NOACK test issues surface

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Could that explain what happened to the PU NOACK?



I don't believe it has anything to do with GF-5. The concern is for the future ILSAC designation PC-11 and ILSAC GF-6.

From same link:
Quote:
...studied to be sure we have a NOACK test that is fit for purpose for PC-11 and ILSAC GF-6.

The key focus here is on PC-11 because it is a carry-forward bench test that is critical, especially for new lower viscosity engine oil formulations.
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Could that explain what happened to the PU NOACK?


I think the PU NOACK was really low when their oils were temporarily PAO before the move to GTL. My guess.
 
GF 6 & the likes present the water-weight oils that are expected to be volatile (ie: RL noack 6 vs their 0w20 @9). PP5w30 was tested at 9.1 by pqia while the pds claims 6ish. What I got out of this is the testing of the water for noack is going to be a problem, since lower viscosity will require higher precision tools to squeeze the numbers. Gimme a 10w30 and a 20w40 (gtl/pao/ester) and I will never look back
smile.gif
I'll use the 0w16 for my OBA and air filters
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Dyusik
GF 6 & the likes present the water-weight oils that are expected to be volatile (ie: RL noack 6 vs their 0w20 @9). PP5w30 was tested at 9.1 by pqia while the pds claims 6ish. What I got out of this is the testing of the water for noack is going to be a problem, since lower viscosity will require higher precision tools to squeeze the numbers. Gimme a 10w30 and a 20w40 (gtl/pao/ester) and I will never look back
smile.gif
I'll use the 0w16 for my OBA and air filters
smile.gif



The PQIA test I saw for PP and PU dated back to 2013, which would probably make it meaningless today. They don't list NOCAK on their website anymore, so all we can do is guess.
 
I've never seen anything with PP 5w-30 listing a 6ish NOACK. The original non-GTL version of Ultra...yes...but not PP.

If I remember correctly, the pre-GTL 5w-30 Platinum had a PDS NOACK listing of 10 and it spec'd as 9.1 in PQIA's testing as referenced above...it certainly wasn't 6ish.
 
Are they saying that if you get closer to the point of a lubrication failure in the design of your new lower viscosity engine oil to meet new requirements based more on politics than engineering then you'd better step up the quality control and testing and get ready to engage in an expensive public relations campaign to sell your customers on the upcoming changes?
 
Originally Posted By: Vuflanovsky
I've never seen anything with PP 5w-30 listing a 6ish NOACK. The original non-GTL version of Ultra...yes...but not PP.

If I remember correctly, the pre-GTL 5w-30 Platinum had a PDS NOACK listing of 10 and it spec'd as 9.1 in PQIA's testing as referenced above...it certainly wasn't 6ish.


Yes Ultra was in the 6 range, then jumped up to 11.5 on the current PDS which I just checked. It begs the question why?
 
It's pretty light on in detail as to what they mean by "accuracy" and "repeatability" being issues.


Here's what the ASTM offers WRT the two.

ASTM 5800 limits of accuracy and repeatability.

As can be seen the early (?) method doesn't look that flash, and had a toxic metal as part of the heating process.

The two others look pretty OK.

I'm wondering if the Valvoline issue hasn't muddied the waters

http://pqiamerica.com/NextGen%205W-20%20-%20PQIA%20response%20(3).pdf

Note in the ASTM that there is strong correlation between the tests.

I think Valvoline might have been playing in the fringes, got caught, and now the waters are muddied.
 
Further delays with GF-6? Is the lubricant industry not able to keep up with the new challenges brought on by tougher CAFE standards? Looks like they are also concerned about the split between GF-6A and GF-6B.

Quote:


Industry needs to quickly engage with end user education as we expect it to be a challenge to explain and deploy these oils. It will be important to ensure the right oils are used for the right applications in an industry that has become accustomed to many one size fits all engine oils. ...

Most importantly, in the drive to lower the viscosity of engine oils for improved fuel economy, we must not forget that engine oils need to protect the engine and provide a long life. We need to ensure that low viscosity engine oils are limited to new (and in some cases older) applications specifically designated by the OEM.
 
Originally Posted By: bluesubie

Quote:

Most importantly, in the drive to lower the viscosity of engine oils for improved fuel economy, we must not forget that engine oils need to protect the engine and provide a long life. We need to ensure that low viscosity engine oils are limited to new (and in some cases older) applications specifically designated by the OEM.


They must be confused, I keep reading that thinner oils provide more flow, and flow is lubrication and cooling.

How can they be stumbling over that issue.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: bluesubie

Quote:

Most importantly, in the drive to lower the viscosity of engine oils for improved fuel economy, we must not forget that engine oils need to protect the engine and provide a long life. We need to ensure that low viscosity engine oils are limited to new (and in some cases older) applications specifically designated by the OEM.


They must be confused, I keep reading that thinner oils provide more flow, and flow is lubrication and cooling.

How can they be stumbling over that issue.


I wonder, was there this much back and forth, concern, conjecture when GF-5 was rolled out? In other words, is this the norm or are there more delays than what occurred in the past?
 
And the next article down states:

This is especially true in HDD applications, where over 80% of end users use solely SAE 15W-40.

I been saying this for years. 15W-40 is the standard among fleet operators. Even those using LPG, Gas and Diesel mixed fleets... It's been the go-to oil for so long, that it will be a rude awakening for lots of fleets when the new stds come out ...
 
Last edited:
Not related to NOACK, I think the quest for thinner oils will backfire. I doubt they will see real fuel-economy benefits and I think they will see increased wear with xW-16, xW-12, and xW-8.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Not related to NOACK, I think the quest for thinner oils will backfire. I doubt they will see real fuel-economy benefits and I think they will see increased wear with xW-16, xW-12, and xW-8.


I agree but you have to be careful where you say that. lol
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Not related to NOACK, I think the quest for thinner oils will backfire. I doubt they will see real fuel-economy benefits and I think they will see increased wear with xW-16, xW-12, and xW-8.


I agree but you have to be careful where you say that. lol
wink.gif



True enough.
Maybe they could develop engines with high volume oil pumps to increase the flow.
Oh no, I've just realized the high volume oil pumps will rob more HP.
Diminishing returns?????
 
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
And the next article down states:

This is especially true in HDD applications, where over 80% of end users use solely SAE 15W-40.

I been saying this for years. 15W-40 is the standard among fleet operators. Even those using LPG, Gas and Diesel mixed fleets... It's been the go-to oil for so long, that it will be a rude awakening for lots of fleets when the new stds come out ...


some truth to that, except for the last couple of years, the heavy diesel OEM's have been factory filling with 10w30, recommending it, and many fleets are switching to it. I moved my semi over to 10w30 and pleased with the results. The only reason many of these types of users view 15w40 as the standard centers more around standardization in the shop and resistance to change, which is very common in trucking operations. It sure isn't because many of these fleets and owners are savvy about what they are using. You walk in to the majority of shops and they couldn't give you a technical reason why they using a 15w40. Just the pat "that's what we have always used" type of responses. Don't even ask them about such things as NOACK. You will just get a glazed, confused look.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Not related to NOACK, I think the quest for thinner oils will backfire. I doubt they will see real fuel-economy benefits and I think they will see increased wear with xW-16, xW-12, and xW-8.


I think it could backfire, too. Average drivers in daily commuting traffic probably wouldn't be able to detect a difference in fuel economy between a 0w16 and a 0w20, but that's kind of beside the point. First, the automaker must run the EPA fuel economy test procedure on the car while running the recommended oil, and the big fuel economy number can go on the window sticker. If the recommended oil weight contributes a fraction of a percent in repeatable laboratory tests, then so be it. The EPA just assumes that the fractional fuel economy improvement will carry over into the real world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top