Thin cleans better, allows longer OCI than thick!

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
The reason for the TEOST exemption was that the Japanese manufacturers wanted to load their 0W-20's with many hundreds of ppms of moly and did so in the past (ADEKA SAKURA-LUBE), which leads to deposits.


Read through that a couple of times, and don't see where it mentions hundreds of PPM of moly, or increased deposits, leading to lobbying the API to change the results for 0W20 only...why just 0W20, and not the Japanese other offerings in other viscosities.

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
It has nothing to do with the base oil or viscosity. Today newer forms of moly such as the Infineum trinuclear moly work at only 75 - 100 ppm in achieving the same friction modification.


But the thinner base oils should have kept these cleaner...

Regarding MoDTC…here's a Savant group paper on it. 360ppm of Mo ion. including TEOST tests with and without the moly.
https://www.savantgroup.com/media/2005-P...e-Oils-STLE.pdf

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
The reason for the TEOST exemption was that the Japanese manufacturers wanted to load their 0W-20's with many hundreds of ppms of moly and did so in the past (ADEKA SAKURA-LUBE), which leads to deposits.

Read through that a couple of times, and don't see where it mentions hundreds of PPM of moly, or increased deposits, leading to lobbying the API to change the results for 0W20 only...why just 0W20, and not the Japanese other offerings in other viscosities.

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
It has nothing to do with the base oil or viscosity. Today newer forms of moly such as the Infineum trinuclear moly work at only 75 - 100 ppm in achieving the same friction modification.

But the thinner base oils should have kept these cleaner...

Regarding MoDTC…here's a Savant group paper on it. 360ppm of Mo ion. including TEOST tests with and without the moly.
https://www.savantgroup.com/media/2005-P...e-Oils-STLE.pdf

Hundreds of ppms of moly -- see the old, Japanese TGMO 0W-20 SM with the ADEKA SAKURA-LUBE moly (~ 600+ ppm).

Good for those guys! This SAE study specifically worries about moly and TEOST:

https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2008-01-2480/

 

[dlundblad]

Engine cleaning is just marketing... Theoretically, an engine is already clean if it's been decently maintained. It should be worded as "maintains cleanliness."

I wouldn't worry about this in the least.

 

[nap]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan

The reason for the TEOST exemption was that they wanted to load their 0W-20's with moly, which leads to deposits. It has nothing to do with the base oil or viscosity.


Of course it does. The need for large quantities of moly or other EP additives is derived exactly from the lack of sufficient viscosity.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: Gokhan

The reason for the TEOST exemption was that they wanted to load their 0W-20's with moly, which leads to deposits. It has nothing to do with the base oil or viscosity.


Of course it does. The need for large quantities of moly or other EP additives is derived exactly from the lack of sufficient viscosity.



If that is the case then why do the Japanese oil companies add large amount of moly to the higher grades as well?

 

[nap]

Originally Posted By: PimTac
Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: Gokhan

The reason for the TEOST exemption was that they wanted to load their 0W-20's with moly, which leads to deposits. It has nothing to do with the base oil or viscosity.


Of course it does. The need for large quantities of moly or other EP additives is derived exactly from the lack of sufficient viscosity.



If that is the case then why do the Japanese oil companies add large amount of moly to the higher grades as well?


Any VOAs to support this?

Anyway, assuming that this would be true, then what would be the reason for which those "higher grades" loaded with moly do not need a TEOST exemption?

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: Gokhan

The reason for the TEOST exemption was that they wanted to load their 0W-20's with moly, which leads to deposits. It has nothing to do with the base oil or viscosity.

Of course it does. The need for large quantities of moly or other EP additives is derived exactly from the lack of sufficient viscosity.

If that is the case then why do the Japanese oil companies add large amount of moly to the higher grades as well?

Any VOAs to support this?

Anyway, assuming that this would be true, then what would be the reason for which those "higher grades" loaded with moly do not need a TEOST exemption?

It is not true that 0W-20's have stronger additive packages than thicker grades. Look at the PQIA PCMO summary list and compare viscosity grades for Mobil 1 and PPPP etc.

http://pqiamerica.com/PCMO_Sample_Summary_12_15_2016.html

In fact, Mobil 1 oil product guide (PDF link) says 0W-20 has a weaker additive package.

Regarding Japanese oils having equally excess amounts of moly across viscosity grades, this is not true. We are talking about 700 ppm moly in the Japanese TGMO 0W-20. Which Japanese 5W-30 has 700 ppm moly? I just did a quick check for ENEOS, the most popular motor oil in Japan. ENEOS 0W-20 has 770 ppm moly. ENEOS Sustina 0W-20 (mostly USA marketing) has 230 ppm moly. ENEOS 5W-30 has virtually no moly. ENEOS Sustina 5W-30 (mostly USA marketing) has 130 ppm moly (which I don't consider excessive).

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39983&page=2
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/1960498/Eneos_5w30_VOA_and_UOA_on_G37
https://www.toyotanation.com/forum/8-general-discussion/404687-new-eneos-sustina-5w-30-voa.html

The high moly is for fuel economy, not wear protection. Moly doesn't make up for low viscosity in the hydrodynamic-lubrication region, such as in the bearings. You are never supposed to have metal-to-metal contact in the bearings and the viscosity is the only thing that keeps that from happening.

 

[nap]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
The high moly is for fuel economy, not wear protection. Moly doesn't make up for low viscosity in the hydrodynamic-lubrication region, such as in the bearings. You are never supposed to have metal-to-metal contact in the bearings and the viscosity is the only thing that keeps that from happening.


Ravenol, page 8:

https://www.ravenol.de/fileadmin/content/documents/pdfs/Ravenol_EFE_SAE_0W-16__en.pdf

Eneos, page 2 fig 1:

http://www.eneos.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/0W-16-Brochure.pdf

They both seem to admit that the additives are there because the oil alone would be otherwise working in mixed or boundary lubrication mode (due to insufficient viscosity).

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
The high moly is for fuel economy, not wear protection. Moly doesn't make up for low viscosity in the hydrodynamic-lubrication region, such as in the bearings. You are never supposed to have metal-to-metal contact in the bearings and the viscosity is the only thing that keeps that from happening.

Ravenol, page 8:

https://www.ravenol.de/fileadmin/content/documents/pdfs/Ravenol_EFE_SAE_0W-16__en.pdf

Eneos, page 2 fig 1:

http://www.eneos.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/0W-16-Brochure.pdf

They both seem to admit that the additives are there because the oil alone would be otherwise working in mixed or boundary lubrication mode (due to insufficient viscosity).

Antiwear/extreme-pressure benefits of moly saturate at lower concentrations and beyond that its friction-modifier benefits are enhanced.

I'm very familiar with those 0W-16 worries. They are mainly talking about the possibility of exiting the hydrodynamic-lubrication region and entering the mixed-lubrication region because of the lower viscosity and trying to use better AW/EP additives to help if that happens. This is different than using 800 ppm of moly to reduce the boundary friction as the Japanese 0W-20's do. As I pointed out, there are no additive-pack differences between North American 0W-20 and thicker grades and if there are, 0W-20 actually has a weaker additive package, as in Mobil 1 AFE.

 

[Gokhan]

Now, finally, you have learned why 0W-20 is excluded from TEOST 33C, something that has been bugging you all these years.

It has nothing to do with the oil viscosity or thinner base oil. As I explained in this thread, if the moly ppm's are equal, 0W-20 actually does better than thicker viscosity grades in TEOST 33C. This makes sense because thinner oil has shorter molecules, which are less likely to break down and cause deposits than longer molecules in thicker oil.

ConocoPhillips ILSAC GF-5 white paper (PDF file)

 

[buster]

The moly used in Mobil 1 and others where you see up to only approximately 80-150ppm is a different type of moly than those found in the brands that are using in exesss of 600ppm (Mazda/Honda/Redline etc). That is what some of those oils don't do well in the TEOST. The TEOST test has a flaw, and that is it only tests new oil. There are better turbo deposit tests than the TEOST.

 

[1JZ_E46]

No thanks. I’ll stick with a proper 3.5+ HTHS synthetic. I think your making sweeping conclusions from a limited data set without a complete understanding of the subject.

 

[JAG]

The paper did not test or discuss cleaning of deposits.

Every base oil tested was of a significantly different chemical make-up. That strongly effects their performance in almost any performance test. Viscosities at 100C we’re either around 9.7 for two of them, 5.0 for three of them, 4.2 for one, and 5.9 for none. That is a poor set to make conclusions about the effect of viscosity at 100C in deposit formation due to both of those realities. That was not one of the main objectives of the paper, but because they were doing a lot of regression analyses, they apparently figured that they might as well do it also do it on viscosity. If it had been a main focus they would have chosen the base oil(s) of the same chemical make-up(s), and varied the viscosity over a sufficiently large range (ideally at least as large as 4 cST to 10 cSt).

The base oils did not contain additives. The oils that underwent less processing contain various sulfur and nitrogen compounds that came from the crude oil and survived the processing. These compounds act as antioxidants that improves their performance in oxidation tests. PAO has essentially none of these compounds. Additionally, different base oil types respond differently to antioxidants added by formulators. The heavily processed base oils tend to respond more strongly to adding antioxidant additives than do the lesser processed ones. Fully formulated oils we buy of course also contain a lot of other additive types besides antioxidants, which are chosen specifically for the type(s) of base oils they will be mixed with. Testing pure base oils informs scientists and their understanding for the sake of understanding, but the results should not be used by us to make big statements about fully formulated oils.

Deposit tests in which the oil thickness is thin and oil vapors are removed from the test will give a large advantage to the more volatile oils. If an oil molecule is not present on the heated surface, it cannot possibly leave a deposit on it. That is why the oil that 100% evaporated away had 0 deposits and largely why the oils that evaporated the least had the most deposits. One must think carefully of what parts in an engine are similar to a test like this. There is certainly no complete or largely complete analog to it.

Those hydrogenated aromatic base oils performed relatively well in those tests. They had low deposits and the highest temperature of onset of oxidation in the PDSC test. They have too many negative traits so they are typically purposely kept out of our lubricants to a large extent. PAO performed relatively poorly due to a combination of its low volatility, having no natural antioxidant, and the nature of its chemical make-up.

 

[bbhero]

Thank JAG for you great posts on here.

 

[nap]

Gokham is actually onto something albeit not what he originally intended....

Let’s see, an oil manufacturer is interested that his product meets the claimed specs (such as API SN).

A car manufacturer is interested that their engines get through the warranty period without major warranty repairs.

Gokham notices that generic API rated 0W20 (such as M1 or Pennzoil) oils have a rather different composition than car manufacturer branded 0W20 (such as Honda and Toyota) oils.

Could it be that, in the case of 0W20 oils, these manufacturers feel that just a plain jane API spec would be insufficient for their engines? And that they should instead encourage the use of their specially formulated house brand oils?

Let’s see:



which suggests that they are not comfortable with you using any other brand of 0W20 than their own, and would rather see you using a generic 5W30 over a M1 0W20......

 

[PimTac]

My Mazda owners manual says to use Castrol. The Mazda Moly oil is only recommended for best fuel economy.

 

[Gokhan]

I think it's pretty intuitive that shorter molecular chains are more stable than longer molecular chains. Longer molecular chains mean higher viscosity and lower volatility because the chains have larger molecular attractive forces keeping them together. However, that comes at the expense of some decrease in the stability of the molecular chains.

Therefore, the paper's conclusions should apply to oils in general.

Interestingly, the European OEM's, for whom oil oxidation is important, recommend the thinnest base stock -- 0W -- for their performance applications, such as the GC 0W-30/40 and M1 0W-40. Coincidence? Perhaps the strict thin-film oxidation tests these oils go through are better passed with the 0W base stocks.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: nap
Gokham is actually onto something albeit not what he originally intended....

Let’s see, an oil manufacturer is interested that his product meets the claimed specs (such as API SN).

A car manufacturer is interested that their engines get through the warranty period without major warranty repairs.

Gokham notices that generic API rated 0W20 (such as M1 or Pennzoil) oils have a rather different composition than car manufacturer branded 0W20 (such as Honda and Toyota) oils.

Could it be that, in the case of 0W20 oils, these manufacturers feel that just a plain jane API spec would be insufficient for their engines? And that they should instead encourage the use of their specially formulated house brand oils?

Let’s see:



which suggests that they are not comfortable with you using any other brand of 0W20 than their own, and would rather see you using a generic 5W30 over a M1 0W20......


Your last sentence should bring on some interesting discussion, especially from team Mobil fans here.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
No thanks. I’ll stick with a proper 3.5+ HTHS synthetic.

I think I wasn't clear in my original post. We are talking about the base oil, not the finished oil.

For example Mobil 1 0W-40 has a very thin base oil but it has KV100 = 13.5 cSt and HTHSV = 3.8 cP. Using its CCS @ -35 C = 5700 cP and NOACK = 9%, BOQI = 68, which is an extremely high base-oil-quality index, definitely in the Group III+/GTL/PAO range (data from an ExxonMobil presentation [PDF link]).

So, you cam still have a "thin" oil with a very high HTHSV. "Thin" actually refers to a thin base oil and a low CCS -- as in 0W-xx -- in this case, not to KV100 or HTHSV.

Is a "thin" oil (as in a thin base oil) always the best of all worlds? No, as I pointed out to a Nissan study recently (link to the post), thinner base oils such as in 0W-20 and 0W-16 may lead to increased chain wear or increased valvetrain wear.

Motor oil is always about compromise! Usually, the manufacturer's recommendations are good, as they try to optimize various variables.

 

[Shannow]

So now it's a thick oil that's really thin on the inside (inside every fat person is a thin person), and it's thin that's in...again...

And again...it's not the viscosity...it's the different base oils in the study.

Nothing in that study leads anyone to the conclusions that you have made up come up with.