Known downsides to LSPI-oriented formulations?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
11,956
Location
PA
In view of the fact that there's no free lunch: what are the potential downsides to chemistries aimed at reducing LSPI?

I know Ca has to be reduced, which means other detergent/dispersant additives need to be bumped up. Does this have potential implications for ash generation and/or acid fighting ability? I'd imagine any such problems can be and are being addressed in the total formulation. But if so, that still leaves the question of whether there's ever a case in which, say, an SN/GF-5 oil might be preferable to a comparable SN Plus oil -- kind of like how MB 229.51 is better than MB 229.5 on paper, but you don't want to use 229.51 for long drains in a gasoline engine where fuel might have too much sulfur.

Anyone know?
 
Might be worth looking into the second-gen Dexos stuff, as LSPI became a priority for them in this new cert. I've heard that sometimes magnesium is increased.

The new Mobil 1 ESP Formula 0w40 actually has a rather mediocre starting TBN of 8.5 despite being dexos2. I've not seen a VOA of this oil yet.

Also, previous discussion we had about it:
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4203943/Re:_LSPI_w/Direct_Injection
 
Originally Posted By: dparm

The new Mobil 1 ESP Formula 0w40 actually has a rather mediocre starting TBN of 8.5 despite being dexos2. I've not seen a VOA of this oil yet.


In a case like that, I don't think TBN needs to be a big priority, considering that oil is geared for high performance GM engines and the oil life monitors in those cars won't really let them go much beyond 7-8k and in a lot of cases people will be hitting the one year mark before that mileage, so a much greater number of people using this new oil will probably be changing it well before it even hits 5k.

At the same time, it's possible that even with this new oil having a lower TBN to start, it could have better TBN retention than other oils. After 5000 miles it's possible that it'll only drop from 8.5 to 5, while in that same time frame it's also possible that an oil with a starting TBN of 10 might drop like a stone and end up around 4 after 5k of service.
 
You don’t want good TBN retention. You want the bases to neutralize as much of the acids as possible and as quickly as possible. By laws of nature, this reduces the amount of available base...TBN goes down. You do want enough TBN but not due it to “retaining” it; you want it due to it starting at a high value for your OCI. You want TAN to increase as little as possible.

I don’t like Mg detergents because of the following paper: http://www.oil-lab.com/downloads/TBN-1.pdf
 
The biggest downside might be increased cost, for customers who didn't need to worry about LSPI in the first place.
 
Higher corrosive bearing wear. Ideally, if GDI didn't come out, I believe the formulators would have preferred to stick with the with Ca. The new engines and emissions systems certainly pose challeges to formulators.
 
Originally Posted By: buster
Higher corrosive bearing wear.

Yikes!

Are you saying this tends to be an effect of the additives that make up for the loss of Ca, or that it's a net effect of the overall formulation of the finished lube?
 
Along the same line, I asked a question a while back regarding d1g2 oils ... My question/concern was if these oils (having more or less of some chemicals to combat lspi in DI engines) may not necessarily be the best choice for pfi engines ...
The reason I asked the question was because we have one DI car and all our other cars are all PFI.

The consensus (not many people chimed in) was "to use it (d1g2) with confidence" for pfi cars ...

Obviously I don't have the knowledge or any scientific data to go against the above recommendation, However my gut feeling says there is always a trade off and I have a hard time with "one size fits all" theory ... I am sure top guns will jump on my "gut feeling" vs. scientific data ... but what can I say, I am a little suspicious. lol
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: buster
Higher corrosive bearing wear.

Yikes!

Are you saying this tends to be an effect of the additives that make up for the loss of Ca, or that it's a net effect of the overall formulation of the finished lube?


I doubt it. There are probably ways around it. It’s what gives chemists and formulators job security.
smile.gif
. Think about it though, almost all the SN+/dexos 2 oils are using some mg.
 
Originally Posted By: CR94
The biggest downside might be increased cost, for customers who didn't need to worry about LSPI in the first place.


Why would consumers not need to worry about LSPI? Are you saying that it's not something the average person needs to think about, or that it's not even happening?
 
Isn't lspi a concern only for DI (Turbo? DI) engines?
If I don't have a DI, why should I accept the shortcomings (if any)?
 
Originally Posted By: OilUzer
Isn't lspi a concern only for DI (Turbo? DI) engines?
If I don't have a DI, why should I accept the shortcomings (if any)?




Are there shortcomings? That is conjecture on your part.
 
Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: CR94
The biggest downside might be increased cost, for customers who didn't need to worry about LSPI in the first place.
Why would consumers not need to worry about LSPI? Are you saying that it's not something the average person needs to think about, or that it's not even happening?
No, I'm saying LSPI is something consumers who won't be using the oil in engines vulnerable to LSPI don't need to worry about. They'll have to help pay for the changes, though.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: OilUzer
Along the same line, I asked a question a while back regarding d1g2 oils ... My question/concern was if these oils (having more or less of some chemicals to combat lspi in DI engines) may not necessarily be the best choice for pfi engines ...
The reason I asked the question was because we have one DI car and all our other cars are all PFI.

The consensus (not many people chimed in) was "to use it (d1g2) with confidence" for pfi cars ...

Obviously I don't have the knowledge or any scientific data to go against the above recommendation, However my gut feeling says there is always a trade off and I have a hard time with "one size fits all" theory ... I am sure top guns will jump on my "gut feeling" vs. scientific data ... but what can I say, I am a little suspicious. lol


"Use it with confidence" just means it'll be fine. Which it's supposed to be, and likely will be. API didn't relax any of SN's requirements for SN Plus, so any SN Plus product will meet specs for API SN applications.

That's a different ballgame from what's best. If finding that is your goal, you're not looking for something that just meets the standards; you're looking for something that exceeds them by as much as your budget will allow.

I have to imagine it's easier to exceed SN specs if you don't have to worry about LSPI. If that turns out to be true, then it might be more likely that the "best" oil for a PFI application is more likely to be SN than SN Plus.

Unfortunately, that kind of vague suspicion is about as far as you can go, because no formulator is going to publish more than a tidbit or two about the margin by which their products beat any given standard. It's good enough for my purposes, which is why I asked this question -- but no way on earth is it a good way to find the "best" oil for any given application.
 
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Originally Posted By: OilUzer
Isn't lspi a concern only for DI (Turbo? DI) engines?
If I don't have a DI, why should I accept the shortcomings (if any)?




Are there shortcomings? That is conjecture on your part.


Are you suggesting that one should not ask a question for which he doesn’t already have the answer? That is [censored] on your part.
 
Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: CR94
The biggest downside might be increased cost, for customers who didn't need to worry about LSPI in the first place.
Why would consumers not need to worry about LSPI? Are you saying that it's not something the average person needs to think about, or that it's not even happening?
No, I'm saying LSPI is something consumers who won't be using the oil in engines vulnerable to LSPI don't need to worry about. They'll have to help pay for the changes, though.


Yes...
and people whose vehicle manufacturer doesn't have a habit of oil burning have to put up with lower catalyst poisoning additives because of those that state 1qt/1,000 miles is "acceptable".

The expeniseve engine tests are carried out on engines that have a "problem" that reliably responds to certain factors in an engine oil...you pay for that testing too, even 'though yours might not have THAT particular Achilles Heel.
 
That video was great at explaining what LSPI is but I'm still confused as to how the engine oil plays any part in preventing this from occurring? It seems to me that this is more of an issue that is solved with the type of fuel used and the engine tune (specifically the ignition timing & fuel mapping)
 
Originally Posted By: Patman
That video was great at explaining what LSPI is but I'm still confused as to how the engine oil plays any part in preventing this from occurring? It seems to me that this is more of an issue that is solved with the type of fuel used and the engine tune (specifically the ignition timing & fuel mapping)




My impression is that the oil companies are concentrating their focus on the piston ring area. Today’s modern pistons look more like hockey pucks with a short ring area compared to pistons of yesteryear.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
... and people whose vehicle manufacturer doesn't have a habit of oil burning have to put up with lower catalyst poisoning additives because of those that state 1qt/1,000 miles is "acceptable". ...
Or 1 liter/1000 km in Toyota's case, even more ridiculous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top