Best NOACK for 0w20

[StevieC]

I wonder if they vented them through a spin on cellulose based spin-on oil filter. That would be a cheap economical way to do it with off the shelf parts and hopefully the filter media in the filter would saturate and hold the mist in suspension between OCI's. Just a thought based on filling oil filters over the years and them generally holding 1/4 - 1/2 a quart of oil depending on their size.

 

[4WD]

Ah, changed the O to 0 …

 

[Rat407]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
There seems to be conflicting evidence whether Noack matters or not as long as it is within the limits set for the grade. A lot like pour point or flash point, what on the surface seems to be an important property may not be so important in reality. One boutique oil company mentioned in this thread has a love affair with Noack values but the rest of the industry doesn't seem to share quite the same love.

And it should be "Noack", not NOACK. It is someone's name.


Exactly.

"The Noack volatility test, named after Kurt Noack, determines the evaporation loss of lubricants in high-temperature service. This test is standardized as ASTM D5800. ... The weight fraction lost is the result for the Noack volatility test."

 

[StevieC]

Sue me.

 

[CR94]

Originally Posted By: StevieC
I wonder if they vented them through a spin on cellulose based spin-on oil filter. That would be a cheap economical way to do it with off the shelf parts and hopefully the filter media in the filter would saturate and hold the mist in suspension between OCI's. Just a thought based on filling oil filters over the years and them generally holding 1/4 - 1/2 a quart of oil depending on their size.
I successfully did something somewhat like that when my Mazda transmission insisted on spitting oil out its breather after internal repairs and a change in oil type. I attached a vertical length of fuel hose to the breather (which didn't work by itself), then spliced a fuel filter into the middle of the hose. That was effective, unlike all my earlier attempts. Of course, that wasn't quite the same as oil mist.

 

[StevieC]

Interesting CR94! Thanks.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
After reading the paper carefully, my conclusion is that DGI engines that exhibit excessive IVD is more a function of the engine design - particularly the PCV system - than what kind of oil they use. The difference in IVD between the worst oil and the best oil in terms of developing deposits is probably in the noise realm on an engine that's designed in such a way as to create lots of oil vapors/mist and suck it into the intake manifold without any kind of PVC oil separation control. If car engine designers would come up with a much better way to keep the oil mist out of the intake manifold it would go a whole lot farther in preventing IVD.


There's a really good Honda paper on developing a crankcase ventilation system to get oil droplets of increasingly fine particle size out of the crankcase vapours.

It's no easy task.

(Back in my turbine days one of the insurmountable problems was getting oil mist out of the tanks and bearings...the oil return lines act as a boundary layer "compressor"...It's ridiculously hard to coalesce oil mists and stop them getting out.)


Do you have a link to the Honda paper ... I'd be interested in reading it.

Some good aftermarket PCV oil catch-cans do work to an extent, but they still don't removal all the oil mist.

 

[StevieC]

I wonder if you took a catch can that was quite deep and packed it with cotton gauze or something similar to soak up as much vapor as possible with the outlet having a line to near the bottom but not at the very bottom (in case substantial amounts collect) if that would work as an alternative to the spin-on filter / fuel filter idea.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Do you have a link to the Honda paper ... I'd be interested in reading it.

Some good aftermarket PCV oil catch-cans do work to an extent, but they still don't removal all the oil mist.


https://www.hondarandd.jp/point.php?pid=1027&lang=en

Paper 26_2-13e

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: StevieC
I wonder if you took a catch can that was quite deep and packed it with cotton gauze or something similar to soak up as much vapor as possible with the outlet having a line to near the bottom but not at the very bottom (in case substantial amounts collect) if that would work as an alternative to the spin-on filter / fuel filter idea.


BMW's breather setup is quite novel, as they utilize a cyclonic air/oil separator. Not entirely sure how effective it actually is, but I like the concept

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: StevieC
I wonder if you took a catch can that was quite deep and packed it with cotton gauze or something similar to soak up as much vapor as possible with the outlet having a line to near the bottom but not at the very bottom (in case substantial amounts collect) if that would work as an alternative to the spin-on filter / fuel filter idea.


The good aftermarket catch-cans have fine steel wool mesh type of material for the vapors to collect, cool and condense and then drip to the bottom and collect.

 

[madeej11]

Originally Posted by wemay
Originally Posted by kschachn
There seems to be conflicting evidence whether Noack matters or not as long as it is within the limits set for the grade. A lot like pour point or flash point, what on the surface seems to be an important property may not be so important in reality. One boutique oil company mentioned in this thread has a love affair with Noack values but the rest of the industry doesn't seem to share quite the same love.

And it should be "Noack", not NOACK. It is someone's name.


I tend to agree. How much better is 7% than 13%? No one really knows where the threshold is. Driving style, fuel quality etc, all contribute to an engine's wellbeing. There are quite a few forums with angry members who "only used the best, low Noack Synthetic oils since day one" who now need a walnut blast.

Difference is 6%, and can you provide a link to the "walnut blasters". Thanks.

 

[StevieC]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFvXbTIiAVY - Walnut Blasting

 

[madeej11]

Thank you very much Stevie !

 

[StevieC]

 

[Diesel12]

While Noack is an important value for engine oil i would care more about engine wear. As stated in the link from the OP Amsoil sequence IVA test Cam/Lifter Wear is 20.20um. Schaeffer 9000 0w-20 Cam/ Lifter wear is 9.8um for the Sequence IIIG test. That is less than half the wear of amsoil. Plus the Sequence IVA is a low rpm/Load test while the Sequence IIIG test is High RPM/High Load. Hence one of the reasons Schaeffer is my favorite oil company.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by Diesel12
While Noack is an important value for engine oil i would care more about engine wear. As stated in the link from the OP Amsoil sequence IVA test Cam/Lifter Wear is 20.20um. Schaeffer 9000 0w-20 Cam/ Lifter wear is 9.8um for the Sequence IIIG test. That is less than half the wear of amsoil. Plus the Sequence IVA is a low rpm/Load test while the Sequence IIIG test is High RPM/High Load. Hence one of the reasons Schaeffer is my favorite oil company.

It's impossible for me to find Schaeffer's up here. I have looked in the past and settled on Amsoil because of how easy it is to get.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Diesel12
While Noack is an important value for engine oil i would care more about engine wear. As stated in the link from the OP Amsoil sequence IVA test Cam/Lifter Wear is 20.20um. Schaeffer 9000 0w-20 Cam/ Lifter wear is 9.8um for the Sequence IIIG test. That is less than half the wear of amsoil. Plus the Sequence IVA is a low rpm/Load test while the Sequence IIIG test is High RPM/High Load. Hence one of the reasons Schaeffer is my favorite oil company.


You can't compare the results from IVA to IIIG, it doesn't work that way. You have no idea how AMSOIL does on IIIG and we have no idea how Shaeffer does on IVA. Find one of those figures, then you can have a comparison.

 

[Diesel12]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Diesel12
While Noack is an important value for engine oil i would care more about engine wear. As stated in the link from the OP Amsoil sequence IVA test Cam/Lifter Wear is 20.20um. Schaeffer 9000 0w-20 Cam/ Lifter wear is 9.8um for the Sequence IIIG test. That is less than half the wear of amsoil. Plus the Sequence IVA is a low rpm/Load test while the Sequence IIIG test is High RPM/High Load. Hence one of the reasons Schaeffer is my favorite oil company.


You can't compare the results from IVA to IIIG, it doesn't work that way. You have no idea how AMSOIL does on IIIG and we have no idea how Shaeffer does on IVA. Find one of those figures, then you can have a comparison.



In my opinion they are comparable. They are both 100 hour tests. Just one is Low rpm/Load and one is High Rpm/Load/Temp

SEQUENCE IVA- The crankcase oil is subjected to 100 hours of continuous engine running, cycling from an 800 rpm idle period to a short 1500 rpm stage, and back again, 100 times, under very precise control of operating conditions.

SEQUENCE IIIG-The Sequence IIIG Test consists of a 10-minute operational check, followed by 100 hours of engine operation at moderately high speed, load, and temperature conditions.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Diesel12

In my opinion they are comparable. They are both 100 hour tests. Just one is Low rpm/Load and one is High Rpm/Load/Temp

SEQUENCE IVA- The crankcase oil is subjected to 100 hours of continuous engine running, cycling from an 800 rpm idle period to a short 1500 rpm stage, and back again, 100 times, under very precise control of operating conditions.

SEQUENCE IIIG-The Sequence IIIG Test consists of a 10-minute operational check, followed by 100 hours of engine operation at moderately high speed, load, and temperature conditions.


Well your opinion doesn't really play into this. They are different tests, ergo, they aren't comparable. To be comparable, it needs to be the same test.

The IVA test is, of the two, the more difficult, since the temperature that is used is intentionally kept low to prevent the heat-activated additives from functioning. It is designed to replicate the conditions of an engine never getting warmed up; short-tripped, which is a bad condition for both the equipment and the lubricant. Specifically, this test is to measure camshaft wear.

Not only are the tests different, but the engines used are also different:
IIIG uses a GM 3.8L roller pushrod engine
IVA uses a Nissan I4 OHC 3-valve engine with sliding non-roller followers

An engine with roller lifters is going to exhibit less camshaft wear than one with sliding followers.

As I said, the tests aren't comparable.