List of oils by base-oil-quality index: a ranking

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
67.4 Amsoil Signature Series 5W-30

I would take Amsoil's NOACK values with a grain of salt though.

Why?

7.5 v. 7.6

http://www.amsoil.com/lit/databulletins/g2880.pdf

http://www.pqiamerica.com/ATF Feb 2012/2012 April results/Amsoil.htm

and 3954 v. 3398

OR 67 v. 77

Thank you Pablo!

So, the BOQI from the 2012 PQIA numbers is actually significantly higher than from the current Amsoil numbers. Of course, perhaps you've changed the formulation (base stocks) since 2012 as others suggested.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
Well, one of the drivers of this is NOACK. That is partial evaporation of the base oil as percentage over time. So quality is determined by less evaporation. And that may be a laudable goal in hot running engines. But in engines with oil coolers and large sumps, the loss from NOACK never even comes close to the losses from seepage and blow-by, in my experience.

Yes, NOACK is one of the drivers of the BOQI but the claim is that BOQI represents the overall base-oil quality -- not just NOACK -- such as resistance to oxidation. As I've said quite a few times already, you can have a very low NOACK for a thick Group II base oil but since it will also have a very high CCS viscosity, it will still have a very low BOQI, indicating that it has inferior base-oil quality and less resistance to oxidation because it's a Group II base oil.

 

[BrocLuno]

My name's Delo - you talkin to me

 

[dnewton3]

I would remind folks that base oil is just one of the aspects of a fully formulated lubricant. Add-packs have a huge effect on the overall performance (you know; stuff we appreciate like wear reduction and contamination control). The BOQI paints only part of the picture, and perhaps that's why we see lubes with a lower BOQI score still do admirably well in the real world, where it counts.

 

[Shellguy]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
It's a very interesting topic, and makes one ponder the implications.

But I don't see that it matters for most folks, most of the time. I don't care about the nuances of what goes in the bottle. I care about the results. What does wear data tell us? For normal applications, I don't see that high-end expensive lubes (that which would score highly in this BOQ list) do any better job of reducing wear or cleaning or cooling in a normal OCI in a healthy engine system, versus lower alternatives. If you go OUTSIDE normal those conditions (really long OCIs, previous neglect, cooling/fuel/air systems malfunctioning, etc), then maybe it matters.

I've run some really inexpensive oils in UOA testing, but they were always API certified. And they do every bit as well as expensive lubes, even when pushed further than most folks would believe. For example the W/M ST lubes scored low on your list, but I've run them in successive LONG OCIs (dino 5w-30 out to 15k miles in a soccer-mom mini-van application) and yet the UOA wear data was not just "OK", but excellent. Even when pulling the valve cover, there was no undue sludge or varnish. So, the low BOQI score you give belies the performance it really provides. Also, you advise to avoid those which score lower than 22.0, but Motorcraft semi-syn 5-30 comes in a 21.9 ... This is a lube that traditionally turns in very good UOA data.

I agree that lubes which are highly rated on this BOQ list may have more POTENTIAL to perform better IF really extreme conditions would warrant. But most of the time, they are products that possess excess capacity that will NEVER be utilized. Even "normal" products have more capacity than most folks use. Having more of an unused capability is just waste. It's a measure of "better" than never materializes into usefulness.

The lubes at the top of the list have a BOQI approximately 3x higher than those near the bottom. If I were to use a lube with BOQI at 75, versus a lube with BOQI at 25, am I going to be able to see a tangible difference of 3x less wear, or 3x cleaner head surfaces, or 3x better fuel economy, or 3x easier starting in cold weather ... I think you see where I'm going with this. The scale has no real value. The BOQI scale provides an ability to rate lubes on a list, but that scale has no value in terms of real world function. PU does not provide 3x less wear than ST dino oil in a 10k mile OCI. PYB is 3x better than Chevron Supreme, Motorcraft or Valvoline White bottle oil? I'm sorry, but macro statistics wear-data just does not support such a claim.

I don't see any correlation between your list and real world product performance in the crankcase.


This is the only response this thread needs . This thread will have tons on posts and again this is the only post needed. You can't just look at one spec on paper and pass judgement..look at the proof...

 

[BrocLuno]

So I don't see Kendall GT-1 (or similar), Brad Penn Penngrade One, Red Line, Motul 300V, etc. Not saying these are equivalent (maybe RL and 300V ...); but seems they ought to be here somewhere as they get a fair bit of coverage on BITOG ...

 

[Maddog1337]

Curious why Mobil 1 EP wasn't tested (or did I miss it)? Seems to be a popular oil that is a bit different than regular M1. I would love to see where M1 EP would be ranked on this list in addition to M1 Annual Protection and Royal Purple.

 

[edhackett]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I would remind folks that base oil is just one of the aspects of a fully formulated lubricant. Add-packs have a huge effect on the overall performance (you know; stuff we appreciate like wear reduction and contamination control). The BOQI paints only part of the picture, and perhaps that's why we see lubes with a lower BOQI score still do admirably well in the real world, where it counts.


Yes, and the NOACK is influenced by the add-pack. The add-pack components and carrier oil used affects the final NOACK. The NOACK of a fully formulated oil is not the NOACK of the base oil. Without knowing he contribution of the add-pack, this BOQI thing tells you nothing.

Ed

 

[SonofJoe]

Originally Posted By: edhackett
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I would remind folks that base oil is just one of the aspects of a fully formulated lubricant. Add-packs have a huge effect on the overall performance (you know; stuff we appreciate like wear reduction and contamination control). The BOQI paints only part of the picture, and perhaps that's why we see lubes with a lower BOQI score still do admirably well in the real world, where it counts.


Yes, and the NOACK is influenced by the add-pack. The add-pack components and carrier oil used affects the final NOACK. The NOACK of a fully formulated oil is not the NOACK of the base oil. Without knowing he contribution of the add-pack, this BOQI thing tells you nothing.

Ed



Technically you're quite right; DI can affect Noack. However in the US, the impact of DI on Noack is far less than you might imagine.

For any given sub-group of oils (say GF-5 compliant 5W30s), to all intents and purposes, all oils essentially contain THE SAME DI. It's a natural consequence of the way the specs work. The amount of ZDDP you add to a full Group II or Group IV is the same because the max & min Phosphorus values are specified regardless of base oil. If you look at TBN, all have to be 5 min to pass Ball Rust regardless of base oil and most tend to average around 8-ish. As often as not, Antioxidants are set to pass the Teost test (which is a law unto itself) and Ashless treats (the biggest individual contributor in a DI) 'fall out' at around 5%-ish as a consequence of all the Sequence tests en masse.

And even where there are minor differences in the DI (Calcium vs Magnesium, Low or High MW PIB-based Ashless, Borated or non-Borated), from a Noack point-of-view, it matters not a jot because viscometrically, all DI components behave like simple (but heavy) units of -CH2-.

I used to liken the relationship between DI and finished oil Noack & viscometrics to a balloon. If you squeeze it one place, the balloon simply expands somewhere else. However hard or wherever you squeeze, nothing changes because at the end of the day, the balloon contains a fixed amount of air.

 

[SR5]

Joe, But the list above compares mostly GF-5 5W30 and 5W20 PCMO's but also includes some HDEO's like Shell Rotella T6 Full Synthetic 5W-40.

Is that still a fair comparison of DI treatments ?

 

[SonofJoe]

Sorry. I only had a cursory glance at the list. I thought it was segmented by individual viscosity grade (for which it makes most sense).

If I can step back a bit...

I've read about this Base Oil Index concept before as it crops up in a few Oronite (Chevron's AddCo) patents. It sort of makes sense but TBH, I dismissed it. When you're formulating oils, you know absolutely what base oils you're using so there's little point having an aggregate index.

What's been done here is interesting in that he is using the Index to INFER something about a finished oil about which NOTHING is known. And yes, if you 'straight jacket' a group of oils, you can exploit the relationship between CCS & Noack to get an idea of how synthetic your base oil mix is. Essentially it's moving from a simple Noack comparison to a CCS-adjusted Noack comparison of oils for sorting the synthetic wheat from the mineral chaff. And if say the comparison is further 'straight jacketed' to a specific type of oil (say GF-5 oils) then yes, the relationship holds up.

However, the more you open up the comparison of oils to different viscosity grades and oil categories, the less I might trust what might be being inferred by the index for an individual oil. For me, the question of 'trust' here is an important one, especially after the recent TGMO 0W20 thread where things were asserted that were either untrue or just plain made up.

 

[edhackett]

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe


And even where there are minor differences in the DI (Calcium vs Magnesium, Low or High MW PIB-based Ashless, Borated or non-Borated), from a Noack point-of-view, it matters not a jot because viscometrically, all DI components behave like simple (but heavy) units of -CH2-.

I used to liken the relationship between DI and finished oil Noack & viscometrics to a balloon. If you squeeze it one place, the balloon simply expands somewhere else. However hard or wherever you squeeze, nothing changes because at the end of the day, the balloon contains a fixed amount of air.



Thanks for the info on the DI components. What about the carrier? I know it used to be common to use a Group 1 oil for the carrier due to its solubility characteristics. A slug of G1 would effect the NOACK differently than a DI pack in Group II or III, or some mix. Is the carrier base oil standardized across the board for various DI packages from the various suppliers?

Ed

 

[Tom NJ]

Base oil quality is not dictated by viscometrics and volatility alone. Other quality factors include oxidative stability, thermal stability, coking tendencies, additive solubility/flexibility, dispersancy, lubricity, seal compatibility, and hydrolytic stability.

Viscosity Index and volatility are decent quality indicators for branched hydrocarbon base oils in that high VI and low Noack also imply oxidative stability, but not all base oils are branched hydrocarbons. For example, Alkylated Naphthalenes (ANs) tend to have low VI and medium volatility, but are very oxidatively stable with good additive solubility. Likewise, some renewable esters have very high VIs and very low Noacks, but terrible oxidative stability. PAOs have excellent oxidative stability but are cokers in thin-film, high temperature environments and have very low additive solubility. Esters are very oxidatively stable with low Noacks and excellent additive solubility and cleanliness, but some can swell seals excessively and have lower hydrolytic stability. Most base oils are blends, often containing different chemistries designed to balance desired properties, so trying to characterize “overall base oil quality” in a simple formula seems unproductive to me.

Not only are base oil blends complex, but the additives further cloud the usefulness of simple quantitative quality formulas. Additives are arguably more important than base oils with respect to finished oil quality (which is all that really matters) in that they dominate wear control, cleanliness, oxidative stability, and rust & corrosion, and influence fuel economy, viscometrics, and volatility. The effects of additives greatly blur the usefulness of attempting to rank base oil quality from finished oil data.

From my point of view, viscometrics are a pass/fail criteria, i.e. HTHS and low temperature flow are either acceptable or not for my engine, driving conditions, and environment. For my use, a 0W or 5W-20 or 30 are fine, and I have no need to split hairs with further delineation. And Noacks passing GF-5 are also fine.

We all like to have rules of thumb for making decisions, especially those that translate into numerical rankings that are easy to follow, but often real world usefulness is lost in the quest for simplicity.

More important, such ranking lists can be counterproductive in that they lure people into making decisions based on a ranking that does not correlate to what really matters, which is matching a finished oil quality to your needs.

Tom NJ/VA

 

[NGRhodes]

--deleted--

 

[SonofJoe]

Originally Posted By: edhackett
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe


And even where there are minor differences in the DI (Calcium vs Magnesium, Low or High MW PIB-based Ashless, Borated or non-Borated), from a Noack point-of-view, it matters not a jot because viscometrically, all DI components behave like simple (but heavy) units of -CH2-.

I used to liken the relationship between DI and finished oil Noack & viscometrics to a balloon. If you squeeze it one place, the balloon simply expands somewhere else. However hard or wherever you squeeze, nothing changes because at the end of the day, the balloon contains a fixed amount of air.



Thanks for the info on the DI components. What about the carrier? I know it used to be common to use a Group 1 oil for the carrier due to its solubility characteristics. A slug of G1 would effect the NOACK differently than a DI pack in Group II or III, or some mix. Is the carrier base oil standardized across the board for various DI packages from the various suppliers?

Ed


In the US, Group II is now both cheaper and more widely available than Group I, so it's almost the default carrier oil/diluent for both DI componentry and VII polymer. Yes it's innate solvency isn't quite as good as Group I but it's usually judged to be 'good enough'.

Regardless of this, however good or bad additive carrier oil is in terms of its Noack, everything evens out once you move to the finished oil. Say you have a carrier oil like Chevron 100R. It has an extremely high Noack of 26% so you might think this might impact negatively on the Noack of the finished oil. However 100R also has a relatively low CCS and this will be taken into account when setting the ratio of light to heavy base oils in the finished oil. A light, high Noack carrier oil will in effect be counterbalanced with a tad more heavy, low Noack base oil in the mix.

I do agree that if you're purposely making a full Group III or full Group IV finished oil, then you might want to avoid using Group II carrier oil. However, if you ran and passed the approval engine, rig & lab tests with 'standard' components (ie ones based on Group II carrier oil), then you're good to go.

Just keep thinking about squeezing balloons and sooner or later it all becomes clear!

 

[NGRhodes]

You fail to define what "better" means, what properties will be better in my oil (in my engine) by having a higher BOQI ?
How do we know that a higher index leads to a "better" oil (without this, its purely speculative) ?

This is not specifically a base oil quality index, its a whatever oil is measured quality index, you fail to consolidate your results of the engine oils against base oil quality, making the title/index name a bit misleading and more of a study into engine oils rather than base oils.

The oils you have used in your selection are of unknown formulation, containing base oils, additives, agents, index improves and pour point depressants. Pour Point Depressants alter the viscosity away from a linear/exponential/direct/inverse relationship (a quick google will bring up research papers confirming this), so in formulated oils you use, you can't guarantee that your DV is not skewed by the PPDs (or anything else in the oils), therefore causing uncertainty in what your results actually show/mean.

 

[Wick]

Originally Posted By: Wick
The baseline sample measurements for AMSOIL ALM 5W-20 Signature Series engine oil are as follows –

3612 ppm Calcuim
162 ppm – Molybdenum
229 ppm – Boron
14 ppm – Magnesium
708 ppm – Phosphorus
770 ppm – Zinc

8.6 cSt – Viscosity
11.9 mg KOH/g – Base Number
48 abs/cm – Oxidation
5 abs/0.1 mm – Nitration

found out their sulfated ash levels are 1.5 % by weight , thats real high compared to others

I received those number right from Mr Bender who is the master blender at Amsoil



It is also important to consider that whereas a high level of calcium may be desirable due to the lubricant's detergency, too much detergent can result in an oil with a high ash content. And when it does, in addition to acting as a detergent, the detergent itself can also contribute to lubricant contamination.

 

[Rockrz]

How come they just tested Amsoil OE and not their higher grade oils?

 

[NickT29]

What really surprised me was milesyn. Not only do they have an excellent price, but their oil looks to be top notch.

 

[Wick]

Originally Posted By: Rockrz
How come they just tested Amsoil OE and not their higher grade oils?


Those nubers are from Signiture Series just last week they were formulating with those numbers