Ravenol SSL 0w-40 VOA

Status
Not open for further replies.

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
57,913
Location
Ontario, Canada
This is what I got back from Toromont. No real Moly or Titanium, a bit of Boron. I'm guessing Organic additives? Oxidation is also low, so POE content isn't high either.

[Linked Image]
 
Derp, I forgot, Ravenol states:

Originally Posted by Ravenol
RAVENOL Super Synthetik Öl SSL SAE 0W-40 utilizes the positive properties of tungsten to smooth the surface structure of the motor, reducing friction and wear, and significantly improving mechanical efficiency.


The lab didn't test for Tungsten, so we have no idea how much of that is in there I guess
21.gif
 
Thanks for sharing. I thought I recall an oil in the past that used tungsten. It may have been in some article I posted years ago.
 
Originally Posted by buster
Thanks for sharing. I thought I recall an oil in the past that used tungsten. It may have been in some article I posted years ago.


Yes, it appears they use that instead of Moly or Titanium. Not sure how one can readily glean its effectiveness when compared to those two but it's interesting and perhaps a bit "Unicorn", despite not showing in the analysis.
 
Ravenol has several oils that include moly and tungsten. DXG is another oil that you probably remember hearing about tungsten in. I have a jug on the shelf going in my Outback next now that the spark plug tube seals have been replaced.
 
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
Ravenol has several oils that include moly and tungsten. DXG is another oil that you probably remember hearing about tungsten in. I have a jug on the shelf going in my Outback next now that the spark plug tube seals have been replaced.


thumbsup2.gif
 
Thanks for the VOA! I wish we knew how much tungsten it has. I was hoping it had a decent amount of ester but as you said, the oxidation test ruled that out.
 
oil_film, I posted a white paper on the board a couple months ago that reviewed adding moly and/or tungsten to engine oil. I forget the exacts and don't feel like looking it up, but I believe at the "optimum" dose rates for both FMs combined, the reduction in friction was quite impressive, somewhere on the order of about 75-80% reduction in sliding and spinning friction. However, the study stopped short of doing a mass validation to show any real world benefits; there were no extended UOAs or even long-term mileage gains tests.

Maybe JAG, MolaKule, or SonOfJoe can tell us what exactly is the intent and real-world results of adding tungsten to motor oil, since other than claiming it's superior, Ravenol and Liqui-Moly don't get very technical in what the mode of action is.
 
SubieRubyRoo, I missed that paper you mentioned. With the moderate amounts of Moly + Tungsten in LM Molygen, they claim some friction and wear reduction, although just on a linear oscillation test which doesn't completely represent all the different rolling-sliding and variable pressure lubrication regimes inside an engine.
Ravenol SSL 0w40 has near-zero moly with an unknown amount of tungsten (W), even more difficult to read what they achieve in FM & AW. ... LiquiMoly appears to believe moly combined with tungsten is a good approach, although few other oils do this.
Japanese thin oils (0w16/20) often run a ton of moly, and we see Amsoil & Schaeffer believes in 200+ ppm moly (no tungsten) in their premium lines.
An option for overkill in this Chrysler SRT V8 is obviously the Mopar Pennzoil Ultra 0w40 with 270 ppm moly too.
Then there are polar forms of esters that act as FM, something oil makers don't like to talk about much.
 
Hello OVERKILL,
As far as I can see from the pictures posted from you in the other thread (in European and Import Motor Oils) your oil has been produced on 10.2016 (info on the 1 L bottles).
Oil-club.ru had (now it is gone) a VOA of the Ravenol SSL 0w-40 oil from batch produced on 02.09.2016.
Here it is:
[Linked Image]


And FTIR of the same oil:

[Linked Image]



As you can see the oil contains 54 ppm Molybdenum (Mo) and 5-6% Esters (oxidation = 34.9). The oil is mostly PAO based that can be seen from FTIR absorbance at 721.99 cm-1 = 1.28 that is way above 1. It is generally accepted (in oil-club.ru) that FTIR value around 1.2-1.3 corresponds to conclusion that the oil is mostly PAO based. The other important thing is absorbance level at 1747.25 cm-1 of the FTIR, that can be ester or additives (based on esters) that is in conformity with oxidation from the VOA of the oil.
Hope this helps...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by emod
Hello OVERKILL,
As far as I can see from the pictures posted from you in the other thread (in European and Import Motor Oils) your oil has been produced on 10.2016 (info on the 1 L bottles).
Oil-club.ru had (now it is gone) a VOA of the Ravenol SSL 0w-40 oil from batch produced on 02.09.2016.
Here it is:
[Linked Image]


And FTIR of the same oil:

[Linked Image]



As you can see the oil contains 54 ppm Molybdenum (Mo) and 5-6% Esters (oxidation = 34.9). The oil is mostly PAO based that can be seen from FTIR absorbance at 721.99 cm-1 = 1.28 that is way above 1. It is generally accepted (in oil-club.ru) that FTIR value around 1.2-1.3 corresponds to conclusion that the oil is mostly PAO based. The other important thing is absorbance level at 1747.25 cm-1 of the FTIR, that can be ester or additives (based on esters) that is in conformity with oxidation from the VOA of the oil.
Hope this helps...


Thanks for posting this.
 
Looks like the 2 Ravenol VOAs here have different FM formulas, as Ravenol does say they use Tungsten, which might account for moly being absent from overkill's batch.
OR, the old accusations of Ravenol batch quality issues cause these differences. In the U.S., one user had a jug of dexos1 Gen1 labelled as Gen2 oil. And other eastern European problems reported with consistency.

Below is the Molygen which has 117 ppm tungsten:
[Linked Image]
 
Originally Posted by emod
Hello OVERKILL,
As far as I can see from the pictures posted from you in the other thread (in European and Import Motor Oils) your oil has been produced on 10.2016 (info on the 1 L bottles).
Oil-club.ru had (now it is gone) a VOA of the Ravenol SSL 0w-40 oil from batch produced on 02.09.2016.

As you can see the oil contains 54 ppm Molybdenum (Mo) and 5-6% Esters (oxidation = 34.9). The oil is mostly PAO based that can be seen from FTIR absorbance at 721.99 cm-1 = 1.28 that is way above 1. It is generally accepted (in oil-club.ru) that FTIR value around 1.2-1.3 corresponds to conclusion that the oil is mostly PAO based. The other important thing is absorbance level at 1747.25 cm-1 of the FTIR, that can be ester or additives (based on esters) that is in conformity with oxidation from the VOA of the oil.
Hope this helps...


The date codes on my 1L bottles are 08/10/2018, You can see that the labels on mine are different from the Russian Oil Club ones. I specifically chose the 1L to send off because the date code was newer than the 5L jugs, and the 5L jugs didn't have the little extra indicator on the label.

Assuming both VOA's are accurate, it would point to them changing the formula.

Also note that my bottles say USVO on them and have that little red/white drop that says EELQMS on them, which are these guys:
http://www.eelqms.eu/
 
Using the web archive, it would appear that there is a rather significant change in the product that occurred between the 2016 product and the 2018 one.

Web Archive link to October 2015 product information

The next change to that page appears to have happened in November, 2016, where the PDS changed to more resemble the product I have.

Looking at the old PDS, the visc is higher, pour point isn't as low....etc. It seems to align far closer to the Oil Club results than the current PDS, which makes sense.
[Linked Image]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top