Lower detergent levels but more cleanliness?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
8,144
Location
Michigan
It appears to me when looking at UOA's that detergent levels have been reduced. I know more Magnesium is being used with Calcium and such but it seems like the new formulations are around 2000.

How are the higher standards being met with less?
 
Originally Posted By: ZZman
How are the higher standards being met with less?
New class of additives, not necessarily showing up in traditional VOAs.
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: ZZman
How are the higher standards being met with less?
New class of additives, not necessarily showing up in traditional VOAs.




Yep.
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
New class of additives, not necessarily showing up in traditional VOAs.


Like what? Should labs be testing for them?
 
Originally Posted By: CT8
Boron.


I think boron is a anti wear additive first and a minor detergent. It is usually in small amounts in most oils too.
 
Originally Posted By: ZZman
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
New class of additives, not necessarily showing up in traditional VOAs.


Like what? Should labs be testing for them?



Ask the labs.
 
i am guessing theres a lot that typical simple cheap oil analysis does not show!!
 
I think fdcg27 has hit this on the head.

And Valvoline has added Boron to help a bit to help with cleaning and detergency. But mainly obviously magnesium is tasked for this.
 
Originally Posted By: bbhero
I think fdcg27 has hit this on the head.

And Valvoline has added Boron to help a bit to help with cleaning and detergency. But mainly obviously magnesium is tasked for this.



Yep he is right. Boron is a very versatile additive.
 
Originally Posted By: ZZman
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
New class of additives, not necessarily showing up in traditional VOAs.


Like what? Should labs be testing for them?


A quick look at the periodic table doesn’t suggest many plausible options.

Not to mention that advertising wouldn’t miss mentioning some novel, unique something that makes the oil “special”.
 
It's been stated on here that magnesium retains TBN better and is more effective than calcium, somewhere around the magnitude of 2 times. So roughly, 750ppm magnesium is equivalent to 1500ppm Calcium.
 
Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: ZZman
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
New class of additives, not necessarily showing up in traditional VOAs.


Like what? Should labs be testing for them?


A quick look at the periodic table doesn’t suggest many plausible options.

Not to mention that advertising wouldn’t miss mentioning some novel, unique something that makes the oil “special”.




You won’t find them on the periodic table and since they are proprietary you likely won’t find out about them from the company.

There are lots of informative papers and articles here on BITOG. Try doing a search.
 
Originally Posted By: PimTac
You won’t find them on the periodic table and since they are proprietary you likely won’t find out about them from the company.

Well yes you will of course, if you don't find them there you won't find them anywhere. Where you may not find them however is on an ICP or AA analysis given the limitations those methods have with non-metals (and some metals).

But even if you do detect them it would only be the elements and not compounds.
 
I too believe magnesium is more effective for an oil at holding it's TBN. Amsoil's previous SS formula had tons of calcium but TBN fell very quickly. Mobil 1 which seemed to have lots of magnesium looked like it held it's TBN much better. I have always felt that way even though I'm an Amsoil user. Calcium numbers are now quite a bit smaller in most formulations now and magnesium numbers are up. I think Amsoil's retention will improve now . Unless I'm way off base and totally wrong on this.
 
Originally Posted By: volk06
It's been stated on here that magnesium retains TBN better and is more effective than calcium, somewhere around the magnitude of 2 times. So roughly, 750ppm magnesium is equivalent to 1500ppm Calcium.


Would it do the above while yielding/showing a lower starting TBN than an oil with sky high calcium content?
21.gif
 
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Would it do the above while yielding/showing a lower starting TBN than an oil with sky high calcium content?
21.gif


Hard to say, but there are some high TBN oils that rely on a significant amount of magnesium.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top