Upgrading Lubricants (Other Lubricant Articles)

Status
Not open for further replies.
01.gif
 
So this is an article about lubrication of electric motors with oil sumps.
The included cost-benefit analysis is interesting.
They state for 'Giant Refining Company' (their words), the following cost breakdown:
Energy cost 96.02%
Maintenance cost 3.90%
Lubricant cost 0.08%
In this analysis, an increase in a miniscule lubricant cost could have large impacts on Energy cost, which is the largest contributor to overall cost.

For the sake of the discussion, let's assume that internal combustion engines see similar improvements (or losses when going synth to dino) in performance with the same changes in lubricants.

In this case, a separate cost-benefit analysis is required.

Given:
$625 fuel - 7500 mile oci - 30 mpg - $2.50/gal fuel cost
$51 oil/filter (RP on Amazon, for brand consistency per the article)
$0 labor/maintenance cost (oil change labor donated by me)

Then:
Fuel cost - 92.5%
Lubricant cost - 7.5%
Labor/maintenance cost - 0%

Observation:
Lubricant costs for automotive ICE's are 2 orders or magnitude greater than for the the 'Giant Refining Company' in their operation. Changes in lubricant costs will have a much larger impact in overall operating expenses.

Now the thought experiment:
What if we decreased the lubricant cost of the ICE model, incur running efficiency losses, increase our fuel cost and analyze the results?

Given:
$637 fuel - 7500 mile oci - 29.4 mpg (2% efficiency loss) - $2.50/gal fuel cost
$15 oil/filter (ST from Wally's)
$0 labor/maintenance cost (oil change labor donated by me)

Then:
Fuel cost - 97.7%
Lubricant cost - 2.3%
Labor/maintenance cost - 0%

Overall savings $24

Observation:
Operational savings may reasonably be realized in automotive ICE's by switching to generic dino oils from more expensive synthetics. This savings is due to lower initial capital expenditure on lubricants while not incurring commensurate increases in fuel costs over the operational time period. Also note the products that are being proposed meet all typical OEM specifications for lubrication performance, wear prevention, and longevity.

(Yes ST dino is good to 7500, read the manual)
If you must go synth, add $3.71 to lubrication cost, change mpg to 29.7 (1% loss for some silly reason tbd), fuel cost to $631 and increase overall savings to $26 (if you must....)
 
Last edited:
Quote:
^ His other posts are interesting. Starting from the oldest ones.


I'm sure the group will evaluate validity of posts based on content rather than longevity of screen name.

If it's no good, please say so.
If it's valid, then acknowledge that too!!!
 
Last edited:
He probably wonders if you're a more experienced member that posted with other screen names before, which allegedly happen a bit when members get banned etc. Totally agree that merit should stand on content and not seniority.
 
Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol
He probably wonders if you're a more experienced member that posted with other screen names before, which allegedly happen a bit when members get banned etc. Totally agree that merit should stand on content and not seniority.

Most members on this forum have very high IQ's. The rest usually get scrutinized for not.
Imp4, great reply a few posts up. ^^^
 
Quote:
He probably wonders if you're a more experienced member that posted with other screen names before...


Nope. I've never posted under any screen name to BITOG.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top