Best NOACK for 0w20

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: PimTac
My understanding is that most oils use the tri-nuclear moly in amounts of less than 100ppm including Valvoline.

Interesting about the high Moly counts. As is usually the case, by solving a issue with the moly another problem shows up unforeseen.


You've missed the last week or so of revelation...they've found that trinuclear is no longer manna from heaven, and are reverting to mega doses of (non) trinuclear, which is much better...except it's now worse




It’s hard to keep up. The question about Teost 33 was never answered.
 
If Moly was a problem with GDI then we would be seeing all sorts of problems with Asian manufacturers and OE oils and that simply isn't the case.
21.gif
 
Originally Posted By: StevieC
If Moly was a problem with GDI then we would be seeing all sorts of problems with Asian manufacturers and OE oils and that simply isn't the case.
21.gif

This is because a vast majority of the information posted in this thread as fact is (in the words of Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers):

Boooogus!
 
This is really good paper on TEOST 33C and moly. It sheds good light on the phenomenon.

Analysis of engine oil containing MoDTC on the thermo-oxidation engine oil simulation test (TEOST 33C)
Linchun Wang, Liping Wang and Guiyun Li
November 2, 2012
(Link)

Abstract:

The Thermo-oxidation Engine Oil Simulation Test (TEOST 33C), one request of the new ILSAC GF-5 specification for passenger car, has been developed as a simulation test to evaluate the ‘‘coking’’ of engine oil in turbocharger. Generally, molybdenum dithiocarbamate (MoDTC) is added into engine oil as an effective friction modifier to improve fuel economy. Zinc dialkyldithiophosphate (ZnDDP) has also been used as a multifunction additive in engine oils for more than 50 years. However, the results of this study showed that the coexistence of MoDTC and ZnDDP in engine oil could cause deposits accretion of the oil in the TEOST 33C. Pressurized Differential Scanning Calorimetry (PDSC) revealed that excess MoDTC led to the oxidative degradation of engine oil and there was no obvious relationship between oxidation stability and ‘‘coking’’ of engine oil. In addition, the elemental analysis of deposits demonstrated that deposits accretion was not caused by the increase ash of MoDTC. In summary, the MoDTC coexisted with ZnDDP might be acted as a ‘‘coking’’ catalyst under high temperature.

cZSNOnOTW3dOTm9QG5ZIL2c0g8ZSFOw6xMUXPeT4j8joOItHl-9y6e5Yqd3duytBAWzUMvh8n2QL8x7j_J23VbWXWXCJ983pJJrJjRo1TZpxuV-SsE3r6aD_UQlz534WfwS4hQdYjw0VgMAE6ZCO4QgaWZUobAMI-Bf7v1Wml2iKkhso2Wd-Cgajn7zMYjgNo0JATCOsAIzbBqdaOqYjfUtPoXr5eXgY_YT_6R22GtWMUeBDGNujTSdJV-XJ29M0PixIkoqS-uEaPVTwdkZ2pXRiI_P8Kin918DD948pW-l3wA1uf_fxYEoEgVWG4XI9oKA2gd6vK4v6M-N5LP0Cnej3PPLfoMi2mWqzm_nTEvWND-ZkDXI0Grgn4iELJva59VszHesQbiLc3iC0s72rBzXjHg69048cZB0JmMYRkgMXrXTP-Fpjq-DvKPpr3LO0KnK8C63SX0w72sRdjojfLS2t1y2MI6eBfuuw-zRF8eftVtBddLRnGUsFjfWUgm6unoXQGKmihIp6rn8JtPef91fJAPH00dfHxp9oaeNvePSrmrPBVt4PxixYUlYIXi26PWsIJtgWXLzzQxJ84Z4DZfnT8OZGv7KVK6sztFv8nv6md9TnBZYxSimLidIYEpX1=w1031-h730-no


OIT is the oxidation-induction time. Longer time means slower oxidation:

yH7g_ZtZifWgwbcmiSzvECRJT3dVhogk-_f1w1geGnFpzIeWLIAt9mSCqcwYWQnXU5ldJvqFivCFi6yH_X4N9q0BMnY8gz0MsQbhS1XUjR70Csrz8-mGM-AcHGcxY6rQSS1Y3pFVBI9No38YeN_cOruO_-fHbEDCbqruotVoUI3kttOn_hozXa0Yg1AphYIOg9nmM2cnOURDiBbVpiJHE3CJAqd56HafVbBevPJFSOrZHSfBH-k2Bec29UXE3fK7togGcHb9pj5xVU4tzZYzMYjbCBHgXrpBRwqhUddojVIBP4ePvKmKV6z7Qb8tdbgGvj1H6x5KTF8duz232xKmo9mg1Y7vi9jXQxTuQciW3TPNYGPxw1N-Z9Ujc0zZH3OtUL9cvIcqNr58yG7nN9Z_xStyksrNwZq6L1dUdW4TPpqMkpJFIqr0BfiYbtbfXuJDC95UCryAbR1A29ZB8wuC6NenWrOrUlUm4GQ_MBE0lBfj1prsfNNc0m1twAGI1g5JX4J-it5oHSPfRYYSz82Wvwr1Y2NB-R1olQlZlXzAMqLi-IihcJdF_xxSmZZy_TTZo0NisKJr_upINNDSWo1gxpcZI4OywXEmFig7XIuAQgmvRGq-ujfGTMJ1L3vauWnc=w1025-h730-no

ndzU5kHyrqnvGJ5dOxRQtpbPk26yUVdeSlhfO0bvc4LvGOrHHONVSBJqdAJzpBpZhj8ck8JcOrNKJAbCoQLNoArEj2LXAiyV0166ODBkh7Hti4kwARyaldF7UTl_TMeRkVWwuKq2RO2MBOzDJIWVqJzfSvqt6gymYaxcyTIWTQsP-pomSHw7vAOuK6N44GSRN5GGNQcDxnaGRCekTCgOwRIDbatsVWZtRJqw5NPHiJSbIn-cQwdVZStOIUYmIcBaj_laLTQLa6kHFe2CwYFVwCaYEqiHqHplL6dVQjFjZXTDUK-oqwgmRo_k8M23BRqKts0Qfg-NCnqwuMDWfawEKpPZy5V7u0P8tRL0sPe28mUNptT6RXeAt8wUBsbyBF0f9BdevH2-89E_TwqAdAlOvZpkFee0ZlIfMNOJenA4itaD9y4GLTbeXPB7Csrx9oUk4_hayUNCyiPBWXtYG2-ca8tVuf8oE-tqdQJjHc_NtxCyAsgSF_Nm4nTLSX2PYyVPoHCafbgt-dOijGWr8D8pRGx77FBT5M2X6tHoEVEa0WxbVryZIIIORiPmRzRK8ZjJdbCVP4Ol2PqbAnQOQL9vy1kwfMIGUIIxDXaIiCzRpAETAC5zLL4dD7E9PWd1ABNs=w869-h673-no


Conclusion:

An investigation has been studied to evaluate the factors of engine oil containing MoDTC and ZnDDP on the TEOST 33C. Based on the experimental results of this study, the following conclusion could be drawn.

(1) The MoDTC coexisted with ZnDDP could cause obvious deposits accretion of
engine oil during TEOST 33C.

(2) Test oils prepared by different additive packages and equal MoDTC generated
different masses of deposits in TEOST 33C, but the trend of deposits accretion
with the increase in addition of MoDTC was similar.

(3) Oil with a low content of ZnDDP and a high content of MoDTC could generate
few deposits.

(4) There was a maximized proportion of MoDTC to ZnDDP to improve oxidation
stability of engine oil.

(5) There was no obvious relationship between oxidation stability and ‘‘coking’’
of engine oil.

(6) 40–50 % of the deposits were consisted of C, H, N, and O.

(7) The mass of molybdenum in new oil was not a significant source of deposits
accretion in TEOST 33C.

Acknowledgements: The authors would gratefully acknowledge the previous work of Satoru Yoshida and Yasushi Naitoh in research of TEOST 33C. Assistance from Aixiang Wang and Jinbao Xu is also acknowledged.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
This is really good paper on TEOST 33C and moly. It sheds great insight on the phenomenon.[...]
Except the 0W-20 oils that you are stating are the "best" for GDI engines and deposits in general are not tested with TEOST 33C--they are exempt. Do you know of 0W-20 oils which were tested under TEOST 33C, in this study or otherwise? Obviously, you cannot take the results from an xW-30 family of oils and extrapolate the results onto xW-20 oils, right?
 
Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
If moly is so bad, why are all the new GDI formula oils (d1g2, SN+) putting moly back in?

There is no such thing as "if moly is so bad." Don't forget that the detergents are the main source of the intake-valve deposits (IVD) in GDI engines but yet they are indispensable in any modern engine. Motor-oil ingredients are always a compromise. Moly increases deposits but decreases scuffing, wear (including in the timing chain), friction (up to a certain dose), oxidation (up to a certain dose), and LSPI, among other benefits. If there were no compromises, there would be a single oil with a single viscosity grade, single additive package, and a single base oil specified for all engines, instead of an entire landscape of oils.

When people ask what's good -- thin/thick, moly/no moly, low NOACK/high NOACK, VII/no VII, etc., they shouldn't expect a definite answer unless they specify their application and priorities (wear, deposits, OCI length, etc.).
 
Valvoline just sponsored a youtube video yesterday that says LOW NOACK is best for keeping deposits out of modern GDI engines.



Other than that one sketchy Polish research paper claiming high NOACK is better, is there any other evidence backing up the theory?
 
Understood, but given that IVD is one of the key issues these new oils attempt to solve, you’d think they wouldn’t want to pour fuel on the fire, unless they’ve figured out how to add moly back in to help with LSPI without causing deposit accretion.
 
Originally Posted By: HKPolice
Valvoline just sponsored a youtube video yesterday that says LOW NOACK is best for keeping deposits out of modern GDI engines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW0wCl-O7oY

Other than that one sketchy Polish research paper claiming high NOACK is better, is there any other evidence backing up the theory?

The video repeats the falsehood that the oil mist coming from the PCV is evaporated base oil. According to the Afton paper, it isn't -- it's liquid oil droplets containing the full additive package in them.

The video is sponsored but not made by Valvoline, as you said.

If you a repeat a falsehood often enough, it eventually becomes an illusion of truth, such as lower NOACK reducing the flow of the PCV oil mist. The media and Internet is becoming synonymous with fake news these days. Solution: Obtain your knowledge from scientific papers instead.

Low NOACK is a good thing if it indicates a good base oil (PAO/POE, GTL), but for a given base-oil type, it may not be such a good thing. It may help lower oil consumption if you have that problem but that's its main benefit. Also, the NOACK or base oil aren't the only variables, as we discussed. It's a pretty complicated business.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: HKPolice
Valvoline just sponsored a youtube video yesterday that says LOW NOACK is best for keeping deposits out of modern GDI engines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW0wCl-O7oY

Other than that one sketchy Polish research paper claiming high NOACK is better, is there any other evidence backing up the theory?

The video repeats the falsehood that the oil mist coming from the PCV is evaporated base oil. According to the Afton paper, it isn't -- it's liquid oil droplets containing the full additive package in them.

The video is sponsored but not made by Valvoline, as you said.

If you a repeat a falsehood often enough, it eventually becomes an illusion of truth, such as lower NOACK reducing the flow of the PCV oil mist. The media and Internet is becoming synonymous with fake news these days. Solution: Obtain your knowledge from scientific papers instead.

Low NOACK is a good thing if it indicates a good base oil (PAO/POE, GTL), but for a given base-oil type, it may not be such a good thing. It may help lower oil consumption if you have that problem but that's its main benefit. Also, the NOACK or base oil aren't the only variables, as we discussed. It's a pretty complicated business.


No way Valvoline would let this video get posted if it contains incorrect info. You have to understand how sponsored youtube vids work. The sponsor has complete control over the content of the video, they can't afford incorrect info to tarnish their brand so they review it thoroughly before posting.

VME NOACK is 12% vs VAS @ 11%, hardly a significant difference and within margins of error. If having a higher NOACK helps with GDI IVD then Valvoline should've formulated VME with at least 60% PAO/POE & 15% NOACK, instead of 53% GrpIII.
 
Originally Posted By: HKPolice
No way Valvoline would let this video get posted if it contains incorrect info. You have to understand how sponsored youtube vids work. The sponsor has complete control over the content of the video, they can't afford incorrect info to tarnish their brand so they review it thoroughly before posting.

VME NOACK is 12% vs VAS @ 11%, hardly a significant difference. If having a higher NOACK helps with GDI IVD then Valvoline should've formulated VME with at least 60% PAO/POE & 15% NOACK, instead of 53% GrpIII.

I repeat again: The video repeats the falsehood that the oil mist coming from the PCV is evaporated base oil. According to the Afton paper, it isn't -- it's liquid oil droplets containing the full additive package in them.

I don't care how Valvoline vetted the video. The statement made in the video regarding the PCV oil mist is simply false.

It's up to Valvoline to use whatever base stock they want for their full-synthetic oils as long as it's at least Group III.

The minimum NOACK for GM dexos is 13.0%.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: HKPolice
No way Valvoline would let this video get posted if it contains incorrect info. You have to understand how sponsored youtube vids work. The sponsor has complete control over the content of the video, they can't afford incorrect info to tarnish their brand so they review it thoroughly before posting.

VME NOACK is 12% vs VAS @ 11%, hardly a significant difference. If having a higher NOACK helps with GDI IVD then Valvoline should've formulated VME with at least 60% PAO/POE & 15% NOACK, instead of 53% GrpIII.

I repeat again: The video repeats the falsehood that the oil mist coming from the PCV is evaporated base oil. According to the Afton paper, it isn't -- it's liquid oil droplets containing the full additive package in them.

I don't care how Valvoline vetted the video. The statement made in the video regarding the PCV oil mist is simply false.

It's up to Valvoline to use whatever base stock they want for their full-synthetic oils as long as it's at least Group III.

The minimum NOACK for GM dexos is 13.0%.


Well you should contact the youtuber & valvoline & clear it up for them.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: ChrisD46
I believe for a GDI engine you would want as low a NOACK oil as possible to keep intake valve deposits at bay (along with top tier gas , shorter OCI's , etc.) with a GDI engine.

Nope, on the contrary, the lower the NOACK and/or higher the base-oil viscosity, the more the intake-valve deposits will be. Alternatively, the higher the NOACK and/or lower the base-oil viscosity, the less the intake-valve deposits will be.

This is because one mechanism of cleaning of the intake-valve deposits is evaporation. If NOACK volatility is low or the base-oil is thick, the oil will spend more time on the valves as it evaporates more slowly, therefore leaving more deposits behind.

Intake-valve and combustion-chamber depo...ts their growth

So, if you want the least intake-valve deposits in a GDI engine, you need to pick up a 0W-20 with higher NOACK. A 10W-30, which has both a thick base oil and low NOACK would be the worst choice as far as the intake-valve deposits are concerned.

From the article: "The most important lubricating-oil component for deposit formation is the base oil. Increasing the high molecular weight (high viscosity) and low volatility content of the oil increases deposit formation."


I would encourage anyone interested to read the paper before latching onto that single by line as a factual representation of the paper...it is Point 8 in the conclusions regarding intake valve deposits, and COmbustion chamber deposits out of 12.

The textual context of the IVD (Intake Valve Deposits, using acronyms conveys an understanding of hidden knowledge) is

Quote:
Taking into consideration that in the case of GDI (Gasoline Direct Injection) engines no fuel is injected into the intake manifold, so no fuel spray is directed on the intake valves
tulip, lubricating oil is seen to be a significant factor in the amount of IVD formed in the GDI engine. In GDI engines, lubricating oil has direct paths to the intake valves through
the valve guides and PCV (Positive Crankcase Ventilation) system, while fuel must be considered to interact with the intake valves in only a secondary fashion, such as through blowback upon intake valve opening. At the same time in the case of GDI engines lubricating oil flowing to the intake valves through the valve guides without washing by the fuel, in consequence quite often formed IVD in GDI engines which
is higher than in the PFI [4].
 
*Would say M1 10W30 be considered a synthetic that uses a good base stock and as a result have a lower NOACK ?
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: HKPolice
Valvoline just sponsored a youtube video yesterday that says LOW NOACK is best for keeping deposits out of modern GDI engines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW0wCl-O7oY

Other than that one sketchy Polish research paper claiming high NOACK is better, is there any other evidence backing up the theory?

The video repeats the falsehood that the oil mist coming from the PCV is evaporated base oil. According to the Afton paper, it isn't -- it's liquid oil droplets containing the full additive package in them.

The video is sponsored but not made by Valvoline, as you said.

If you a repeat a falsehood often enough, it eventually becomes an illusion of truth, such as lower NOACK reducing the flow of the PCV oil mist. The media and Internet is becoming synonymous with fake news these days. Solution: Obtain your knowledge from scientific papers instead.

Low NOACK is a good thing if it indicates a good base oil (PAO/POE, GTL), but for a given base-oil type, it may not be such a good thing. It may help lower oil consumption if you have that problem but that's its main benefit. Also, the NOACK or base oil aren't the only variables, as we discussed. It's a pretty complicated business.
 
Originally Posted By: ChrisD46
*Would say M1 10W30 be considered a synthetic that uses a good base stock and as a result have a lower NOACK ?

According to the ExxonMobil MSDS (note that the additives and VII are about 20 - 25%):

M1 EP 0W-20: 60 - 70% PAO (the base oil is probably all PAO and POE)
M1 EP 5W-20: 20 - 30% PAO (the rest of the base oil is Group III with possibly some POE)
M1 EP 5W-30: 20 - 30% PAO (the rest of the base oil is Group III with possibly some POE)
M1 EP 10W-30: 1 - 5% PAO (the base oil is mostly Group III with a small dash of PAO and perhaps a small dash of POE as well)

POE isn't hazardous and therefore is unlisted but it could be about 10% for M1 EP 0W-20.

Therefore, they tend to decrease the base-oil quality as the x in xW-y becomes higher, since the CCS requirement is easier to meet and thicker base oils naturally have lower NOACK even for lower API groups (for lower base-oil quality).
 
Originally Posted By: HKPolice
Valvoline just sponsored a youtube video yesterday that says LOW NOACK is best for keeping deposits out of modern GDI engines.



Other than that one sketchy Polish research paper claiming high NOACK is better, is there any other evidence backing up the theory?


HA!! Yet their Modern Synthetic has a worse Noack than the regular Valvoline FS!
 
*Thanks Gokhan , then I assume the same would hold true for PPPP synthetics : 0W20 , 5W20 , 5W30 & 10W30 ?
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: ChrisD46
*Would say M1 10W30 be considered a synthetic that uses a good base stock and as a result have a lower NOACK ?

According to the ExxonMobil MSDS (note that the additives and VII are about 20 - 25%):

M1 EP 0W-20: 60 - 70% PAO (the base oil is probably all PAO and POE)
M1 EP 5W-20: 20 - 30% PAO (the rest of the base oil is Group III with possibly some POE)
M1 EP 5W-30: 20 - 30% PAO (the rest of the base oil is Group III with possibly some POE)
M1 EP 10W-30: 1 - 5% PAO (the base oil is mostly Group III with a small dash of PAO and perhaps a small dash of POE as well)

POE isn't hazardous and therefore is unlisted but it could be about 10% for M1 EP 0W-20.

Therefore, they tend to decrease the base-oil quality as the x in xW-y becomes higher, since the CCS requirement is easier to meet and thicker base oils naturally have lower NOACK even for lower API groups (for lower base-oil quality).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top