Thin cleans better, allows longer OCI than thick!

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: JAG
People need to stop often going straight to the talk of engine failures to prove their point. Most passenger car and truck engines don’t fail. Most slowly wear out and are scrapped or rebuilt because oil consumption gets so bad. That is due to some combination of ring/liner wear and valve guide/seal wear and deterioration. For some, but I think the former case is much more common these days, is low oil pressure due to bearing wear. So, people should be discussing wear rates, not engine failures.


I agree...

And from 2010 to 2014, these models suffered the most consumption.

https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2015/06/excessive-oil-consumption/index.htm

 

[JAG]

At those temperatures, the thermal stability of the oils is being tested. Thermal degradation is often and most accurately meant to describe the consequences of very high temperatures in the absence of oxygen. The molecules typically break apart (chain scission), producing highly reactive free radicals, thus setting off a chain reaction of chemical reactions. It starts as a physical process of scission, then a combination of scission and chemical reactions. Since there is a considerable amount of air trapped with the oil, the oxidative stability is also tested to some extent. I would call this a thermo-oxidative test, since thermal stability and oxidative stability are simultanously tested.

There are big differences in the amount of deposits formed in those tests. There are even big differences within brands and even within label (ex. of labels: “Castrol Edge” or “Pennzoil Platinum”). I’ve found the same thing to be true in my tests. For example, suppose I get a good result from M1 10W-30; I know not to assume that I also would with M1 0W-20.

 

[fdcg27]

Well, my original and probably painfully accurate post in this thread apparently got deleted, so I'll try again.
This thread is based upon an absurd and unsupportable premise, yet we all rise to the bait.
Why should we bother?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: nap
And, BTW, if anyone knows of a readily available ACEA A5/B5 0W20, please kindly share the brand name.

I don't think it would be advisable to hold your breath waiting, given the HTHS requirement. As it is, few enough 5w-30 options make it through the hoops, given some difficulties in the B5 aspect of A5/B5.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Well, my original and probably painfully accurate post in this thread apparently got deleted, so I'll try again.
This thread is based upon an absurd and unsupportable premise, yet we all rise to the bait.
Why should we bother?


I know what you mean...but as has happened in the past, some of this pseudo scientific stuff sounds authoritative enough that some will fall onto the bandwagon and think it's fact.

Trying to debunk it, unfortunately ends in a George Carlin quote.

 

[PimTac]

Has there ever been any definitive study done that showed true nuclear moly was better than other forms? The only difference I’ve heard is that it takes less to achieve the same level of anti friction.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: nap
And, BTW, if anyone knows of a readily available ACEA A5/B5 0W20, please kindly share the brand name.

I don't think it would be advisable to hold your breath waiting, given the HTHS requirement. As it is, few enough 5w-30 options make it through the hoops, given some difficulties in the B5 aspect of A5/B5.

Oops, I forgot that A5/B5 doesn't allow below HTHSV = 2.9 cSt. With A1/B1 gone, I guess there is only C5 that allows it now. Anyway, they are still certified for A1/B1, which is very similar to A5/B5.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: PimTac
Has there ever been any definitive study done that showed true nuclear moly was better than other forms? The only difference I’ve heard is that it takes less to achieve the same level of anti friction.

Of course. Both the friction coefficient and Sequence IVA wear are examined.

Infineum trinuclear moly

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
pseudo scientific stuff

You refuse to understand the base-oil quality index BOQI.

It's very simple: BOQI ~ 1/CCS/NOACK takes into account both the CCS (cold-crank-simulator viscosity) and NOACK simultaneously. The only way you can have both the CCS and NOACK low is to increase the base-oil quality. You can have a Group I base stock with a low NOACK but its CCS will be very high. Likewise, a Group I base stock could have a very low CCS but its NOACK would be way too high. Even within the same base-stock family (base-stock slate), a higher BOQI is associated with a higher viscosity index and lower oxidation. You can research that. This is simply because BOQI relates to molecular structure such as higher paraffinic content through simultaneously better CCS and NOACK performance.

It's empirical and heuristic, yes. Nevertheless, it works. BOQI relates directly to the base-oil quality, which is primarily the oxidation performance, of a base oil.

Unfortunately, my title for this thread was confusing. A thinner oil on its own of course doesn't mean anything. What I meant was that the 0W-xx oils have very high BOQI indexes in general, which lead to lower oxidation.

This is not surprising at all: In order to make a 0W-20, you need absolutely the best base stocks because otherwise you will not meet the very strict CCS requirements (-35 C CCS performance) at the same time with the NOACK requirement (these days around as little as 9 - 10%).

So, when you buy a 0W-20, you know that you're buying the best base oil, which will therefore have the best oxidation performance. Look at the M1 AFE, M1 EP, and M1 AP 0W-20 MSDS's and compare them with the respective MSDS's for 5W-20 or 5W-30. You will see that 0W-20 has much more PAO than 5W-20 or 5W-30 and I've already explained the reason.

Last but not least, this doesn't only apply to 0W-20. Mobil 1 0W-40 SN (Group III+ + PAO) has BOQI = 68 and Mobil 1 0W-40 SM (PAO) had BOQI = 69 (data from the M1 presentation). I don't have the data for Mobil 1 FS 0W-40 SN (GTL + PAO). These are very high BOQI values, readily surpassing those for most premium synthetic 5W-xx oils.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Has there ever been any definitive study done that showed true nuclear moly was better than other forms? The only difference I’ve heard is that it takes less to achieve the same level of anti friction.

Of course. Both the friction coefficient and Sequence IVA wear are examined.

Infineum trinuclear moly



Thanks for that. I had hoped for a third party evaluation but that PDS is clear.

Now that most oils have this, it’s hard to say one is better than the other.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: Shannow
pseudo scientific stuff

You refuse to understand the base-oil quality index BOQI.


No, you are incorrect...I refuse to ACKNOWLEDGE it, not refuse to understand.

If there was any semblance of logic in it being a "index" I'd give it a run...

But for S and G

Here's Mobil's blend guide (we both use that), for Spectrasyn, tabulated and using your constant of 3,500,000 for the 0Ws and 2,000,000 for the 5Ws.



I'm assuming that the "high quality" Spectrasyn that's used in the 0W20 is the same product that they are using across the board...so why does the Base Oil Quality run down as you move across the sheet ?

Oils 1 and 4, 2 and 5, 3 and 6 have virtually the same percentage of base-stocks as each other with similar VM and the like additives but their "Quality" per your index degrades.

So I went back to the source...the Spectrasyn data sheets, and ran a BOQI (@-30C, using your 2,000,000), and got the following. (note SS4, they list the NOACK as


Again, I'm making the assumption that Spectrasyns are all of similar quality...but their BOQIs are SO FAR APART...

Look at the first table...you could be forgiven if you looked at the first three oils to say that SS6 was clearly superior to 4 and 8...if you ran by this number that you have created.

Look at the next three...nope, that's not it.

Look at comparing the three basestocks, and the thinnest wins by a long margin, the SS6 and 8 being poor cousins...

If it WERE an "index" on "quality" then this isn't what you would expect to see across an individual product line, is it ?

 

[Gokhan]

Thanks for the calculations.

Regarding the numbers, I've never claimed it to be an exact science. However, it makes sense for the thinner PAO's to score better.

My understanding of BOQI is that it measures the paraffinic content. The units for 1/BOQI are pressure (stress) if you realize that the units for NOACK are inverse time. Basically it tells you how much pressure (stress) you need to pull the molecules away from each other. If you have infinite BOQI, you have zero stress required to pull the molecules apart, which means you have perfectly linear paraffinic chains, sliding effortlessly by each other.

Here is a paper that describes the molecular structure of PAO's. For heavier viscosities, you need more trimers and tetramers, meaning less paraffinic (linear) the molecules are.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...y_Relationships

From your calculations it's also evident that BOQI is lowered by the VII content. So, it's not truly measuring the base oil itself. However, this is not a bad thing, as many consider the VII as lowering the quality of the oil.

 

[Shannow]

I've also criticised that fact that you haven't divided by API colour...when there's clearly a link between colour and oxidative stability.



Originally Posted By: Gokhan
My understanding of BOQI is that it measures the paraffinic content. The units for 1/BOQI are pressure (stress) if you realize that the units for NOACK are inverse time. Basically it tells you how much pressure (stress) you need to pull the molecules away from each other. If you have infinite BOQI, you have zero stress required to pull the molecules apart, which means you have perfectly linear paraffinic chains, sliding effortlessly by each other.


See, it's your number/index, that you created.

Now you are creating some statements as to what it "measures"...when you have created a conclusion, and are now trying to work backwards from it to justify your understanding of what it does...

and again, your dimensional analysis is suspect...I've covered that in other threads.

 

[JAG]

Gokhan, just let it go. You/we don’t need a BOQI. We certainly don’t need pseudoscience.

 

[Bjornviken]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: Shannow
pseudo scientific stuff

You refuse to understand the base-oil quality index BOQI.

It's very simple: BOQI ~ 1/CCS/NOACK takes into account both the CCS (cold-crank-simulator viscosity) and NOACK simultaneously. The only way you can have both the CCS and NOACK low is to increase the base-oil quality. You can have a Group I base stock with a low NOACK but its CCS will be very high. Likewise, a Group I base stock could have a very low CCS but its NOACK would be way too high. Even within the same base-stock family (base-stock slate), a higher BOQI is associated with a higher viscosity index and lower oxidation. You can research that. This is simply because BOQI relates to molecular structure such as higher paraffinic content through simultaneously better CCS and NOACK performance.

It's empirical and heuristic, yes. Nevertheless, it works. BOQI relates directly to the base-oil quality, which is primarily the oxidation performance, of a base oil.

Unfortunately, my title for this thread was confusing. A thinner oil on its own of course doesn't mean anything. What I meant was that the 0W-xx oils have very high BOQI indexes in general, which lead to lower oxidation.

This is not surprising at all: In order to make a 0W-20, you need absolutely the best base stocks because otherwise you will not meet the very strict CCS requirements (-35 C CCS performance) at the same time with the NOACK requirement (these days around as little as 9 - 10%).

So, when you buy a 0W-20, you know that you're buying the best base oil, which will therefore have the best oxidation performance. Look at the M1 AFE, M1 EP, and M1 AP 0W-20 MSDS's and compare them with the respective MSDS's for 5W-20 or 5W-30. You will see that 0W-20 has much more PAO than 5W-20 or 5W-30 and I've already explained the reason.

Last but not least, this doesn't only apply to 0W-20. Mobil 1 0W-40 SN (Group III+ + PAO) has BOQI = 68 and Mobil 1 0W-40 SM (PAO) had BOQI = 69 (data from the M1 presentation). I don't have the data for Mobil 1 FS 0W-40 SN (GTL + PAO). These are very high BOQI values, readily surpassing those for most premium synthetic 5W-xx oils.


Price over here
Mobil 1 0w-20 esp cost 70€
Mobil 1 0w-40 FS cost 40€
Cheapest oils are 5w-40
I agree with you that thinner oils are higher quality oils and you save money on fuel

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Well, my original and probably painfully accurate post in this thread apparently got deleted, so I'll try again.
This thread is based upon an absurd and unsupportable premise, yet we all rise to the bait.
Why should we bother?

+1

Originally Posted By: Shannow
I know what you mean...but as has happened in the past, some of this pseudo scientific stuff sounds authoritative enough that some will fall onto the bandwagon and think it's fact.


+2

Originally Posted By: JAG
Gokhan, just let it go. You/we don’t need a BOQI. We certainly don’t need pseudoscience.

+3

 

[nap]

Let me introduce NNOQI, Nap’s New Oil Quality Index. It is defined as (yellow area of the bottle / total area of the bottle’s surface).

PYB wins so hands down, yay!

Cleans better! Longer OCI’s! Attracts chicks! Yipeee!

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Bjornviken
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: Shannow
pseudo scientific stuff

You refuse to understand the base-oil quality index BOQI.

It's very simple: BOQI ~ 1/CCS/NOACK takes into account both the CCS (cold-crank-simulator viscosity) and NOACK simultaneously. The only way you can have both the CCS and NOACK low is to increase the base-oil quality. You can have a Group I base stock with a low NOACK but its CCS will be very high. Likewise, a Group I base stock could have a very low CCS but its NOACK would be way too high. Even within the same base-stock family (base-stock slate), a higher BOQI is associated with a higher viscosity index and lower oxidation. You can research that. This is simply because BOQI relates to molecular structure such as higher paraffinic content through simultaneously better CCS and NOACK performance.

It's empirical and heuristic, yes. Nevertheless, it works. BOQI relates directly to the base-oil quality, which is primarily the oxidation performance, of a base oil.

Unfortunately, my title for this thread was confusing. A thinner oil on its own of course doesn't mean anything. What I meant was that the 0W-xx oils have very high BOQI indexes in general, which lead to lower oxidation.

This is not surprising at all: In order to make a 0W-20, you need absolutely the best base stocks because otherwise you will not meet the very strict CCS requirements (-35 C CCS performance) at the same time with the NOACK requirement (these days around as little as 9 - 10%).

So, when you buy a 0W-20, you know that you're buying the best base oil, which will therefore have the best oxidation performance. Look at the M1 AFE, M1 EP, and M1 AP 0W-20 MSDS's and compare them with the respective MSDS's for 5W-20 or 5W-30. You will see that 0W-20 has much more PAO than 5W-20 or 5W-30 and I've already explained the reason.

Last but not least, this doesn't only apply to 0W-20. Mobil 1 0W-40 SN (Group III+ + PAO) has BOQI = 68 and Mobil 1 0W-40 SM (PAO) had BOQI = 69 (data from the M1 presentation). I don't have the data for Mobil 1 FS 0W-40 SN (GTL + PAO). These are very high BOQI values, readily surpassing those for most premium synthetic 5W-xx oils.

Price over here
Mobil 1 0w-20 esp cost 70€
Mobil 1 0w-40 FS cost 40€
Cheapest oils are 5w-40
I agree with you that thinner oils are higher quality oils and you save money on fuel

Absolutely! BOQI does predict the base-oil quality (PAO, GTL) and you pay for the PAO and GTL that goes into the 0W-xx's.

Yes, most 5W-40's (PCMO and HDEO) I've seen are made of the cheapest base stocks they can get away with and are loaded with a very high dose of the cheapest VII, which makes the oil even worse, potentially leading to deposits and sludge. There are probably some good 5W-40's though. Most 0W-40's are good bu there are exceptions there, too.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: JAG
Gokhan, just let it go. You/we don’t need a BOQI. We certainly don’t need pseudoscience.

This "pseudoscience" is actually the work of Chevron Global Base Oils (presentation). Perhaps you should send a message to John Rosenbaum.

John Rosenbaum (not me) actually patented it:

Chevron US patent on predicting the base-oil quality through CCS and NOACK

The main difference between his patented "base-oil-quality prediction" and my "base-oil-quality index" is that he mixes two base stocks instead of looking at only one base stock, and he measures NOACK vs. CCS when he changes the ratio of the two base stocks to generate a NOACK vs. CCS curve. In this way, "his BOQI" = constant / (CCS * NOACK)^power, where he calculates the "constant" and "power" by varying the ratio of the two base stocks and measuring the CCS and NOACK for each ratio. In my case, I simply assume that "power = 1" and I try to estimate the "constant" empirically for 0W-xx, 5W-xx, etc., as I don't have the luxury of being able to do better as he can.

In summary, he uses two base stocks at the end points of each curve and varies the ratio to generate different base oils from them and therefore the whole curve. Then, if the base oil you're comparing to the two-base-stock-base-oil mix is below the curve (higher BOQI in my calculation), it's a superior base oil that will meet or exceed the specs of the two-base-stock-base-oil mix and if it's above the curve (lower BOQI in my calculation), it's an inferior base oil that will not meet the specs of the two-base-stock-base-oil mix.

These plots are from his presentation I linked:

My BOQI is somewhat more crude than his original patented version, but I've shown that it does predict the base-oil quality -- you get a higher BOQI when you have more PAO, GTL, etc. It's a tool. Of course, you can't take it as an absolute indicator of the base-oil quality but it will at least give you an estimate. In the least case, simply take it as a definition -- a fine way of classifying an oil without relying on a single parameter such as the NOACK or MRV alone, as what most people have been doing before, without actually getting a good idea on the base-oil composition and quality.

 

[SR5]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Well, my original and probably painfully accurate post in this thread apparently got deleted, so I'll try again.
This thread is based upon an absurd and unsupportable premise, yet we all rise to the bait.
Why should we bother?

+1

Originally Posted By: Shannow
I know what you mean...but as has happened in the past, some of this pseudo scientific stuff sounds authoritative enough that some will fall onto the bandwagon and think it's fact.


+2

Originally Posted By: JAG
Gokhan, just let it go. You/we don’t need a BOQI. We certainly don’t need pseudoscience.

+3


+4, +5, +6