Looks like someone has proved NOACK/DI Deposit

[badtlc]

and organic friction modifier relationship:

http://www.google.com/patents/US8017565

According to this patent lower NOACK and no ashless organic friction modifiers is the key. I assume this means Moly = bad stuff.

I guess Pennzoil Ultra 5w20 (5% noack) it is for me until I can find another reasonably priced low NOACK oil out there with no moly.

 

[buster]

Mobil 1's SA is now only .8, the lowest among all full synthetics. And the volatility of EP/AFE and some grades of Mobil 1 are < 10%.

http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_1_Extended_Performance.aspx

Ultra is still using quite a bit of calcium. Amsoil's SA is probably around 1.2.

 

[jmac]

Moly is by no means ashless.

Quote:
By “ashless” in respect of the friction modifier is meant a non-metallic organic material that forms substantially no ash on combustion. It is to be contrasted with metal-containing, and hence ash-forming, materials.


Ashless would be those not easily detectable by FTIR.

 

[buster]

◦“phosphorus content” is as measured by ASTM 15185;
◦“sulphated ash content” is as measured by ASTM D874;
◦“sulphur content” is as measured by ASTM D2622;
◦“KV100” means kinematic viscosity at 100° C. as measured by ASTM D445.


Royal Sulphur, I mean Purple, had 15,000 ppm of sulphur. Non-API stuff.

 

[A_Harman]

Interesting. Patent application filed by Infineum in 2007, and published in 2011. In addition to specifying NOACK less than 12, it also says the oil should NOT contain ashless organic friction modifiers.

Can you really get a patent on something that you DON'T put in a product?

And here's a little gem from deep in the text: "Preferably, the base oil is not a Fischer-Tropsch derived base oil." Does this mean that even though SN PU has a low NOACK number, it is unsuitable because it has GTL basestock?

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman

And here's a little gem from deep in the text: "Preferably, the base oil is not a Fischer-Tropsch derived base oil." Does this mean that even though SN PU has a low NOACK number, it is unsuitable because it has GTL basestock?



i think that depends how Shell derives the GTL. It sounds like there are other methods out there.

So what are "ashless organic friction modifiers?" Is Moly one? What are some others.

 

[jmac]

Originally Posted By: badtlc


i think that depends how Shell derives the GTL. It sounds like there are other methods out there.

So what are "ashless organic friction modifiers?" Is Moly one? What are some others.


It describes them right in the patent, you should go back and read it. For the second time, no, Moly is not one.

 

[Boomer]

Moly is a metalderived material (molybdenum) and therefore not ashless on combustion. Ashless would be ure organic friction modifiers that combust completely.

 

[A_Harman]

jmac had it in his post earlier: metal-containing friction modifiers form ash. Then I would conclude that Infineum's trinuclear organic moly additive forms ash. As would zddp.

 

[Capa]

Originally Posted By: buster



Royal Sulphur, I mean Purple, had 15,000 ppm of sulphur. Non-API stuff.


Lol.

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: jmac

It describes them right in the patent, you should go back and read it. For the second time, no, Moly is not one.


I did read it. this is the quote: "Preferably, the base oil is not a Fischer-Tropsch derived base oil."

That doesn't specifically say "all GTL" base oils. I take that to mean there might be other ways to derive GTL bases.

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: Boomer
Moly is a metalderived material (molybdenum) and therefore not ashless on combustion. Ashless would be ure organic friction modifiers that combust completely.


OK, so moly would be a good friction modifier for DI engines? But the patent says "preferably, these (moly) are absent." Thanks for that clarification! I wonder why moly seems to be the exception.

And the way I'm reading the patent, the formation of ash is NOT a bad thing for DI deposits. So if it produces ash, it is better than ashless organic options.

EDIT: Does this also mean ester base oils are bad or just ester based friction modifiers?

 

[badtlc]

bummer. It looks like Shell's GTL is fischer-tropsch derived:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_GTL

OK, PP 0W20 it is!! Haha.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: badtlc

EDIT: Does this also mean ester base oils are bad or just ester based friction modifiers?


From the patent: "Another suitable class of synthetic lubricating oils comprises the esters of dicarboxylic acids..."

Ester-based oils would be OK.

 

[MolaKule]

"ashless organic friction modifiers" generally means non-metallic organic chemistry's such as, for example,

1. specific ester chemistry's such as polymer esters,

2. fatty acids,

3. specific dithiocarbamates.

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
"ashless organic friction modifiers" generally means non-metallic organic chemistry's such as, for example,

1. specific ester chemistry's such as polymer esters,

2. fatty acids,

3. specific dithiocarbamates.


Thanks molakule. Would you have any idea which oils might fit the bill of not containing these friction modifiers?

Also, do you have any idea why moly is preferably avoided when it is not an ashless organic friction modifier? Any idea why GTL derived bases would be less effective?

 

[gogozy]

Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: jmac

It describes them right in the patent, you should go back and read it. For the second time, no, Moly is not one.


I did read it. this is the quote: "Preferably, the base oil is not a Fischer-Tropsch derived base oil."

That doesn't specifically say "all GTL" base oils. I take that to mean there might be other ways to derive GTL bases.

or maybe GTL based oil have naturally low NOACK number, however the low NOACK number does not deliver the same result comparable to other lubricant with a higher NOACK value, maybe??

 

[Smokescreen]

Originally Posted By: badtlc
... I assume this means Moly = bad stuff....


How dare you...moly is the nectar of the oil gods

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: gogozy
or maybe GTL based oil have naturally low NOACK number, however the low NOACK number does not deliver the same result comparable to other lubricant with a higher NOACK value, maybe??


That is a great question. I need to talk to my chemical co-workers. We design these types of processes but I'm just an electrical. They probably have no clue about these materials with respect to use in a combustion engine, but worth a shot.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
Two of the compositions, being examples of the invention (Examples 1 and 2), were free of any ashless, organic friction modifier.


Notice the tricky language in the Examples section.

Example 1 and 2 formulations, which had lowest IV deposits had 'no' organic friction modifiers in defference to the A and B formulations.

Formulations A and B had the older technology mono-oleate and oleamide friction modifiers.

HOWEVER, this does NOT mean they didn't use an "Inorganic" friction modifier in formulations 1 and 2.