe?

fsskier, Ben Franklin said: "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." Maybe that will get you over your fear of discovery, gain, and thought.

 

[Benito]

Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Originally Posted By: Benito
Who is doing the disallowing and allowing of your mixology? Your wife?

You have a lot to learn about load, viscosity, bearing surface area, hydrodynamics, etc. if you have to ask that. Also, engines now often specify >2.8 HTHS, very common.
Also you are totally missing the main point: GF-6B oils alone are targeted to have the same or slightly worse wear performance as current thicker oils. Combining BL/MH performance of a new GF-6B oil with better load carrying of a 2.9 or so HTHS would be superior.
If you looked into "Motor Oil 101", this wouldn't be so difficult for you.


No idea what reading Motor Oil 101 has to do with understanding why it's a good idea to mix STP into a GF-6B oil.

Molakule and Solarent don't agree with you and the people putting together GF-6B are saying it isn't (backward) compatible for applications there were not designed for xw16.

Admittedly they didn't mention or probably even consider something as simple as alleviating that problem by mixing in STP so maybe as you did with fsskier, you would be right to conclude that they too have a fear "of discovery, gain, and thought".

Or maybe they naively thought that GF-6A would be the appropriate improved standard for the non lower viscosity oils.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
For example, if you own a 2012 GM car that calls for a 0w-20 or 0w-30 dexos1 oil, you wouldn't be allowed to use a GF-6B oil unless you could raise its HTHS to 2.9 or so by adding a small amount of thickener. (Stribeck, load, viscosity, journal bearings, you know.) A small amount of thick oil basestock added might "dilute" the total additives down by only 5 or 10 per cent, not much.


What kind of "thickener" are you referring to?

I think you are confusing Viscosity Index Improvers with higher viscosity basestocks; they are not the same.

The newer oils will incorporate BOTH improved and highly stable VIIs with small percentages of high viscosity GroupIV and GroupV or special polymers to achieve the needed HTHSs.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
The newer oils will incorporate BOTH improved and highly stable VIIs with small percentages of high viscosity GroupIV and GroupV or special polymers to achieve the needed HTHSs.


Do you think that these new oils will have fairly high VIs (well over the 200 range?) due to the nature of their base stocks, and their use of the latest, highly shear stable VIIs, even if they are not specifically shooting for one??

Many on here put down the companies/oils which actually DO 'shoot for' and market their oils on high VIs, despite them being proven to be shear stable.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: ExMachina
However, I wa hoping that STP Oil Treatment contains very little other than a thicker oil, with little to no additive chemicals.

As I always say, if a certain grade of oil is too thin for your own preference (despite the OEM recommendation), why not just move up a grade instead of playing with hideous additives? I'd rather move up with a fully formulated oil than start diluting an otherwise perfectly good oil. Besides, that's not even cost effective.

If you tamper with a GF-6B oil, it's not a GF-6B oil anymore. So, might as well move up a grade, and at least such an oil is still certified to something.

 

[Shannow]

If you want to take one of these oils and thicken it, at least start with a straight 40 HDMO...at least it's got a full compliment of traditional additives, and VII free, there's less to muck up.

But Garak is right, if you need more viscosity, just use an approved oil with the viscosity that you want, rather than playing chemist in the unknown realms.

 

[Garak]

Another thing we have to consider is that if a new, hypothetical GF-6B oil is loaded up with a bunch of additives for boundary lubrication, even if you could thicken the oil without reducing the additive concentration, what would be the point? Having extra additives for boundary protection in a sub-SAE 20 doesn't seem, at least to me, to be terribly useful if you thicken it up to a 40.

 

[Shannow]

Garak,
that's where this thread went

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3797020/1

Higher viscosity with advanced additives is much less difference in performance than older additives and viscosity range.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Do you think that these new oils will have fairly high VIs (well over the 200 range?) due to the nature of their base stocks, and their use of the latest, highly shear stable VIIs, even if they are not specifically shooting for one??

Many on here put down the companies/oils which actually DO 'shoot for' and market their oils on high VIs, despite them being proven to be shear stable.

The limited exposure to the 16s so far seems to be focused more on oil, and less on polymers, the temporary shear ratio (A Harman's technique) are much closer to monograde than the 200VI 0W20s are showing.

Same 0W20s that are quite capable of 0W16 performance after a period of service.

 

[wemay]

Mixing oils may become more of an issue when the new standards come to market. The forgiving language of the miscibility test may be erased altogether with such, apparently, narrow margins for error. I would be very leery adding STP, unless they too make advances along the same lines.

 

[Garak]

I don't think STP has been making advances in their thickener for a very long time.

Thanks for the link, Shannow, I had forgotten about that thread.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Do you think that these new oils will have fairly high VIs (well over the 200 range?) due to the nature of their base stocks, and their use of the latest, highly shear stable VIIs, even if they are not specifically shooting for one??

Many on here put down the companies/oils which actually DO 'shoot for' and market their oils on high VIs, despite them being proven to be shear stable.

If The limited exposure to the 16s so far seems to be focused more on oil, and less on polymers, the temporary shear ratio (A Harman's technique) are much closer to monograde than the 200VI 0W20s are showing.

Same 0W20s that are quite capable of 0W16 performance after a period of service.


As I have stated before, here is a potential oil mix for GF-6B using small percentages of high viscosity Group IV and V and large percentages of low viscosity Group IV to achieve the needed viscosity, oil film thickness, and shear stability:

0.5 to 1% 100 cSt or higher PAO, or POE, or OSP, or specialized polymers, or a mix thereof,

99% 2.0 cSt PAO and Esters, or AN's, or a mix thereof,

Added to that base oil is the enhanced performance package consisting of AW, AO, MI, DI, etc. chemistry,

After that mix is tested for viscosity, one then will add an X to XX percentage of shear stable VII's to bring the viscosity up to spec.

Some chemists consider those high viscosity Group IV and V oils polymers as well, which is why I said "specializd" polymers to differentiate those from the other potential base oils.

The main point being there are a number of ways of approaching the formulation of GF-6B and PC-11B LV engine oils.

 

[Joe90_guy]

MI???