New oil with no Zinc or Phosphorus

[Gokhan]

TBN = 0 is not for the fainthearted, as the oil could corrode the lead bearings. Perhaps it's not a big problem in newer engines that don't use lead bearings. Let's see how the UOAs turn out. They said the early iterations struggled to get good UOAs.

It's a full synthetic, which is somewhat a first for a mainstream 15W-40. I thought Group III and GTL base stocks were rarely available in SAE 15W viscosity. There may be some PAO in the base oil as a result.

 

[Gokhan]

Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see how zero-SAPS, zero-TBN oils behave.

Detergentless, ZDDP-free oils are reincarnated with a vengeance.

I do suspect it has some detergent and minimal TBN to prevent bearing corrosion and clean engine and turbocharger deposits though. Perhaps SA ~ 0.5% with TBN ~ 6? That would make it a low-SAPS, not quite zero-SAPS oil. Don't they already have low-SAPS, ZDDP-free oils in Europe for some gasoline DPF applications? This doesn't seem so new in those lines.

ACEA SAPS definitions:

low-SAPS: SA ⤠0.5%
mid-SAPS: SA ⤠0.8%
full-SAPS: SA ⥠1.0%

API CK-4 has SA ⤠1.0%. So, most CK-4 oils are full-SAPS, albeit on the low end of the full-SAPS range, with SA = 1.0% as a result.

 

[53' Stude]

Originally Posted by alarmguy
Originally Posted by Rat407
Thought this was interesting. An oil without those two components, I wonder how it will do.
Light-bulb moment leads to low-ash-producing oil from Chevron


Well, since the beginning of time (almost) piston aircraft engines, the closest match being Shell Aero (and others)15/50 and 20/50 oils have no Zinc/Phosphorus/moly or any metallic type of antiwear agents.
The problem is these antiwear agents lead to carbon deposits.

I hate to say it but I think most people forget, the best anti wear agent in motor oil is the oil itself, not the stuff in UOAs.
People knock RATS tests not keeping in mind this simple fact, in a properly well designed engine/lubrication system, oil film strength is more important then anti wear additives for poorly designed engines.

Yes, you fly the friendly skies in planes who's engines have no antiwear agents in them as you would see in a VOA or UOA.

https://www.shell.com/business-customers/aviation/aeroshell.html

https://www.skygeek.com/aeroshell-15w50.html




Another load or horse caca being spewed once again. Get your facts straight please as MolaKule mentioned

 

[Kamele0N]

Originally Posted by Gokhan



API CK-4 has SA ⤠1.0%. So, most CK-4 oils are full-SAPS, albeit on the low end of the full-SAPS range, with SA = 1.0% as a result.


I would say more like mid-saps...

Dont we have those ashless oils in aviation industry?

 

[Kamele0N]

@Molakule...why are ZDDP free and ash free oils a must in avio industry?

Woud not low-saps oils suffice here? Never seen a fauled sparkplug in any modern car...not even in an oilburner...

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by Kamele0N
I would say more like mid-saps...

Low-SAPS is defined as SA ⤠0.5%.

Mid-SAPS is defined as 0.6% ⤠SA ⤠0.8%.

Full-SAPS is defined as 1.0% ⤠SA ⤠1.6%.

If you're at SA = 1.0%, it does not technically qualify as mid-SAPS. However, it does technically qualify as full-SAPS, albeit barely.

Moreover, most low-SAPS oils are right 0.5% SA and most mid-SAPS oils are right at 0.8% SA, which are the upper limits of the low-SAPS and mid-SAPS ranges, respectively. Typical full-SAPS oils are around 1.3% SA, which is the midpoint of the full-SAPS range.

 

[Gokhan]

You can read their article published on October 13, 2014, by creating a free JSTOR account.

Minimizing diesel particulate filter incombustibles by using ultra-low-ash - zero-phosphorus oil
James A. McGeehan -- Chevron Lubricants
Wim Van Dam, Ken Nelson, Alex Boffa, and Kevin Carabell -- Chevron Oronite Company LLC
Andrew Walker, Jon Caserta, and Raymond Conway -- Johnson Matthey Emissions Control Technologies Division

Glancing at the article, these ultra-low-SAPS oils (SA ~ 0.3%) barely work if/when at all.

Just as I said in my first post earlier, the biggest issue is the lead and copper corrosion and wear because TBN becomes zero quickly during the OCI. Most of their test oils failed the copper corrosion and wear tests as a result. If a test oil passed, it barely passed.

The lack of ZDDP is probably not a big deal though.

I wouldn't put these ultra-low-SAPS oils in any engine. The copper corrosion and wear problems because of low TBN probably outweigh the benefits of longer DPF service intervals.

 

[dnewton3]

If I am understanding correctly, the differences are thus:
- SA is an issue in that the residuals can attack the susceptible elements in the cat converter, primarily. But the new low=SAPs lube of discussion in this thread clearly talks to regen issues as well. Additionally with very low (zero?) Ca and Mg and such, there's a very low base number; issues with acids and some bearings, as stated above. (All the more reason to have sealed crankcases and make sure you don't short trip the drive cycles).
- Soot is an issue in that higher concentrations cause more frequent regen cycles, as well as eventually may (will?) require cleaning or replacement of the DPF? And there's some evidence that FBCs can alter this concern in a positive manner.

As a summary, do I have all that right?

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted by Kamele0N
@Molakule...why are ZDDP free and ash free oils a must in avio industry?

Woud not low-saps oils suffice here? Never seen a fauled sparkplug in any modern car...not even in an oilburner...


Air cooled Light plane Piston Engines have high blowby so high levels of metallic elements in the oil would add to the TEL deposits on the plugs and valves, so even a Low-SAPS oil would not qualify.

1. Sodium, Potassium, and Magnesium levels are below 5ppm.
2. Calcium Averages about 50ppm

1 and 2 are mainly acid fighters and anti-corrosion additives.

3. Phosphorus is the primary AW chemistry and averages about 250 ppm and is a Multi-Function AW, anti-oxidant, and friction modifier ester. It is usually in the form of butylated triphenyl phosphate because with the small amount of POE used, it forms a "passivated metal surface" which reduces base stock degradation.

One may ask why passivation is needed [Passivation in chemistry refers to a material becoming "passive," that is, less affected or corroded by the environment of future use]. If the metals are not passivated, then their atoms can interact with other chemicals and act as sludge catalysts.

The major base stock is mineral oil with some minor amounts of PAO and of course, a smaller amount of the POE.

4. Zinc averages about 3ppm and is mainly used as a secondary anti-oxidant.

5. The dispersant used is an ashless dispersant as well.

At about 25 hours of operation, an oil analysis will show about 4500ppm of lead, or about 180ppm/hour of operation.

 

[SavagePatch]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see how zero-SAPS, zero-TBN oils behave.

Detergentless, ZDDP-free oils are reincarnated with a vengeance.

I do suspect it has some detergent and minimal TBN to prevent bearing corrosion and clean engine and turbocharger deposits though. Perhaps SA ~ 0.5% with TBN ~ 6? That would make it a low-SAPS, not quite zero-SAPS oil. Don't they already have low-SAPS, ZDDP-free oils in Europe for some gasoline DPF applications? This doesn't seem so new in those lines.

ACEA SAPS definitions:

low-SAPS: SA ⤠0.5%
mid-SAPS: SA ⤠0.8%
full-SAPS: SA ⥠1.0%

API CK-4 has SA ⤠1.0%. So, most CK-4 oils are full-SAPS, albeit on the low end of the full-SAPS range, with SA = 1.0% as a result.


No need to assume or "suspect" what the SA level is. Just read the article that the OP linked. The proof is in the pudding.

 

[Gokhan]

If you read the article I posted (you need to create a free account), 0.4% SA is on the high end for their test oils. They had no success with 0.2% SA -- multiple failed tests -- and had limited or no success with 0.3% SA -- only barely passing all the tests in some cases.

Don't expect 0.4% SA to pass all the tests in full glory either -- some test results will be near the fail limit. When you use this oil, you must understand that the TBN will reach zero quickly and know its implications on copper and lead corrosion and wear, along with possible valvetrain wear. This oil is not for anyone unless the DPF service interval is the top priority.

These are some results for their second 0.4% SA test oil. It barely passed some of the tests. The first test oil failed, and then they put some copper-corrosion inhibitor in the second test oil.

HTCBT copper test: 20 ppm (fail limit: 20 ppm)
Caterpillar 1N deposits: 284 (fail limit: 286)
Mack T12 lead: 22 pppm (fail limit: 35 ppm)
Caterpillar C13 merits: 1,011 (fail limit: 1,000)

The first 0.4% SA test oil got 65 µm (fail limit: 90 µm) on Sequence IVA. This is a poor number for a HDEO.

If you use this oil, you must realize that it only meets the bare-minimum industry standards.

 

[Gokhan]

Looking at the article I posted:

0.2% SA test oil: near total failure, failing most OEM engine tests
0.3% SA test oil: fails Sequence IVA valvetrain wear for gasoline engines
0.4% SA test oil: 65 µm (fail limit: 90 µm) on the Sequence IVA valvetrain wear test for gasoline engines -- a poor number for an HDEO
0.4% SA test oil: copper corrosion and wear is near fail (the first attempt failed, and then they added a copper-corrosion inhibitor)
0.4% SA test oil: engine deposits near fail (don't expect this HDEO to clean your engine)

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Looking at the article I posted:

0.2% SA test oil: near total failure, failing most OEM engine tests
0.3% SA test oil: fails Sequence IVA valvetrain wear for gasoline engines
0.4% SA test oil: 65 µm (fail limit: 90 µm) on the Sequence IVA valvetrain wear test for gasoline engines -- a poor number for an HDEO
0.4% SA test oil: copper corrosion and wear is near fail (the first attempt failed, and then they added a copper-corrosion inhibitor)
0.4% SA test oil: engine deposits near fail (don't expect this HDEO to clean your engine)

If I understand this correctly it is not an oil I'd want in my engine.

 

[Kamele0N]

Quote
Air cooled Light plane Piston Engines have high blowby


Why is that like so...in a 21st century?

 

[alarmguy]

Originally Posted by MolaKule
Originally Posted by Kamele0N
@Molakule...why are ZDDP free and ash free oils a must in avio industry?

Woud not low-saps oils suffice here? Never seen a fauled sparkplug in any modern car...not even in an oilburner...


Air cooled Light plane Piston Engines have high blowby so high levels of metallic elements in the oil would add to the TEL deposits on the plugs and valves, so even a Low-SAPS oil would not qualify.

1. Sodium, Potassium, and Magnesium levels are below 5ppm.
2. Calcium Averages about 50ppm

1 and 2 are mainly acid fighters and anti-corrosion additives.

3. Phosphorus is the primary AW chemistry and averages about 250 ppm and is a Multi-Function AW, anti-oxidant, and friction modifier ester. It is usually in the form of butylated triphenyl phosphate because with the small amount of POE used, it forms a "passivated metal surface" which reduces base stock degradation.

One may ask why passivation is needed [Passivation in chemistry refers to a material becoming "passive," that is, less affected or corroded by the environment of future use]. If the metals are not passivated, then their atoms can interact with other chemicals and act as sludge catalysts.

The major base stock is mineral oil with some minor amounts of PAO and of course, a smaller amount of the POE.

4. Zinc averages about 3ppm and is mainly used as a secondary anti-oxidant.

5. The dispersant used is an ashless dispersant as well.

At about 25 hours of operation, an oil analysis will show about 4500ppm of lead, or about 180ppm/hour of operation.






Good post. But again, am I nuts to say Aircraft oil contains almost nothing of what we test for and call a good oil for Automobiles? Would not the same oil get trashed in BITOG if it was represented as a Automobile oil?

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by alarmguy
Good post. But again, am I nuts to say Aircraft oil contains almost nothing of what we test for and call a good oil for Automobiles? Would not the same oil get trashed in BITOG if it was represented as a Automobile oil?

Yes and rightly so. There's no industry quite as backwards as GA and yet people somehow think that because it's used on an airplane it has to be good. The same silly attitude is shown when entities tout that something is "used by the military" or "NASA used it on the Space Shuttle!" type of statements. Many of these sectors are extremely risk adverse and unlike the automobile industry they have little to no incentive for innovation. Even transport category aircraft are similar but GA is the worst in this area. Aircraft oils, both piston and turbine are inappropriate for automobile use.

Oh and you're still wrong trying to justify the goofy Rat tests as relevant to ICE. Whether it is a GA engine or an automotive one there is zero use for that irrelevant data even if it was statistically significant - which it is not. You can keep trying to make it substantive but no matter which angle you try it will never be representative of ICE operation. If someone is unable to grasp that reality I'm not sure why I would believe them about anything else they say on this board.

 

[53' Stude]

Originally Posted by alarmguy
Originally Posted by 53' Stude
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Originally Posted by Rat407
Thought this was interesting. An oil without those two components, I wonder how it will do.
Light-bulb moment leads to low-ash-producing oil from Chevron


Well, since the beginning of time (almost) piston aircraft engines, the closest match being Shell Aero (and others)15/50 and 20/50 oils have no Zinc/Phosphorus/moly or any metallic type of antiwear agents.
The problem is these antiwear agents lead to carbon deposits.

I hate to say it but I think most people forget, the best anti wear agent in motor oil is the oil itself, not the stuff in UOAs.
People knock RATS tests not keeping in mind this simple fact, in a properly well designed engine/lubrication system, oil film strength is more important then anti wear additives for poorly designed engines.

Yes, you fly the friendly skies in planes who's engines have no antiwear agents in them as you would see in a VOA or UOA.

https://www.shell.com/business-customers/aviation/aeroshell.html

https://www.skygeek.com/aeroshell-15w50.html




Another load or horse caca being spewed once again. Get your facts straight please as MolaKule mentioned


Blah blah blah, go send in a VOA of aircraft oil as a motor oil and watch it get trashed, Jack


HEY ALARMGUY,

Go chill out "jack"

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted by alarmguy


...Good post. But again, am I nuts to say Aircraft oil contains almost nothing of what we test for and call a good oil for Automobiles? Would not the same oil get trashed in BITOG if it was represented as a Automobile oil?


Why would one paste a General Aviation piston engine oil analysis here and claim it came from a water-cooled light truck or passenger vehicle's engine?

If the oil was properly identified as a General Aviation piston engine oil analysis no it would not get trashed.

But BITOG is not a General Aviation web site so I would not expect to see GA engine oil analysis posted here.

Recall earlier in prior posts we said there were different oils for different applications, with different base oils with their own DI packages.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted by MolaKule
Originally Posted by Kamele0N
@Molakule...why are ZDDP free and ash free oils a must in avio industry?

Woud not low-saps oils suffice here? Never seen a fauled sparkplug in any modern car...not even in an oilburner...


Air cooled Light plane Piston Engines have high blowby so high levels of metallic elements in the oil would add to the TEL deposits on the plugs and valves, so even a Low-SAPS oil would not qualify.



Let me rephrase that last statement.

Air cooled Light plane Piston Engines can exhibit high blowby during long, low-power descents so high levels of metallic elements in the oil would add to the TEL deposits on the plugs and valves, so even a Low-SAPS oil would not qualify.

It was not meant to imply these engines were designed with high blowby.

During flight training, we are discouraged in using long, low-power descents because this situation does increase blowby and increases oil consumption.

 

[RDY4WAR]

I'm guessing they're loading this oil up with Molyvan 855 to compensate the anti-wear. I look forward to a VOA.