MMoil vs TCw3
- Thread starter old1
- Start date
- Status
MolaKule
Staff member
There is no diversion on my part, and thanks for clarifying some things and I'll try to comment on some of the core statements:
Originally Posted by Shannow
...So do you disbelieve that FMs can be delivered to the upper cylinder area via fuel ?...
I believe it can be delivered with the qualification there has to be the correct Fuel Friction Modifier (FFM) chemistry, an efficient way to deliver an FFM to the top ring belt, and it has to be economical,
(It would seem to me that the fuel injector's position would have to be somewhere at the top center of the cylinder, or there has to be some induced mixing using a good "swirling" effect in order to accomplish efficient atomization and subsequent deposition, but that is another discussion).
Here is what I see as the rub and it raises a new question: How much more efficiency can be gained by this Fuel Friction Modifier (FFM) over the Oil Friction Modifier (OFM)?
Now, when I see a claimed 0.19% increase in Equivalent Fuel Economy Improvement (EFEI) with an oil that already has ~ 700 ppm of molybdenum dithiocarbamate FM in the oil, which even at this time was a really high level of MoDTC OFM, I tend to get skeptical. Statistically, this appears to be a situation in which this result is down in the noise level and implies an insignificant contribution.
Now to be fair, the SAE paper does show higher Improvement (EFEI) percentages for non-OFM PCMO's and non-OFM Diesel Oils in their tests, which is to be expected.
Originally Posted by Shannow
...Or do you, as the industry expert in this thread have information that the FMs in Two stroke oil, which ARE designed to be delivered via the fuel are materially different to those studied ?...
Some background to the 2001 SAE paper (which I have): The paper was written by researchers Thomas E. Hayden, Charles A. Ropes and Michael G. Rawdon of the company, Texaco Additives International (TAI). TAI was bought by the Ethyl Corporation sometime after this and well, Ethyl had a name change to "Afton" as you may recall.
And we have this Power Point presentation from Chevron Oronite, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f9/2003_deer_kaufman.pdf, written by: C. Yvonne Thiel, Thomas E. Hayden and Benjamin J Kaufman.
Neither the SAE paper nor the Power Point article, both written primarily by Thomas E. Hayden, discloses the nature (chemistry) of this FFM, and quite frankly, I couldn't blame them for not disclosing it in the public domain at this time, because even then, EFEI efficiency gains were a big deal.
However, I have not seen any further papers on this concept. I suspect (surmise) that as the engine oils became more fuel efficient with the incorporation of both MoDTC and purely organic OFM's, and because of the cost of these FFM's, this concept seems to have been relegated to history.
The FFM was a dialkylaminoalkanol (3-(dodecyl(methyl)amino)propane-1,2-diol) or an alkylated amine such as n-butylamine isostearate ( (Afton patents), or an aliphatic amine (Japanese patent).
Now obviously I haven't reviewed all of the patents from all of the companies, but this is a cross-section of what I have found to-date.
So yes, the Friction Modifiers for TC-W3 and the Fuel Friction Modifiers were (are) different. Interesting discussion.
Originally Posted by Shannow
...So do you disbelieve that FMs can be delivered to the upper cylinder area via fuel ?...
I believe it can be delivered with the qualification there has to be the correct Fuel Friction Modifier (FFM) chemistry, an efficient way to deliver an FFM to the top ring belt, and it has to be economical,
(It would seem to me that the fuel injector's position would have to be somewhere at the top center of the cylinder, or there has to be some induced mixing using a good "swirling" effect in order to accomplish efficient atomization and subsequent deposition, but that is another discussion).
Here is what I see as the rub and it raises a new question: How much more efficiency can be gained by this Fuel Friction Modifier (FFM) over the Oil Friction Modifier (OFM)?
Now, when I see a claimed 0.19% increase in Equivalent Fuel Economy Improvement (EFEI) with an oil that already has ~ 700 ppm of molybdenum dithiocarbamate FM in the oil, which even at this time was a really high level of MoDTC OFM, I tend to get skeptical. Statistically, this appears to be a situation in which this result is down in the noise level and implies an insignificant contribution.
Now to be fair, the SAE paper does show higher Improvement (EFEI) percentages for non-OFM PCMO's and non-OFM Diesel Oils in their tests, which is to be expected.
Originally Posted by Shannow
...Or do you, as the industry expert in this thread have information that the FMs in Two stroke oil, which ARE designed to be delivered via the fuel are materially different to those studied ?...
Some background to the 2001 SAE paper (which I have): The paper was written by researchers Thomas E. Hayden, Charles A. Ropes and Michael G. Rawdon of the company, Texaco Additives International (TAI). TAI was bought by the Ethyl Corporation sometime after this and well, Ethyl had a name change to "Afton" as you may recall.
And we have this Power Point presentation from Chevron Oronite, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f9/2003_deer_kaufman.pdf, written by: C. Yvonne Thiel, Thomas E. Hayden and Benjamin J Kaufman.
Neither the SAE paper nor the Power Point article, both written primarily by Thomas E. Hayden, discloses the nature (chemistry) of this FFM, and quite frankly, I couldn't blame them for not disclosing it in the public domain at this time, because even then, EFEI efficiency gains were a big deal.
However, I have not seen any further papers on this concept. I suspect (surmise) that as the engine oils became more fuel efficient with the incorporation of both MoDTC and purely organic OFM's, and because of the cost of these FFM's, this concept seems to have been relegated to history.
The FFM was a dialkylaminoalkanol (3-(dodecyl(methyl)amino)propane-1,2-diol) or an alkylated amine such as n-butylamine isostearate ( (Afton patents), or an aliphatic amine (Japanese patent).
Now obviously I haven't reviewed all of the patents from all of the companies, but this is a cross-section of what I have found to-date.
So yes, the Friction Modifiers for TC-W3 and the Fuel Friction Modifiers were (are) different. Interesting discussion.
Last edited:
- Status
