I would be interested in hearing opinions about the polarity of POE molecules impacting start-up wear via "clinging" to metal parts and /or each other, thus maintaining a film of lubricant and minimizing cold start-up wear vs grpIII+ and PAO.
Do majority POE base oils reduce start-up wear?
- Thread starter BerndV
- Start date
- Status
Hard to say and I'm not an expert so I really don't know. My guess would be that modern oils contain some level of additives that are ester based or contain small amounts of esters that would probably do a sufficient job of keeping the polarity and clinging to metal. Whether it's as good as a mostly POE based oil is anyone's guess. Tom NJ could give a much better answer than I could.
From what I've learned here conventional and group 3 synthetics are polar,as are poe's,however pao basestocks aren't,so if that's your criteria as far as wear reduction based on the molecules being polar conventional oils will provide similar start up wear protection when compared to poe's.
Its been said many times here on bitog,don't get too hung up or focused on a single particular attribute of an oil. They are formulated to be synergistic and you have to consider the entire formulation and how its components work together,not just one particular attribute of the lube being considered.
Its been said many times here on bitog,don't get too hung up or focused on a single particular attribute of an oil. They are formulated to be synergistic and you have to consider the entire formulation and how its components work together,not just one particular attribute of the lube being considered.
Yes, esters are polar and can cling to metal parts even after the motor is turned off. You don't need a huge amount of ester to achieve this effect, so don't think you need to run out and use stuff like Red Line or 300V.
JHZR2
Staff member
I think you need to go back and check your knowledge of the Stribeck Curve. At startup and until that pressure wedge occurs in a journal bearing, you are purely talking boundary lubrication. And no POE or other molecule is going to be large enough to inherently create its own wedge and lift off, at least to the point where one hits elastohydrodynamic lubrication. While better surface finishes minimize the need for as much film thickness due to less surface roughness, a proper boundary lubricant is necessary prior to liftoff to ensure that the surfaces are protected.
SO your question should really be if it is smarter to have POE hydrocarbon molecules, or a real AW chemistry on the surface, especially since they will compete for adsorption sites.
IMO Id rather have the purpose-specific additive on the surface providing the boundary lubrication, versus relying upon the component that inherently makes up the hydrodynamic wedge once lifted off.
SO your question should really be if it is smarter to have POE hydrocarbon molecules, or a real AW chemistry on the surface, especially since they will compete for adsorption sites.
IMO Id rather have the purpose-specific additive on the surface providing the boundary lubrication, versus relying upon the component that inherently makes up the hydrodynamic wedge once lifted off.
This:
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
...a proper boundary lubricant is necessary prior to liftoff to ensure that the surfaces are protected.
SO your question should really be if it is smarter to have POE hydrocarbon molecules, or a real AW chemistry on the surface, especially since they will compete for adsorption sites.
We've had several base oil threads started (incidently all by BerndV) which has prompted some stimulating and not so stimulating debates on the value of certain base stocks.
While I think it is great for many of our members to be exposed to such lively debate, the obsessive debate over the impact of specific base oils may be confusing for those who don't deal with these issues on a daily basis.
An engine experiences all regimes of lubrication many times through start-up and into service, in fact multiple regimes are in action simultaneously in different parts of the engine (you may have elastohydrodynamic lubrication at the journal bearings while at the same time have mixed or boundary lubrication at the cam lobes or in other high contact pressure areas of the engine.) This is influenced by engine design and lubrication science. It takes a great deal of experience and education to truly understand what is going on with your oil. More than you can get by reading internet forums.
IMO, I would also rather have purpose-specific additives on the surface that are made up of a blend of FM's, AW and EP additives combined with the right blend of ester-based molecules rather than putting my faith in a Oil marketer's claim that POE is going to provide better startup protection. It's the whole formula, not the base oil that is critical to reducing wear and protecting engine components.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
...a proper boundary lubricant is necessary prior to liftoff to ensure that the surfaces are protected.
SO your question should really be if it is smarter to have POE hydrocarbon molecules, or a real AW chemistry on the surface, especially since they will compete for adsorption sites.
We've had several base oil threads started (incidently all by BerndV) which has prompted some stimulating and not so stimulating debates on the value of certain base stocks.
While I think it is great for many of our members to be exposed to such lively debate, the obsessive debate over the impact of specific base oils may be confusing for those who don't deal with these issues on a daily basis.
An engine experiences all regimes of lubrication many times through start-up and into service, in fact multiple regimes are in action simultaneously in different parts of the engine (you may have elastohydrodynamic lubrication at the journal bearings while at the same time have mixed or boundary lubrication at the cam lobes or in other high contact pressure areas of the engine.) This is influenced by engine design and lubrication science. It takes a great deal of experience and education to truly understand what is going on with your oil. More than you can get by reading internet forums.
IMO, I would also rather have purpose-specific additives on the surface that are made up of a blend of FM's, AW and EP additives combined with the right blend of ester-based molecules rather than putting my faith in a Oil marketer's claim that POE is going to provide better startup protection. It's the whole formula, not the base oil that is critical to reducing wear and protecting engine components.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I think you need to go back and check your knowledge of the Stribeck Curve. At startup and until that pressure wedge occurs in a journal bearing, you are purely talking boundary lubrication. And no POE or other molecule is going to be large enough to inherently create its own wedge and lift off, at least to the point where one hits elastohydrodynamic lubrication. While better surface finishes minimize the need for as much film thickness due to less surface roughness, a proper boundary lubricant is necessary prior to liftoff to ensure that the surfaces are protected.
SO your question should really be if it is smarter to have POE hydrocarbon molecules, or a real AW chemistry on the surface, especially since they will compete for adsorption sites.
IMO Id rather have the purpose-specific additive on the surface providing the boundary lubrication, versus relying upon the component that inherently makes up the hydrodynamic wedge once lifted off.
Wow......awesome explanation.
I think you need to go back and check your knowledge of the Stribeck Curve. At startup and until that pressure wedge occurs in a journal bearing, you are purely talking boundary lubrication. And no POE or other molecule is going to be large enough to inherently create its own wedge and lift off, at least to the point where one hits elastohydrodynamic lubrication. While better surface finishes minimize the need for as much film thickness due to less surface roughness, a proper boundary lubricant is necessary prior to liftoff to ensure that the surfaces are protected.
SO your question should really be if it is smarter to have POE hydrocarbon molecules, or a real AW chemistry on the surface, especially since they will compete for adsorption sites.
IMO Id rather have the purpose-specific additive on the surface providing the boundary lubrication, versus relying upon the component that inherently makes up the hydrodynamic wedge once lifted off.
Wow......awesome explanation.
Originally Posted By: Solarent
We've had several base oil threads started (incidently all by BerndV) which has prompted some stimulating and not so stimulating debates on the value of certain base stocks.
While I think it is great for many of our members to be exposed to such lively debate, the obsessive debate over the impact of specific base oils may be confusing for those who don't deal with these issues on a daily basis.
I've started these threads precisely because a) I find the subject interesting, and b) the discussions surrounding them tend to be lively, and c) some of the most significant differences between synthetic brands as well as within some brands are base oil selection. The evolution of synthetics from di-esters to PAO/POE to grp III to grp III+/AN to GTL among the various manufacturers has been the focal point of most of the controversy surrounding synthetics. The other component of the equation, additives, tend to be a bit more arcane and less accessible. Synthetics are the PCMO's that most people find interesting here at BITOG. What makes them "synthetics" are the base oils.
We've had several base oil threads started (incidently all by BerndV) which has prompted some stimulating and not so stimulating debates on the value of certain base stocks.
While I think it is great for many of our members to be exposed to such lively debate, the obsessive debate over the impact of specific base oils may be confusing for those who don't deal with these issues on a daily basis.
I've started these threads precisely because a) I find the subject interesting, and b) the discussions surrounding them tend to be lively, and c) some of the most significant differences between synthetic brands as well as within some brands are base oil selection. The evolution of synthetics from di-esters to PAO/POE to grp III to grp III+/AN to GTL among the various manufacturers has been the focal point of most of the controversy surrounding synthetics. The other component of the equation, additives, tend to be a bit more arcane and less accessible. Synthetics are the PCMO's that most people find interesting here at BITOG. What makes them "synthetics" are the base oils.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
IMO Id rather have the purpose-specific additive on the surface providing the boundary lubrication, versus relying upon the component that inherently makes up the hydrodynamic wedge once lifted off.
Pretty much agree, but what about Castrol's "UMA" ester, that is added expressly for this phase of an engine's operation ?
IMO Id rather have the purpose-specific additive on the surface providing the boundary lubrication, versus relying upon the component that inherently makes up the hydrodynamic wedge once lifted off.
Pretty much agree, but what about Castrol's "UMA" ester, that is added expressly for this phase of an engine's operation ?
I hope you don't think I was trying to discourage these kind of threads. Like I said, I enjoy the lively debate.
Let's continue to discuss the importance of base oils, but we also should not neglect that other side of the equation. (which I agree can sometimes seem less accessible, although information about the general chemistry can be found when you know where to look).
I can't speak for everyone, but I will do what I can to share what resources I have to keep the conversations honest and informative.
Let's continue to discuss the importance of base oils, but we also should not neglect that other side of the equation. (which I agree can sometimes seem less accessible, although information about the general chemistry can be found when you know where to look).
I can't speak for everyone, but I will do what I can to share what resources I have to keep the conversations honest and informative.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Pretty much agree, but what about Castrol's "UMA" ester, that is added expressly for this phase of an engine's operation ?
This is a fancy oil marketer's way of saying They use a boundary lubricant that is ester based (this is a common process in creating the synergy necessary for boundary protection that combines esters with FM's AW & EP additives).
Pretty much agree, but what about Castrol's "UMA" ester, that is added expressly for this phase of an engine's operation ?
This is a fancy oil marketer's way of saying They use a boundary lubricant that is ester based (this is a common process in creating the synergy necessary for boundary protection that combines esters with FM's AW & EP additives).
Originally Posted By: Solarent
I hope you don't think I was trying to discourage these kind of threads. Like I said, I enjoy the lively debate.
Let's continue to discuss the importance of base oils, but we also should not neglect that other side of the equation. (which I agree can sometimes seem less accessible, although information about the general chemistry can be found when you know where to look).
I can't speak for everyone, but I will do what I can to share what resources I have to keep the conversations honest and informative.
I'm all for more good information and threads discussing additives and their evolving role in helping formulators meet the various ACEA/JASO/API and manufacturer generated specifications. I'd love to know more about the cutting edge in additive technologies. I think all of us here on BITOG love it when folks like Molakule and Tom NJ share their wealth of knowledge about lubricants.
I hope you don't think I was trying to discourage these kind of threads. Like I said, I enjoy the lively debate.
Let's continue to discuss the importance of base oils, but we also should not neglect that other side of the equation. (which I agree can sometimes seem less accessible, although information about the general chemistry can be found when you know where to look).
I can't speak for everyone, but I will do what I can to share what resources I have to keep the conversations honest and informative.
I'm all for more good information and threads discussing additives and their evolving role in helping formulators meet the various ACEA/JASO/API and manufacturer generated specifications. I'd love to know more about the cutting edge in additive technologies. I think all of us here on BITOG love it when folks like Molakule and Tom NJ share their wealth of knowledge about lubricants.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
IMO Id rather have the purpose-specific additive on the surface providing the boundary lubrication, versus relying upon the component that inherently makes up the hydrodynamic wedge once lifted off.
Pretty much agree, but what about Castrol's "UMA" ester, that is added expressly for this phase of an engine's operation ?
Is it an ester for the sake of being an ester, or is it an ester group on some other boundary lubricant for the sake of having a tenacious molecule that is vying for surface.
Remember, all that we care about esters is that their structure is such that surface free energy is minimized when the molecule "bonds" (chemisorbs) to the surface.
So the question still is, does the rest of the hydrocarbon chain do something, or is there some other chemistry attached that is actually providing the protection in the boundary lubrication regime?
Im not saying that esters are bad or wrong in any way... But if they draw a pretty picture, and the masses are brainwashed that they must have PAO, POE, etc. and pay a premium for top protection, then the product has done its "job".
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
IMO Id rather have the purpose-specific additive on the surface providing the boundary lubrication, versus relying upon the component that inherently makes up the hydrodynamic wedge once lifted off.
Pretty much agree, but what about Castrol's "UMA" ester, that is added expressly for this phase of an engine's operation ?
Is it an ester for the sake of being an ester, or is it an ester group on some other boundary lubricant for the sake of having a tenacious molecule that is vying for surface.
Remember, all that we care about esters is that their structure is such that surface free energy is minimized when the molecule "bonds" (chemisorbs) to the surface.
So the question still is, does the rest of the hydrocarbon chain do something, or is there some other chemistry attached that is actually providing the protection in the boundary lubrication regime?
Im not saying that esters are bad or wrong in any way... But if they draw a pretty picture, and the masses are brainwashed that they must have PAO, POE, etc. and pay a premium for top protection, then the product has done its "job".
Statements like this are what brought me in to BITOG. The weekly posts about how bad OCOD's are, or how bad Royal Purple / AMSOIL (or any other brand) is or is not is tiring. Thoughtful comments like this are worth reading and as it relates to oil, this is still the only place to go. Thanks for something refreshing and insightful.
Originally Posted By: Solarent
This:
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
...a proper boundary lubricant is necessary prior to liftoff to ensure that the surfaces are protected.
SO your question should really be if it is smarter to have POE hydrocarbon molecules, or a real AW chemistry on the surface, especially since they will compete for adsorption sites.
We've had several base oil threads started (incidently all by BerndV) which has prompted some stimulating and not so stimulating debates on the value of certain base stocks.
While I think it is great for many of our members to be exposed to such lively debate, the obsessive debate over the impact of specific base oils may be confusing for those who don't deal with these issues on a daily basis.
An engine experiences all regimes of lubrication many times through start-up and into service, in fact multiple regimes are in action simultaneously in different parts of the engine (you may have elastohydrodynamic lubrication at the journal bearings while at the same time have mixed or boundary lubrication at the cam lobes or in other high contact pressure areas of the engine.) This is influenced by engine design and lubrication science. It takes a great deal of experience and education to truly understand what is going on with your oil. More than you can get by reading internet forums.
IMO, I would also rather have purpose-specific additives on the surface that are made up of a blend of FM's, AW and EP additives combined with the right blend of ester-based molecules rather than putting my faith in a Oil marketer's claim that POE is going to provide better startup protection. It's the whole formula, not the base oil that is critical to reducing wear and protecting engine components.
Originally Posted By: Solarent
This:
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
...a proper boundary lubricant is necessary prior to liftoff to ensure that the surfaces are protected.
SO your question should really be if it is smarter to have POE hydrocarbon molecules, or a real AW chemistry on the surface, especially since they will compete for adsorption sites.
We've had several base oil threads started (incidently all by BerndV) which has prompted some stimulating and not so stimulating debates on the value of certain base stocks.
While I think it is great for many of our members to be exposed to such lively debate, the obsessive debate over the impact of specific base oils may be confusing for those who don't deal with these issues on a daily basis.
An engine experiences all regimes of lubrication many times through start-up and into service, in fact multiple regimes are in action simultaneously in different parts of the engine (you may have elastohydrodynamic lubrication at the journal bearings while at the same time have mixed or boundary lubrication at the cam lobes or in other high contact pressure areas of the engine.) This is influenced by engine design and lubrication science. It takes a great deal of experience and education to truly understand what is going on with your oil. More than you can get by reading internet forums.
IMO, I would also rather have purpose-specific additives on the surface that are made up of a blend of FM's, AW and EP additives combined with the right blend of ester-based molecules rather than putting my faith in a Oil marketer's claim that POE is going to provide better startup protection. It's the whole formula, not the base oil that is critical to reducing wear and protecting engine components.
I have not seen any evidence of POE based engine oils reducing start-up wear more than other available base oil total formulations here on BITOG, or other oil forums. In fact, I have not seen any evidence of POE based engine oils offering any advantage in wear protection at all over other base oil engine total formulations.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Is it an ester for the sake of being an ester, or is it an ester group on some other boundary lubricant for the sake of having a tenacious molecule that is vying for surface.
Remember, all that we care about esters is that their structure is such that surface free energy is minimized when the molecule "bonds" (chemisorbs) to the surface.
So the question still is, does the rest of the hydrocarbon chain do something, or is there some other chemistry attached that is actually providing the protection in the boundary lubrication regime?
Im not saying that esters are bad or wrong in any way... But if they draw a pretty picture, and the masses are brainwashed that they must have PAO, POE, etc. and pay a premium for top protection, then the product has done its "job".
Good question...and answer.
Is it an ester for the sake of being an ester, or is it an ester group on some other boundary lubricant for the sake of having a tenacious molecule that is vying for surface.
Remember, all that we care about esters is that their structure is such that surface free energy is minimized when the molecule "bonds" (chemisorbs) to the surface.
So the question still is, does the rest of the hydrocarbon chain do something, or is there some other chemistry attached that is actually providing the protection in the boundary lubrication regime?
Im not saying that esters are bad or wrong in any way... But if they draw a pretty picture, and the masses are brainwashed that they must have PAO, POE, etc. and pay a premium for top protection, then the product has done its "job".
Good question...and answer.
Ah, esters. Many types, many functions. Seemingly sought after ingredients like moly and esters gain their high regard from their inherent functions IMO. I don't see it as unreasonable or fanatic as some people might suggest. It's like a French Wine vs a California Wine, people might choose the French Wine because it has a sort of, how you say, 'je ne c'est quoi', others the California Wine because 'they're just as good, dude'.
Well lucky for us, with base oils, we have objective data to influence our decisions.
'Ester' is a broad term that refers to several chemicals. Different chemistries, but the same polar-molecule characteristics. There are 3 primary types of esters: acid/anhydride based (ie mono- di-esters, phthalates etc used as plasticizers and in motor oil for seal swell), Polyol Esters (alcohol based- used as motor oil base), and polymeric esters like PAG/complex esters. The latter is still advancing still with double end-capped PAGs and other new stable types that will see use in motor oil in future.
So are esters worth anybody's time?
Well, the ester linkage withstands extreme heat very well. It's strong polarity means strong attraction to metal oxide layers providing effective boundary lubrication and friction modification on it's own. High polarity means strong solvency and less 'dropout' meaning that since organic oil contaminants are also polar, the esters compete for available oxygen on surfaces and 'hold' off varnish and deposits from bonding. In fact, I'll bet that the descriptions of "active seeking cleaners" and "traps and locks soot in suspension" seen on some bottles refer to added esters. That kind of versatility is very attractive, and I'm no savant here, tribos and formulators have heard of these legends and use esters of various types and various quantities to achieve some of these properties- often to make up for a deficiency of another base oil especially non-polar PAO and the saturated groups of hydroprocessed oils. There is a strong balance of performance and cost at play here, this is undeniable, therefore a "what's good for the goose" can't be determined solely on the ester concentration in an oil- meaning we can't say that Redline or Motul ester oil is 'too much' just simply because Mobil 1 or PP or PYB does it's job well without significant ester content and vice-versa. If esters came out of the ground ready to use, cheap as ever, minimal processing needed do you think motor oil blenders would still care about GrI-IV? The tables would probably be turned, with primarily POE based oils, with a dash of some filler for balance.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Is it an ester for the sake of being an ester, or is it an ester group on some other boundary lubricant for the sake of having a tenacious molecule that is vying for surface.
Remember, all that we care about esters is that their structure is such that surface free energy is minimized when the molecule "bonds" (chemisorbs) to the surface.
So the question still is, does the rest of the hydrocarbon chain do something, or is there some other chemistry attached that is actually providing the protection in the boundary lubrication regime?
Im not saying that esters are bad or wrong in any way... But if they draw a pretty picture, and the masses are brainwashed that they must have PAO, POE, etc. and pay a premium for top protection, then the product has done its "job".
It is pretty much that case: an ester for the sake of being an ester! Esters are just as 'real' of boundary lubrication than metallic AW/FM additives. Just because they are so multi-functional doesn't make them fake or less effective. As for the egregore of religious cultism surrounding esters, I would certainly hope that anyone with a propensity for nitpicking the best protection for their machines like us here on BITOG, would not fall to some religious experience of mass psychology and instead hold something in high regard based on objectivity, fact and it's own merits.
So yes, esters acting as boundary lubrication in and of itself, does provide start-up wear protection. It's just physics.
Well lucky for us, with base oils, we have objective data to influence our decisions.
'Ester' is a broad term that refers to several chemicals. Different chemistries, but the same polar-molecule characteristics. There are 3 primary types of esters: acid/anhydride based (ie mono- di-esters, phthalates etc used as plasticizers and in motor oil for seal swell), Polyol Esters (alcohol based- used as motor oil base), and polymeric esters like PAG/complex esters. The latter is still advancing still with double end-capped PAGs and other new stable types that will see use in motor oil in future.
So are esters worth anybody's time?
Well, the ester linkage withstands extreme heat very well. It's strong polarity means strong attraction to metal oxide layers providing effective boundary lubrication and friction modification on it's own. High polarity means strong solvency and less 'dropout' meaning that since organic oil contaminants are also polar, the esters compete for available oxygen on surfaces and 'hold' off varnish and deposits from bonding. In fact, I'll bet that the descriptions of "active seeking cleaners" and "traps and locks soot in suspension" seen on some bottles refer to added esters. That kind of versatility is very attractive, and I'm no savant here, tribos and formulators have heard of these legends and use esters of various types and various quantities to achieve some of these properties- often to make up for a deficiency of another base oil especially non-polar PAO and the saturated groups of hydroprocessed oils. There is a strong balance of performance and cost at play here, this is undeniable, therefore a "what's good for the goose" can't be determined solely on the ester concentration in an oil- meaning we can't say that Redline or Motul ester oil is 'too much' just simply because Mobil 1 or PP or PYB does it's job well without significant ester content and vice-versa. If esters came out of the ground ready to use, cheap as ever, minimal processing needed do you think motor oil blenders would still care about GrI-IV? The tables would probably be turned, with primarily POE based oils, with a dash of some filler for balance.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Is it an ester for the sake of being an ester, or is it an ester group on some other boundary lubricant for the sake of having a tenacious molecule that is vying for surface.
Remember, all that we care about esters is that their structure is such that surface free energy is minimized when the molecule "bonds" (chemisorbs) to the surface.
So the question still is, does the rest of the hydrocarbon chain do something, or is there some other chemistry attached that is actually providing the protection in the boundary lubrication regime?
Im not saying that esters are bad or wrong in any way... But if they draw a pretty picture, and the masses are brainwashed that they must have PAO, POE, etc. and pay a premium for top protection, then the product has done its "job".
It is pretty much that case: an ester for the sake of being an ester! Esters are just as 'real' of boundary lubrication than metallic AW/FM additives. Just because they are so multi-functional doesn't make them fake or less effective. As for the egregore of religious cultism surrounding esters, I would certainly hope that anyone with a propensity for nitpicking the best protection for their machines like us here on BITOG, would not fall to some religious experience of mass psychology and instead hold something in high regard based on objectivity, fact and it's own merits.
So yes, esters acting as boundary lubrication in and of itself, does provide start-up wear protection. It's just physics.
Well said jrustles!
- Status
Similar threads
