Titanium

[littlehulkster]

Originally Posted by buster
The Ti Castrol uses is not the same as what CP/Kendall is using. I was told or read it's their prorprietary developed Ti additive. I'm not even sure if it's the same as Afton's.


Castrol WOULD say that, but everything I've seen shows that it doesn't make a difference in practical terms.

 

[buster]

Was told by a Castrol formulator that their Ti is in-house patented and not bought in. Don't know more than that nor do I care.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by buster
Was told by a Castrol formulator that their Ti is in-house patented and not bought in. Don't know more than that nor do I care.

Nah, the only organic titanium ("liquid titanium") patent I'm aware of is held by the Afton Chemical additive company and Castrol was one of the first to use it. Unlike Chevron (Oronite) and ExxonMobil & Shell (Infineum), Castrol doesn't make additives but buys them from third parties as far as I know.

 

[buster]

Gokhan, you're probably right and I had thought that too.

 

[Shannow]

https://patents.google.com/patent/US9951291

If the titanium is part of a catalyst additive package to PRODUCE the UMA, Chemaloy, Magnatec, Titan anti wear film, it's going to be in tiny concentrations, rather than an "active" tribofilm generator like ZDDP MoDTC etc.

 

[fdcg27]

Plus, we have one guy here who actually did oil formulation as a career who doesn't think much of titanium as an add.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by Shannow
https://patents.google.com/patent/US9951291

If the titanium is part of a catalyst additive package to PRODUCE the UMA, Chemaloy, Magnatec, Titan anti wear film, it's going to be in tiny concentrations, rather than an "active" tribofilm generator like ZDDP MoDTC etc.

Interesting patent from Argonne Research Labs (the real-life Stranger Things place).

Kendall and Castrol say liquid and fluid titanium, respectively, which are both almost certainly referring to the organically bound, oil-solvable titanium dioxide of Afton Chemical. The Afton patent says about 10 ppm to about 1500 ppm Ti; therefore, low-ppm Ti is allowed. Moreover, the Argonne patent was published less than a year ago and it's unlikely that any oil uses this technology.

How does titanium compare to moly? This is something to be researched.

 

[zeng]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Plus, we have one guy here who actually did oil formulation as a career who doesn't think much of titanium as an add.

.. that depends on which specific Ti compound was he referring to , on top of relevant lubricant application types from which 'desired' performance parameters are 'selected' and , at the end of the day, it's cost effectiveness vis-a-vis various other Moly and Boron compounds ......
assumining expertise and facilities isn't a limiting factor.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by Shannow
https://patents.google.com/patent/US9951291

If the titanium is part of a catalyst additive package to PRODUCE the UMA, Chemaloy, Magnatec, Titan anti wear film, it's going to be in tiny concentrations, rather than an "active" tribofilm generator like ZDDP MoDTC etc.
Interesting patent from Argonne Research Labs (the real-life Stranger Things place).

Kendall and Castrol say liquid and fluid titanium, respectively, which are both almost certainly referring to the organically bound, oil-solvable titanium dioxide of Afton Chemical. The Afton patent says about 10 ppm to about 1500 ppm Ti; therefore, low-ppm Ti is allowed. Moreover, the Argonne patent was published less than a year ago and it's unlikely that any oil uses this technology.

How does titanium compare to moly? This is something to be researched.

Looking a bit at the Argonne patent, I doubt any oil company would ever use it.

Problems:

(1) It modifies the base oil, at least part of it, by breaking long oil molecules into dimers or trimers. That could modify the behavior of the base oil a lot. Also, the behavior of the additive would change with the type of the base oil.

(2) It deposits carbon films, which goes against trying to clean the carbon deposits in the engines. It would not only increase the deposits substantially but also many additives (such as detergents) would work against it.

(3) Some of the potential metals used in the core of the catalyst are toxic.

Therefore, this seems to be more of a theoretical excursion of a government research laboratory than a practicality.

 

[Shannow]

Breaks up the oil in the tribofilm area.
Creating graphite like deposits in the tribofilm.

It's not about filling the sump with soot, any more than MoDTC is about filling the sump with MoS2 solids (which are the mechanism of tribofilm formation woth MoDTC, MoS2 platelets in the phosphate glass tribofilm - oh wait, that's a solid too isn't it ???).

re some of the potential metals being toxic...
a) discussion of titanium...
b) metals in lots of engine components are toxic...so what...various oils have historically contained lead napthenates, without leading to the end of civilisation.


Chances are that it will be used in engine oils well before BOQI ends up in an API/ILSAC spec.

 

[Gokhan]

It's true that moly increases the deposit formation somewhat but carbon films are deposits by definition.

In addition, it has never been studied in a finished oil with other additives nor in an actual engine instead of a friction apparatus.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
It's true that moly increases the deposit formation somewhat but carbon films are deposits by definition..


Graphite formed in the friction surfaces is a sold film lubricant put there with intent...just like MoS2...declaring it as automatically a deposit negating i's purpose automatically puts MoDTC in the same "automatically a deposit" category. Doesn't it ?

In fact they had to rewrite part of the API test protocols specifically for MoDTC's deposit forming tendencies.

Originally Posted by Gokhan
In addition, it has never been studied in a finished oil with other additives nor in an actual engine instead of a friction apparatus.


Question ???

Was MoDTC ever in a state that it hadn't been tested in a finished oil or engine ?

It clearly isn't in the base-stocks...was clearly new to suddenly have all the papers and be flavour of the month on BITOG and be the determinant for a "good" oil in between all the other fads.

 

[Gokhan]

Well, at least, you don't seem to anymore think as you did in your original post that this carbon-deposit catalyst is what they put as titanium in Castrol Edge.

 

[Shannow]

No, I was presenting that at single digit ppms may be more active than people think...

 

[Dak27]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Dak, 2.4L or 3.6L? I ask because I had the 2.4 in my Journey and it was a great engine. Underpowered but really low wearing from what I could see on the UOA. I have the 3.6 now in my Caravan.


It's the 3.6. So far, it's been a very reliable motor, which says a lot, because my wife has a lead-foot!

 

[Dak27]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Plus, we have one guy here who actually did oil formulation as a career who doesn't think much of titanium as an add.



Hmmm. Did this person say why they weren't fond of the titanium additive? Guardol ECT/Kendall DXA oils seem to meet all of the major diesel engine manufacturer's requirements. Like I posted earlier in this thread, my UOAs on P66 Guardol have shown slightly lower iron numbers and has had a bit higher TBN after 15,000 miles compared to when I used Delo 400 LE, Delo SDE, and Delvac Super 1300 15W40 in my Series 60 Detroit.



I haven't had a UOA ran on the Guardol ECT 10W30 as of yet. When I do my next PM, I'm sending off a sample. The sample of Delo 400 10W30 XLE looked incredibly close, if not identical to Delvac Elite 10W30, and the samples I had analyzed on 15W40 Delo 400 SDE and 15W40 Mobil Delvac Super 1300 looked so much alike, that it may as well be the same oil in two different colored jugs.

Someone here told me the Series 60 Detroit motor isn't picky when it comes to oil. Since I've done UOAs, I'm inclined to believe that at least my motor isn't.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by Dak27
Originally Posted by StevieC
Dak, 2.4L or 3.6L? I ask because I had the 2.4 in my Journey and it was a great engine. Underpowered but really low wearing from what I could see on the UOA. I have the 3.6 now in my Caravan.


It's the 3.6. So far, it's been a very reliable motor, which says a lot, because my wife has a lead-foot!


My dad's 2012 Caravan has 300K on it now and runs great. It has the older head design as well.