Renewable Lubricants

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by PimTac
Why go against that by adding additional additives?

Because the Archoil website has pictures of big pickup trucks and of Jay Leno, and states right on the front splash that it is "THE REAL DEAL." It also throws in the word "nano" because, well, you know, nano is good.

Never mind the fact that there is not one stitch of verifiable test results posted for any of their claims, just DieselTech magazine saying "We're Now Believers in Archoil". This is real-world stuff, bro.

No need to be so harsh.

It's not hard to see why people find it so easy to think of additives as a "some is good, therefore more is better" kind of thing. It's straightforward and intuitive, and it allows you to think a lot of tantalizing thoughts about tweaking and improving stuff. Thinking of additives in terms of balance etc. is much harder, and pretty much boxes you into running whatever someone else (who knows better than you) thinks is right. This is one of those situations where, unfortunately, the better idea is the one that needs more justification for people to accept.

 

[PimTac]

We see this argument all the time here with moly. If 200ppm is good then 400 must be better and 800 is fantastic. Why not 1200ppm then?

Much of this argument is based on additives we can see and measure. But as it has been said many times, there are components in motor oil that are not picked up by analysis.

I would rather trust the tribologists that formulate these oils than someone who is selling magic in a bottle.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted by PimTac
We see this argument all the time here with moly. If 200ppm is good then 400 must be better and 800 is fantastic. Why not 1200ppm then?

Much of this argument is based on additives we can see and measure. But as it has been said many times, there are components in motor oil that are not picked up by analysis.

I would rather trust the tribologists that formulate these oils than someone who is selling magic in a bottle.


Of course. Well said.

That doesn't mean we get to dump all over people who think otherwise, does it?

 

[Phishin]

I have thick skin, most of the time, so didn't take kschachn and dallas69 too seriously.

I completely understand what you guys are saying. And I agree with you. I just like to "fiddle" with stuff and I don't think any oil or additives I might throw at the Chevy 6.0 is going to do ANY HARM. The big V8 is bulletproof.

But the other "Pro-Additive" camp usually argues that: Any oil blender is in business to maximize profits. That's the point of business. Oil that is blended into a finished product that is "good enough" will yield those maximum profits. It's NOT the best oil, the most robust oil, or the oil that might prolong my engine's life and reduce wear. But it's an oil that will perform, as expected, and will not cause engines to seize or other mechanical problems. Now with licenses and approvals attached, these oils are "forced" to meet certain specs. But they are being blended to simply meet these specs as cheaply as possible. Certainly, it's not a "let's make the best performing oil possible regardless of cost" approach.

So when you think about these things, it's easy to see why anyone with a questioning mind might think they could improve the performance of their engine's oil.

The issue with RLI in this case (adding Archoil to it): It is possible to argue that RLI, along with Redline, Motul, and Torco, ACTUALLY are blended into being the best possible oil regardless of cost. And that is why, we see these oils use superior base stocks AND included much higher levels of AW and FM additives.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Phishin
But the other "Pro-Additive" camp usually argues that: Any oil blender is in business to maximize profits. That's the point of business. Oil that is blended into a finished product that is "good enough" will yield those maximum profits. It's NOT the best oil, the most robust oil, or the oil that might prolong my engine's life and reduce wear. But it's an oil that will perform, as expected, and will not cause engines to seize or other mechanical problems.


And then what's the intent of the additive manufacturer? Lucas uses the cheapest Group I bright stock, tosses some red dye and tackifier in it and calls it "Oil Stabilizer". These folks have no more interest in saving your engine than ExxonMobil, the difference is that the oil market is competitive and chalk full of standards for performance, whilst the additive market is the Wild West. The intentions are the same: making money, but there's nobody keeping the additive folk honest.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by d00df00d
Originally Posted by PimTac
We see this argument all the time here with moly. If 200ppm is good then 400 must be better and 800 is fantastic. Why not 1200ppm then?

Much of this argument is based on additives we can see and measure. But as it has been said many times, there are components in motor oil that are not picked up by analysis.

I would rather trust the tribologists that formulate these oils than someone who is selling magic in a bottle.


Of course. Well said.

That doesn't mean we get to dump all over people who think otherwise, does it?





Who is dumping? I'm keeping my comments civil. In the end it's up to the individual.

 

[Phishin]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
there's nobody keeping the additive folk honest.


Good Point OVERKILL. That's where you have to be an informed consumer and do your homework.

I know that Lucas products are CRAP. Most people would come to that same conclusion if they looked into Lucas products. Additives made by companies that make high-end, proven oils should be quality products. You would assume that the same kind of quality that goes into their oils also goes into their additive products as well (Redline, Motul, and Torco...for example).

Additives made by companies who ONLY make additives need to be under a higher level of scrutiny. There are a few other there that make good additives, like LubeGard.

My potential interest in Archoil is based on UOA's where Archoil has been dosed. The UOA's show a high level of interesting AW additives, as well as using a high quality basestock. I'm not saying the UOA's showed reduced wear, only that the product does actually contain a meaningful amount of interesting and potentially beneficial components.

 

[d00df00d]

So here's an important thing to remember. And please note I am FAR from a real expert on this; this is just my understanding from reading posts by people who ARE real experts.

Esters, AW additives, FM additives, and detergents are all things we like. They also all work by sticking to the surface of the metal. That means they all compete with each other.

RLI uses highly polar esters, which would be highly competitive at the metal surface, threatening to crowd out the other stuff. I bet that's one reason why they use so much AW, FM, and detergent -- i.e. that's the only way those ingredients will be effective.

Either way, it's all a complicated balancing act. RLI figured out how much of each thing to have so that the overall formula works. If you go and throw in more additives, you've thrown that balance to the dogs.

Maybe the way RLI did it is optimal; maybe it isn't. But even if it isn't, do you really think you can do better? That's the real question here. The answer is probably "no."

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by d00df00d
Originally Posted by PimTac
We see this argument all the time here with moly. If 200ppm is good then 400 must be better and 800 is fantastic. Why not 1200ppm then?

Much of this argument is based on additives we can see and measure. But as it has been said many times, there are components in motor oil that are not picked up by analysis.

I would rather trust the tribologists that formulate these oils than someone who is selling magic in a bottle.


Of course. Well said.

That doesn't mean we get to dump all over people who think otherwise, does it?





Who is dumping? I'm keeping my comments civil. In the end it's up to the individual.

Not you. My post that you're responding to was addressing kschachn's comments. Thought you might have been reacting to that.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by d00df00d
Not you. My post that you're responding to was addressing kschachn's comments. Thought you might have been reacting to that.

What part of my post are you objecting to exactly? I described their website correctly.

If it is the use of the word "bro" in my post then I suggest you visit their website, come back here and say that isn't the intent of the pictures and text posted there.

 

[Phishin]

Originally Posted by kschachn

If it is the use of the word "bro" in my post then I suggest you visit their website, come back here and say that isn't the intent of the pictures and text posted there.


I think you inferred that I was some kind of mindless, gullible idiot who would easily fall for ridiculous marketing non-sense. It's marketing....and most consumers are mind-less idiots. And if you want to gain the attention of the largest sect of our population (in order to obtain maximum sales) you need to cater to that crowd.

You could have the best product in the world, and all your marketing could be tests, results, facts, peer-reviewed studies, etc. etc. etc.....and virtually no one would buy it because virtually no one understands what you're talking about. a VAST majority of people are morons.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by Phishin
I think you inferred that I was some kind of mindless, gullible idiot who would easily fall for ridiculous marketing non-sense. It's marketing....and most consumers are mind-less idiots. And if you want to gain the attention of the largest sect of our population (in order to obtain maximum sales) you need to cater to that crowd.

You could have the best product in the world, and all your marketing could be tests, results, facts, peer-reviewed studies, etc. etc. etc.....and virtually no one would buy it because virtually no one understands what you're talking about. a VAST majority of people are morons.

Sorry I didn't mean my response as being personal it was in regards to the website.

As to your second point though, that may be true. But the reverse is also true, you can have a website full of flash and mindless (likely fake) testimonials that in the end doesn't mean a dang thing. Marketing is communicating to potential customers the benefits and reasons for choosing a product over a competitor's, not just a ball of nonsense. The challenge in marketing is translate those test results and facts into language that is understandable, not just post "quotes" from diesel magazines saying how cool the product is.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted by miami993

...My entire posting here was trying to be informative on this RLI 5W40 developed by Terry Dyson if I don't mistake, and that is providing to this engine of mine better results than all types of Mobil 1, Red Line or Amsoil tested in it, that's all.

To avoid any controversy if someone needs the HTHS and VI of this formula (both impressive), try to pm me.
All the best.
Christian


Dyson is not a formulator so I highly doubt he formulated anything. Were did this info come from? Ask Bill Garmier if Dyson formulated anything for RLI.

Antimony tris(dialkyldithiocarbamate) is an antioxidant, antiwear/antiscuff, friction feducer that works well with bio-synthetic oils and specially prepared vegetable oil bases.

 

[miami993]

Originally Posted by MolaKule
Originally Posted by miami993

...My entire posting here was trying to be informative on this RLI 5W40 developed by Terry Dyson if I don't mistake, and that is providing to this engine of mine better results than all types of Mobil 1, Red Line or Amsoil tested in it, that's all.

To avoid any controversy if someone needs the HTHS and VI of this formula (both impressive), try to pm me.
All the best.
Christian


Dyson is not a formulator so I highly doubt he formulated anything. Were did this info come from? Ask Bill Garmier if Dyson formulated anything for RLI.

Antimony tris(dialkyldithiocarbamate) is an antioxidant, antiwear/antiscuff, friction feducer that works well with bio-synthetic oils and specially prepared vegetable oil bases.


Hello Molakule,
I didn't heard that statement from Mr. William Garmier...I only have "memories" of reading that "web info" on forums...then I retract the formulation statement from my original post that will edit.

Thank you Molakule for watching and teaching, and I will ask Bill about Terry Dyson directly.
Christian

 

[miami993]

Originally Posted by MolaKule
Originally Posted by miami993

...My entire posting here was trying to be informative on this RLI 5W40 developed by Terry Dyson if I don't mistake, and that is providing to this engine of mine better results than all types of Mobil 1, Red Line or Amsoil tested in it, that's all.

To avoid any controversy if someone needs the HTHS and VI of this formula (both impressive), try to pm me.
All the best.
Christian


Dyson is not a formulator so I highly doubt he formulated anything. Were did this info come from? Ask Bill Garmier if Dyson formulated anything for RLI.

Antimony tris(dialkyldithiocarbamate) is an antioxidant, antiwear/antiscuff, friction feducer that works well with bio-synthetic oils and specially prepared vegetable oil bases.

Originally Posted by miami993
Originally Posted by MolaKule
Originally Posted by miami993

...My entire posting here was trying to be informative on this RLI 5W40 developed by Terry Dyson if I don't mistake, and that is providing to this engine of mine better results than all types of Mobil 1, Red Line or Amsoil tested in it, that's all.

To avoid any controversy if someone needs the HTHS and VI of this formula (both impressive), try to pm me.
All the best.
Christian


Dyson is not a formulator so I highly doubt he formulated anything. Were did this info come from? Ask Bill Garmier if Dyson formulated anything for RLI.

Antimony tris(dialkyldithiocarbamate) is an antioxidant, antiwear/antiscuff, friction feducer that works well with bio-synthetic oils and specially prepared vegetable oil bases.


Hello Molakule,
I didn't heard that statement from Mr. William Garmier...I only have "memories" of reading that "web info" on forums...then I retract the formulation statement from my original post that will edit.

Thank you Molakule for watching and teaching, and I will ask Bill about Terry Dyson directly.
Christian


Hello again Molakule,
I can't edit my post #4899372 from 10/18/18 11:08 AM on page # 3 in this thread...!!!

Can a Moderator edit it for me and erase the " developed by Terry Dyson if I don't mistake" part of my writting please?

Best regards.

 

[miami993]

Does someone knows for this Bio-SynXtra HD Plus SHP Motor Oil SAE 5W40 Low Ash:
- VI: ....
- HTHS: ....

????
Christian

 

[CleverUserName]

Originally Posted by miami993
Does someone knows for this Bio-SynXtra HD Plus SHP Motor Oil SAE 5W40 Low Ash:
- VI: ....
- HTHS: ....

????
Christian


I remember the HTHS of the 15w40 as tested was 5.2 so you could deduce the 5w40 as bieng 4.7 or 4.8.

VI is published on their site. I think it is 190

 

[miami993]

Originally Posted by CleverUserName


I remember the HTHS of the 15w40 as tested was 5.2 so you could deduce the 5w40 as bieng 4.7 or 4.8.

VI is published on their site. I think it is 190


Thank you CleverUserName,

It seems this high VI is making my Hydraulic lifters quiet...
It seems this high HTHS is making my engines internal wearing less.

Christian

 

[Phishin]

Well, despite your best intentions of talking me out of dosing RLI with Archoil 9100, I did it anyway yesterday last night. I'll do it again after this OCI, and I'll pull a sample for testing.

Does anyone know if Blackstone can test for Antimony?

 

[CleverUserName]

Originally Posted by Phishin
Well, despite your best intentions of talking me out of dosing RLI with Archoil 9100, I did it anyway yesterday last night. I'll do it again after this OCI, and I'll pull a sample for testing.

Does anyone know if Blackstone can test for Antimony?

Why would you pay extra for Blackstone to test for Antimony when Oil Analyzers AKA Polaris labs includes it in their standard GC test of metals.

To answer your other question;

Archoil 9100 is a very expensive additive. I've never seen any conclusive evidence that it reduces wear, in fact I've seen numerous UOAs where there was no improvement vs. the previous samples w/out 9100. Why would you waste your money?

Secondly, the additive chemistry of the RLI product line is unique and you were warned about mixing in any additives due to potential compatibility issues. The only thing you should be adding is the RLI Booster Pak if you want > 400 ppm of antimony.

As hard as it is to believe, the RLI Biosyn Xtra HD oils do not need anything added to them.