Amsoil SS Noack numbers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by OilUzer
Originally Posted by SlavaB
Pennzoil yellow bottle 10w30 @ 4.4
Source http://www.pqiadata.org/Pennzoil10W30.html


I wish I could remember %10 of what I read
grin2.gif


Which oil was it that people were recently talking about having a low Noack for a while due to excess good base oil that was used in it ... and later it went back to its original base oil and higher Noack!
Do you remember that?

Check this... apparently, from a SOPUS person, the PYB is mostly a straight grade Grp2+/3?? Did I get that right?...And one of their "best" oils conventional, dino or otherwise right now. (the numbers certainly look good)

Gonna have to give PYB another look.. don't care if it's a dino because I'm not doing over 5k oci's.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1142410

Originally Posted by Volvoeric
"kschachn" should also be "Kschachn".... just saying.

...‚
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Originally Posted by OilUzer
Originally Posted by SlavaB
Pennzoil yellow bottle 10w30 @ 4.4
Source http://www.pqiadata.org/Pennzoil10W30.html


I wish I could remember %10 of what I read
grin2.gif


Which oil was it that people were recently talking about having a low Noack for a while due to excess good base oil that was used in it ... and later it went back to its original base oil and higher Noack!
Do you remember that?

Check this... apparently, from a SOPUS person, the PYB is mostly a straight grade Grp2+/3?? Did I get that right?...And one of their "best" oils conventional, dino or otherwise right now. (the numbers certainly look good)

Gonna have to give PYB another look.. don't care if it's a dino because I'm not doing over 5k oci's.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1142410

Originally Posted by Volvoeric
"kschachn" should also be "Kschachn".... just saying.

...‚


Seems like you're reading it right, I'm not following tho why everyone are so excited about the fact pyb is group 2?
 
Originally Posted by OilUzer
Originally Posted by SlavaB
Pennzoil yellow bottle 10w30 @ 4.4
Source http://www.pqiadata.org/Pennzoil10W30.html


I wish I could remember %10 of what I read
grin2.gif


Which oil was it that people were recently talking about having a low Noack for a while due to excess good base oil that was used in it ... and later it went back to its original base oil and higher Noack!
Do you remember that?


Seems like I've seen smth like this, but not sure what the oil was that.
 
Originally Posted by SlavaB

Seems like you're reading it right, I'm not following tho why everyone are so excited about the fact pyb is group 2?

I think it's more about the quality of the base oil (low noack)..a lot of people use conventional in older cars so having a low noack is something that would be sought-after...but unless you've got a high mileage vehicle, this probably doesn't mean much to ya.
 
Originally Posted by OilUzer
re Noack:

y'all, let's not forget that the cylinder wall temps are well above the nominal coolant and engine oil temperatures ... it can easily be in the 400°F+ territory ... and oil doesn't just start evaporating right at 250°C (482°F). That's just the selected test temperature.

Are you saying that's the area in an engine that sees the hottest temperatures?
 
Originally Posted by madeej11
Are you saying that's the area in an engine that sees the hottest temperatures?


Some comments were made that the engine coolant temperature and the oil temperature (as read by odbii) never gets anywhere near 250°C (482°F) of the Noack volatility test ... suggesting that Noack numbers may not be that significant.

The part about the typical coolant temp and the oil temp (as read by odbii or gauges) being low (e.g. less or much less than 230°F) is true. However, my point was that there are other hot parts of the engine that the oil can come in contact with which are well above the nominal coolant and/or oil temperatures as read by the odbii/gauges.
 
Originally Posted by OilUzer
Originally Posted by madeej11
Are you saying that's the area in an engine that sees the hottest temperatures?


Some comments were made that the engine coolant temperature and the oil temperature (as read by odbii) never gets anywhere near 250°C (482°F) of the Noack volatility test ... suggesting that Noack numbers may not be that significant.

The part about the typical coolant temp and the oil temp (as read by odbii or gauges) being low (e.g. less or much less than 230°F) is true. However, my point was that there are other hot parts of the engine that the oil can come in contact with which are well above the nominal coolant and/or oil temperatures as read by the odbii/gauges.


It may come in contact but for how long? The oil in your engine isn't static, it's constantly circulating thus cooling/heating. Now maybe I'm off here, but I find it hard to believe that whatever oil comes in contact with these hot spots, has it's temp elevated close to 250c in the few milliseconds it takes to flow past. And I'm not saying noack is "irrelevant", what I said is it's not even in the top the specs I look at when considering an oil. But that's just me and by no means let me ruin that party for ya, if you wanna chase it go right ahead...ya don't need my approval for that...but, if you have an engine with a consumption issue, I don't, maybe noack is something you might give more consideration to.
 
Last edited:
I'm not an expert and see your point about oil having quick/short contact with the hot spots ... However I think it is spread and splashed very thin in those areas as well.

Edit:
Also the oil doesn't have to be at exactly 250°C to start evaporating! That's just a chosen temp for the volatility test.

Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
... but I find it hard to believe that whatever oil comes in contact with these hot spots, has it's temp elevated close to 250c in the few milliseconds it takes to flow past ...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by OilUzer
I'm not an expert and see your point about oil having quick/short contact with the hot spots ... However I think it is spread and splashed very thin in those areas as well.

Edit:
Also the oil doesn't have to be at exactly 250°C to start evaporating! That's just a chosen temp for the volatility test.

Agreed, oil begins to evaporate below 250c but my impression is meaningful loss doesn't occur up until that point, right? (I'm assuming 250c is not some random figure & represents the point at which evaporative loss accelerates; the loss curve??)..I have to believe a lot of research went into settling on the
Since I don't have an abnormal operating condition (leaky gaskets, valve seals/guides, worn rings/liners, oil cooling issue) that is consuming oil, I'm confident any
 
Last edited:
You can't assume anything and you can't assume 250C has some special meaning. There are examples throughout science and medicine where chosen cutoffs aren't significant but they are kept for historical reasons. Ex. Total cholesterol - there was no data to support the decision made by the AHA to set a total cholesterol of 200 to be the cutoff for treatment. The actual number supported by data (the point at which people experience more disease) was more like 230 but the AHA wanted a "fudge factor" - unfortunately it has lead to millions of people being unnecessarily treated for hypercholesterolemia even though treatment has no benefit.

I'm not saying whether 250C is or isn't significant - I don't know - what I am saying is you can't assume it has some special meaning. That's for the experts who know the actual data to determine.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
OilUzer said:
Since I don't have an abnormal operating condition (leaky gaskets, valve seals/guides, worn rings/liners, oil cooling issue) that is consuming oil, I'm confident any

Exactly. IMO Noack is over thought here. In a healthy engine you really have no worries. Lets also keep in mind how hot a cylinder can get, a lot hotter than 250C.
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by PWMDMD

I'm not saying whether 250C is or isn't significant - I don't know - what I am saying is you can't assume it has some special meaning. That's for the experts who know the actual data to determine.

I may be wrong here but I think 250c is the point at which mineral based lubricants show signs of thermal break down... and fully synthetics are closer to 300c, this is why they perform better in high(er) heat applications.
 
Originally Posted by demarpaint

Exactly. IMO Noack is over thought here. In a healthy engine you really have no worries. Lets also keep in mind how hot a cylinder can get, a lot hotter than 250C.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the majority of the oil that disappears from your sump... went *poof* in the combustion chamber and not as a result of evaporation. The way I see it, is that evaporation should not exacerbate your engines drinking problem.... If you're a (t)gdi owner worried about cylinder carbon, well you should be using a SN+ oil to begin with and maybe chasing low noack is worthwhile...but I go back to what I previously said, why then isn't this a problem with diesel engines and 20yr old gdi's??


Fwiw, a good and short read..

Oil Consumption
 
Originally Posted by PWMDMD
I'm not saying whether 250C is or isn't significant - I don't know - what I am saying is you can't assume it has some special meaning. That's for the experts who know the actual data to determine.

The special reason probably has a fair bit to do with making a test feasible to perform. A volatility test for motor oil at 35 C would be pretty much useless, unless the test is a thousand years. You can't ramp the temperature up indefinitely, either, for obvious reasons. The same goes for the time in the test. You don't want to be waiting for months. You can't do it in two seconds, either.
 
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Originally Posted by demarpaint

Exactly. IMO Noack is over thought here. In a healthy engine you really have no worries. Lets also keep in mind how hot a cylinder can get, a lot hotter than 250C.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the majority of the oil that disappears from your sump... went *poof* in the combustion chamber and not as a result of evaporation. The way I see it, is that evaporation should not exacerbate your engines drinking problem.... If you're a (t)gdi owner worried about cylinder carbon, well you should be using a SN+ oil to begin with and maybe chasing low noack is worthwhile...but I go back to what I previously said, why then isn't this a problem with diesel engines and 20yr old gdi's??


Fwiw, a good and short read..

Oil Consumption

I'd say your description is accurate. Fortunately I'm not a GDI engine owner, at least for now. The oil I am currently using has a Noack of 10, there is no need for me to chase a lower number.
 
As I've mentioned earlier, the Noack numbers are significant
shocked2.gif


From the "Oil Consumption" link posted above:

"Cylinder Wall Oil Evaporation
As much as 17 percent of total oil consumption is associated with liner wall evaporation. The more distorted (out-of-round) and rough (surface finish) the cylinder liner, the more oil film that will remain on the liner after the power stroke. High liner surface temperatures (80-300 degrees C) will cause a loss of this oil by misting and evaporation.
...
Not all oils of the same viscosity are equal from the standpoint of volatility (risk of evaporative loss). Some lubricants may exhibit as much as a 50-percent greater loss from volatility than others. This is influenced by the base oil's molecular weight distribution."

Best regards,
Noack Chaser
grin2.gif
 
Btw, there are very reasonably priced oils with relatively low(er) Noack numbers.
My 2nd post on page 1 (Magnatec) and PP (posted by others in this thread) are two good examples. 6.9 and 4.7 respectively! Both are 10w30.
My wife says the car is quiet with PP. She doesn't know the names though. I experiment with different oils mostly in her car.
lol.gif
 
Originally Posted by OilUzer
Btw, there are very reasonably priced oils with relatively low(er) Noack numbers.
My 2nd post on page 1 (Magnatec) and PP (posted by others in this thread) are two good examples. 6.9 and 4.7 respectively! Both are 10w30.
My wife says the car is quiet with PP. She doesn't know the names though. I experiment with different oils mostly in her car.
lol.gif



Very interesting.
I've tried PP and Magnatec in 5w30 flavor in my Kia, Magnatec runs way better imo. Not sure if the filter choice is significant, but it was OEM for PP and K&N for Magnatec. Anyways, the latter combo was the smoothest I've ran in my car. On oem with 5w20 right now just to have a dealer service receipt for warranty reasons only. Can't experiment with my wife's car much, that MB only wants MB 229.5 oil and seems to live M1
 
I haven't tried Magnatec in her car (2.4 L DI) yet. I have some GTX 10wx30 in the garage.

With M1 EP 10w30 the oil color stays clean the longest. Kind of like this oil!
With PP 5Wx30 she says the car is quiet.

Right now it's running with Chevron Supreme 10Wx30 dino! She hasn't said anything.

Btw, I have read that Kia/Hyundai oil filters are very good!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
Modified 2.8 Duramax Rec
Replies
4
Views
942
Brice
J
UOA-Toyota A750E 5-speed auto w/225k, Amsoil ATL
Replies
1
Views
1K
Nesterenko
buster
Noack Variances
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
kstanf150
BlueOvalFitter
Q?'s About Amsoil SS
Replies
5
Views
3K
Kuato
cammyfive79
Honda OEM 15400-PLM-A02 vs Amsoil EA15K13-EA w/ HPL 5W30
Replies
4
Views
2K
cronk
Back
Top