Will the chemistry of low visc oils catch up to physical properties of thicker ones

[StevieC]

This is all moot because no two engines are the same, used under the same conditions with the same lubricant. Do UOA's, establish a trend, make a change to one variable (Eg: Lubricant choice or viscosity) and then decide what is best. It's the ONLY way that has evidence supporting the decision of what to use.

 

[aquariuscsm]

So should I go back to 20W50 in my 300ZX and change my Accord over to 10W30?

 

[zeng]

Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by nap
Originally Posted by wemay
Shannow [...] Your inference that by me questioning the use of of "outdated" studies means it isnt to be considered is misdirected. Things change in science all the time. A novice like me is just interested if those conclusions still hold true.


Being at the receiving end of "the paper you quoted is outdated / old / etc" comments too, let me clarify how this actually works:

A paper doesn't become "obsolete" just through sheer age. It becomes obsolete only when a new study, benefiting of new materials, technologies or methods is published, and it either refines or disproves the previous paper.

Anyone intending to dismiss Stribeck's work "because obsolete" should better be prepared to provide a link to the newer study. Same with any other paper.


Thankyou...

That's the trouble when one is here reading literally .......
Understanding and reading a complex system of inter-related concepts are two entirely different approaches/perspectives , then add in an element of one's interpretation in a specific context that at times being influenced by one's anecdotal experience that's limiting , often leads to divergent conclusions/results/judgements.
In other words, often times we physically touch a minute part of a big elephant whilst blindfolded, and making judgements that an elephant is abcxyz ! I suppose Shannow is often 'seeing' this phenomena with his own 'eyes'.

 

[ChemLabNL]

"Question...why is "hate" the buzzword on BITOG for the last few years for disagreeing with a position ? (even a wrong one)???"

It's the triumph of childish emotion over reason, as far as I can tell. Usually associated with a lack of math and physics education.

Exception being titanium and trimer moly.

 

[ChemLabNL]

Engineers can state with near 100% certainty that those who claim Engineers are "Trained" are themselves not Engineers. They are common Memorizers that can't integrate concepts.

HTHS >3.5, low VI improvers, low NOACK, and low Sequence IVA are what should be basically focused on.

 

[SonofJoe]

Originally Posted by ChemLabNL
Engineers can state with near 100% certainty that those who claim Engineers are "Trained" are themselves not Engineers. They are common Memorizers that can't integrate concepts.

HTHS >3.5, low VI improvers, low NOACK, and low Sequence IVA are what should be basically focused on.



Yeah. Right. Like focussing on an easy to pass wear test, that uses a 20 year old engine, that never goes above 1500 rpm, is going to be in anyway way relevant or meaningful in 2018!

I think you need to honestly reappraise your own ability to 'integrate concepts' before preaching to others!

 

[userfriendly]

I'm still waiting after 11 pages of discussion to find out what the new additives are that allow low viscosity engine oil to replace traditional viscosity.
I would imagine that every company that blends such oil would have access to these new additives.
I could name perhaps 5 or 6 additive companies. Do they all have such additive systems, and, are they all different from each other?

 

[SonofJoe]

I hope you've bought a good book to read because I think you're in for a long wait.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted by hatt
Originally Posted by fdcg27
..and it matters not at all unless the engine wears out before the rest of the vehicle does and that never seems to happen for most users.

Maybe for econoboxes in the rust belt. Not so much with trucks in much of the country. There are plenty of 20+ year old vehicles running around here. People don't take good running trucks to the junkyard.


This old chestnut comes up from time to time.
Fact is that pickups are no more durable nor reliable as they age than are passenger cars and there's ample fleet data to back this up.
I see twenty year old cars running around here every day of the week.
That they're mostly Accords and Camrys is for the same reason that one sees twenty year old pickups every day.
Original sales volume was high and the numbers that you see surviving today reflect that.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by hatt
Originally Posted by fdcg27
..and it matters not at all unless the engine wears out before the rest of the vehicle does and that never seems to happen for most users.

Maybe for econoboxes in the rust belt. Not so much with trucks in much of the country. There are plenty of 20+ year old vehicles running around here. People don't take good running trucks to the junkyard.


This old chestnut comes up from time to time.
Fact is that pickups are no more durable nor reliable as they age than are passenger cars and there's ample fleet data to back this up.
I see twenty year old cars running around here every day of the week.
That they're mostly Accords and Camrys is for the same reason that one sees twenty year old pickups every day.
Original sales volume was high and the numbers that you see surviving today reflect that.

Trucks with a strong engine and decent body are worth fixing. The 15 year old Escort/etc that needs a new transmission, maybe not. If you can point me to older pickups in good condition that just need a transmission, rear end, suspension, etc for salvage value I'd appreciate it.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted by ChemLabNL
"Question...why is "hate" the buzzword on BITOG for the last few years for disagreeing with a position ? (even a wrong one)???"

It's the triumph of childish emotion over reason, as far as I can tell. Usually associated with a lack of math and physics education...




Thumbs Up Icon that never shows.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted by userfriendly
I'm still waiting after 11 pages of discussion to find out what the new additives are that allow low viscosity engine oil to replace traditional viscosity.
I would imagine that every company that blends such oil would have access to these new additives.
I could name perhaps 5 or 6 additive companies. Do they all have such additive systems, and, are they all different from each other?


Yer wait is over! "Unconventional lubricant and additive approaches
such as low phosphorous and high molybdenum
(LPHM) and ashless antiwear additives technologies
offer "step out" performance benefits for fuel
economy, wear prevention, deposit control and
three-way catalyst system protection versus conventional
lubricant and additive approaches. " --- JAG's https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4830433/engine-friction-reduction-trends
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs40544-016-0107-9.pdf , Vanderbilt Chem. & MIT
and "They [Toyota R&D Dept.] have verified effectiveness of
the approaches by increasing dosage of molybdenum
used as friction modifier..."

Could be a real trend is to crank moly up to 700 ppm on about everything.
Kind of like LubeGard Bio/Tech Engine Oil Protectant with esters and a ton of moly.
Although, Ceratec's moly-HBN approach looks like it could do it too.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted by hatt
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by hatt
Originally Posted by fdcg27
..and it matters not at all unless the engine wears out before the rest of the vehicle does and that never seems to happen for most users.

Maybe for econoboxes in the rust belt. Not so much with trucks in much of the country. There are plenty of 20+ year old vehicles running around here. People don't take good running trucks to the junkyard.


This old chestnut comes up from time to time.
Fact is that pickups are no more durable nor reliable as they age than are passenger cars and there's ample fleet data to back this up.
I see twenty year old cars running around here every day of the week.
That they're mostly Accords and Camrys is for the same reason that one sees twenty year old pickups every day.
Original sales volume was high and the numbers that you see surviving today reflect that.

Trucks with a strong engine and decent body are worth fixing. The 15 year old Escort/etc that needs a new transmission, maybe not. If you can point me to older pickups in good condition that just need a transmission, rear end, suspension, etc for salvage value I'd appreciate it.


Pretty much anything in good overall condition is worth fixing.
Vehicles in regular use in most parts of the country don't stay that way forever.
Rust never sleeps for those of us in the north and that includes trucks.
A pickup that needs a transmission, a rear end or a new front end is probably a used up old thing without many miles left in it and is unlikely to have a pristine engine.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Or, maybe the long-time Schaeffer approach will become more common. "Synergistic lubricant additives of antimony thioantimonate and molybdenum disulfide" -- https://patents.google.com/patent/US4557839 , if that is the form and IP Schaeffer uses...
Although, someone posted, with no info, that Schaeffer has abadoned antimony. Anybody know if this is true? 5 years ago Schaeffer 9000 5w30 had it (PQIA). And that was SN GF-5 dexos1 stuff, so recent enough, the current spec basically, except not Gen2 yet.

 

[nap]

Originally Posted by oil_film_movies

Yer wait is over! "Unconventional lubricant and additive approaches
such as low phosphorous and high molybdenum
(LPHM) and ashless antiwear additives technologies
offer "step out" performance benefits for fuel
economy, wear prevention, deposit control and
three-way catalyst system protection versus conventional
lubricant and additive approaches. " --- JAG's https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4830433/engine-friction-reduction-trends
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs40544-016-0107-9.pdf , Vanderbilt Chem. & MIT
and "They [Toyota R&D Dept.] have verified effectiveness of
the approaches by increasing dosage of molybdenum
used as friction modifier..."


Not really.... Nowhere does the paper say that by just adding moly to a thin oil you can match the properties of a thicker one (which is the question that the OP asked, and the thread's title). The claim in the paper is just that the moly has benefits.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted by fdcg27


Pretty much anything in good overall condition is worth fixing.
Vehicles in regular use in most parts of the country don't stay that way forever.
Rust never sleeps for those of us in the north and that includes trucks.
A pickup that needs a transmission, a rear end or a new front end is probably a used up old thing without many miles left in it and is unlikely to have a pristine engine.
I see. So engines don't really outlast pickup trucks.

 

[SonofJoe]

Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
Or, maybe the long-time Schaeffer approach will become more common. "Synergistic lubricant additives of antimony thioantimonate and molybdenum disulfide" -- https://patents.google.com/patent/US4557839 , if that is the form and IP Schaeffer uses...
Although, someone posted, with no info, that Schaeffer has abadoned antimony. Anybody know if this is true? 5 years ago Schaeffer 9000 5w30 had it (PQIA). And that was SN GF-5 dexos1 stuff, so recent enough, the current spec basically, except not Gen2 yet.



Whatever the question is, I seriously doubt that Antimony Thioantimonate is the answer.

First, despite the fancy name, this is in essence Antimony Sulphide & analogous to Moly & Tungsten sulphides. That means it's a black, discolouring, powdered solid & therefore taboo in any mainstream motor oil (oil solubility & clarity is a must!).

Second, Antimony is just one up from Arsenic in the Periodic Table so a big red flag will get waved at some point in any development program. It may well be harmless but I have seen many other supposedly 'harmless' chemistries fall by the wayside (eg Barium Sulphonate & chlorinated ashless dispersants). Oil companies & the AddCo's are extremely risk averse and have a pathological distrust of anything that's new & unproven!

 

[aquariuscsm]

This makes me think of Rat's oil tests,because didn't the 20wt oils show higher film strengths over the 50wt oils?

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted by SonofJoe
Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
Or, maybe the long-time Schaeffer approach will become more common. "Synergistic lubricant additives of antimony thioantimonate and molybdenum disulfide" -- https://patents.google.com/patent/US4557839 , if that is the form and IP Schaeffer uses... .

First, despite the fancy name, this is in essence Antimony Sulphide & analogous to Moly & Tungsten sulphides. That means it's a black, discolouring, powdered solid & therefore taboo in any mainstream motor oil (oil solubility & clarity is a must!).


Originally Posted by nap
Originally Posted by oil_film_movies

" high molybdenum
(LPHM) and ashless antiwear additives technologies
offer "step out" performance benefits for fuel
economy, wear prevention, deposit control ."
Not really.... Nowhere does the paper say that by just adding moly to a thin oil you can match the properties of a thicker one (which is the question that the OP asked, and the thread's title). The claim in the paper is just that the moly has benefits.
You're not seeing the forest for the trees. In an engine & at any given condition, a certain % is hydrodynamic and it's zero wear there. The other part is boundary (scraping together) conditions. With lower viscosity, a greater % is boundary. Sounds bad, right? And that's what confuses a lot of people as they only see that "tree". .... However, as the paper is saying, increased attention to boundary conditions via moly or whatever, even when a higher % of surfaces are boundary as in when using lower viscosity, the overall ("forest") actually can achieve less or equal wear compared to higher viscosity oils since boundary conditions are handled better using surface active additives. Also, low temperature flow of lower viscosity oils reduce wear more than thicker oils, again part of the big picture, the overall effect.

I imagine these same sorts of whiners and naysayers were objecting when thinner 10w30 oil first started to be used in the 1950's when additive (surface tribofilm) technology was just beginning to make up for what thicker oil did in the past. "That thar 10w30 with ZDDP can't replace my 50 weight oil."-- 1953, in a garage somewhere.....

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
...You're not seeing the forest for the trees. In an engine & at any given condition, a certain % is hydrodynamic and it's zero wear there. The other part is boundary (scraping together) conditions. With lower viscosity, a greater % is boundary. Sounds bad, right? And that's what confuses a lot of people as they only see that "tree". .... However, as the paper is saying, increased attention to boundary conditions via moly or whatever, even when a higher % of surfaces are boundary as in when using lower viscosity, the overall ("forest") actually can achieve less or equal wear compared to higher viscosity oils since boundary conditions are handled better using surface active additives. Also, low temperature flow of lower viscosity oils reduce wear more than thicker oils, again part of the big picture, the overall effect.

I imagine these same sorts of whiners and naysayers were objecting when thinner 10w30 oil first started to be used in the 1950's when additive (surface tribofilm) technology was just beginning to make up for what thicker oil did in the past. "That thar 10w30 with ZDDP can't replace my 50 weight oil."-- 1953, in a garage somewhere.....


+1