NOACK test issues surface

[MolaKule]

Quote:
The combination of PC-11, dexos1™:2015 and ILSAC GF-6 are placing a huge strain on industry resources as we work collaboratively to meet all the lubrication requirements of engines in the 2016-2018 timeframe...

It is crucial that BOI and VGRA guidelines are developed to allow for the introduction of these categories in a reasonable timeframe as well as to ensure product development and deployment costs remain practical.


As I stated in an earlier white paper, this proposed time frame is really squeezing formulators and testing facilities to the limit. A challenge for sure.

Here is a question for you:

If these lower viscosity oils don't show acceptable wear, who is going to blame whom?

Do the engine manufacturers blame 1) the oil (and blender and additive manf.) companies, 2) do the oil (and blender and additive manf.) companies blame the specifications committee, or 3) does everyone blame the EPA for their asinine regulations?

Background Info:

http://fuelsandlubes.com/task-forces-to-address-problems-with-noack-volatility-bench-tests-3/

http://www.instituteofmaterials.com/news-publications/iom-presentations/noack-volatility-test/

Another perspective on ULV oils:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...ontribute_&

 

[BrocLuno]

Sure, everyone will point fingers ... And those of us who have been around will up the viscosity as a matter of course and cruise on.

0.01 MPG might mean something to a MFG who needs fleet numbers in the millions of units. But it means absolutely nothing to me.

I could do that by laying out of the throttle once a month

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
If these lower viscosity oils don't show acceptable wear, who is going to blame whom?

The entire idea of lower viscosity is to push the engines from the HDL (hydrodynamic lubrication) into the EHL/ML (elastohydrodynamic/mixed lubrication) regions. That's because the EHL/ML region is more fuel-efficient than the HDL region, at least on paper. So, there will necessarily be increased wear, as there is no wear in the HDL region but some wear in the EHL/ML regions. If there wasn't increased wear, the new lower viscosities wouldn't be working in increasing the fuel efficiency; so, there would be no point in lowering the viscosity.

I guess the idea of the OEMs is that the useful life of an automobile is 200,000 miles and they don't care if an engine doesn't last a million miles. It's also a win - win situation for them -- shorter the engine life, more often people will buy new cars.

 

[wemay]

Might we be getting a little ahead of ourselves?

 

[53' Stude]

EXACTLY, +2 Wemay

 

[BobFout]

Years ago, engines wore out from using that 10w30 oil instead of 10w40. Then they wore out from 5w30, later it was due to 5w20.

 

[LotI]

Originally Posted By: BobFout
Years ago, engines wore out from using that 10w30 oil instead of 10w40. Then they wore out from 5w30, later it was due to 5w20.

What? So an engine wouldn't wear out running 10w-40?

 

[Garak]

He's just pointing out the every time a new viscosity is introduced, the sky is ready to fall.