Base Stock Formulations and Percentages

[OVERKILL]

Discussing MSDS, it varies massively on COO on what is divulged. The MSDS for M1 0w-40 varies wildly country to country despite Mobil saying the product is the same globally

So it is quite possible there's a small slug of PAO that isn't included in the MSDS for the GMX.

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Discussing MSDS, it varies massively on COO on what is divulged.
So it is quite possible there's a small slug of PAO that isn't included in the MSDS for the GMX.

My theory is Esters are capable of making a PAO-free oil worthy of 229.5. Formulators have any strong opinions of that?
Certainly its consistent with the basic principle of "cheap basestock, expensive addpack" or "expensive basestock, save money on the addpack", whichever makes the most economic sense.

 

[kschachn]

In a former life I wrote MSDS sheets for a large corporation. I can unequivocally state that part of the writing process was to divulge nothing about proprietary formulations in those sheets.

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Discussing MSDS, it varies massively on COO on what is divulged. The MSDS for M1 0w-40 varies wildly country to country despite Mobil saying the product is the same globally

So it is quite possible there's a small slug of PAO that isn't included in the MSDS for the GMX.

 

[MolaKule]

Phosphorodithioic acid, mixed O, : 1 - 3 % 84605-29-8 283-392-8 ----- 01-2119493626-26 Xi; R38-41N; R51-53 O-bis(1,3-dimethylbutyl and isoPr)esters, zinc = ZDDP and nothing else. As I have mentioned many times, ZDDP is an additive component in the form of an ester.


Originally Posted By: kschachn
In a former life I wrote MSDS sheets for a large corporation. I can unequivocally state that part of the writing process was to divulge nothing about proprietary formulations in those sheets.


Exactly.

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Phosphorodithioic acid, mixed O, : 1 - 3 % 84605-29-8 283-392-8 ----- 01-2119493626-26 Xi; R38-41N; R51-53 O-bis(1,3-dimethylbutyl and isoPr)esters, zinc = ZDDP and nothing else.

The 1% ZDDP then is 10,000 ppm. Thats incredibly high levels of ZDDP, or the MSDS is lying.
For GVX, that same chemical line on it's MSDS was a more sensible 1000 ppm.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
...Certainly its consistent with the basic principle of "cheap basestock, expensive addpack" or "expensive basestock, save money on the addpack", whichever makes the most economic sense.


That's not the way it's done:


Originally Posted By: Molakule
It's called, "Blending Optimization."

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Phosphorodithioic acid, mixed O, : 1 - 3 % 84605-29-8 283-392-8 ----- 01-2119493626-26 Xi; R38-41N; R51-53 O-bis(1,3-dimethylbutyl and isoPr)esters, zinc = ZDDP and nothing else.

The 1% ZDDP then is 10,000 ppm. Thats incredibly high levels of ZDDP, or the MSDS is lying.
For GVX, that same chemical line on it's MSDS was a more sensible 1000 ppm.



Originally Posted By: kschachn
In a former life I wrote MSDS sheets for a large corporation. I can unequivocally state that part of the writing process was to divulge nothing about proprietary formulations in those sheets.

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
That's not the way it's done:

There are variations between the two things: Spend a lot on the basestocks, which means you can to some extent save money on additives, and still meet the spec. Take the GMX which leaves out the pricey PAO (allegedly according to dishonest MSDS lists), that example shows you can do something to get your cheaper GroupIII basestock to pass 229.5.
Of course there is always tradeoffs. The goal is to make the cheapest oil you can.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus

My theory is Esters are capable of making a PAO-free oil worthy of 229.5...


Amsoil started out using a majority base oil of di-esters blended and formulated by Hatco.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
That's not the way it's done:

There are variations between the two things: Spend a lot on the basestocks, which means you can to some extent save money on additives, and still meet the spec. Take the GMX which leaves out the pricey PAO (allegedly according to dishonest MSDS lists), that example shows you can do something to get your cheaper GroupIII basestock to pass 229.5.
Of course there is always tradeoffs. The goal is to make the cheapest oil you can.


The goal is something called, "optimization."

It is a mathematical methodology adopted by formulators, tribologists, lubricant engineers, additive developes, etc., to determine the best formulation that meets a technical specification.

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Phosphorodithioic acid, mixed O, : 1 - 3 % 84605-29-8 283-392-8 ----- 01-2119493626-26 Xi; R38-41N; R51-53 O-bis(1,3-dimethylbutyl and isoPr)esters, zinc = ZDDP and nothing else.

The 1% ZDDP then is 10,000 ppm. Thats incredibly high levels of ZDDP, or the MSDS is lying.
For GVX, that same chemical line on it's MSDS was a more sensible 1000 ppm.


The specification is for phosphorus, which is only about 6% of ZDDP. Therefore the ZDDP needs to be dosed at >1% to deliver the spec quantity of phosphorus.

Each company has its own formulation philosophy. Some seek the lowest cost formula that just skinnies by the specs, while others formulate for maximum performance, or for specific properties that will support a differentiating marketing claim.

The use of expensive base oils is sometimes a clue that the company is more performance oriented, but not necessarily if the PAO is required for a given spec. The use of PAO does not significantly reduce additive cost, at least not as much as the PAO raises cost. Some companies actually use more additives with their synthetic offerings because these oils are intended to be their best foot forward. In addition, the cost difference between the synthetic base oils and additives is less, thus reducing the net treat cost.

Of course these corporate philosophies and practices are invisible to consumers, and the few clues we get are insufficient to determine relative performance. We need to rely on specifications met and the company's reputation. Fortunately the specification bar is set high and all oils certified against SN or GF-5 will provide adequate engine protection.

Tom NJ

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
The 1% ZDDP then is 10,000 ppm. Thats incredibly high levels of ZDDP, or the MSDS is lying.

No enforcement personnel will care if they MSDS is lying about ZDDP content in the least.

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule

The goal is something called, "optimization."

It is a mathematical methodology adopted by formulators, tribologists, lubricant engineers, additive developes, etc., to determine the best formulation that meets a technical specification.


If it was me formulating oil for a new set of specs, I'd evolve current formulas as little as possible. Mainly because the optimization you speak of is for a nonlinear process.
( See http://web.mit.edu/15.053/www/AMP-Chapter-13.pdf for a more complete discussion if you need to see common sense explained formally. )

Assuming you know the underlying oil performance model as a function of basestocks and additives, or at the very least know it well enough over small changes in formulation, you could put the new spec targets in and predict the formula that achieves it most precisely at minimal cost.

Of course changes in chemical input prices can be unpredictable.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
The 1% ZDDP then is 10,000 ppm. Thats incredibly high levels of ZDDP, or the MSDS is lying.

No enforcement personnel will care if they MSDS is lying about ZDDP content in the least.


This. The MSDS is for hazardous spill cleanup crews and firefighters, not people reading the tea leaves trying to discern composition. And like I and others have said they are often written in a way to conceal proprietary information.

It's been a while since I actually wrote one, but in the context of the MSDS 1% and .1% may be the same thing.

 

[Shannow]

Given the atomic masses of Zn, P, and S, just the functional group in the centre is only 25% zinc by mass.

so 1% ZDDP is automatically 0.25% Zn (and 0.25% P)...add in the alkyl groups having mass as well, and it's easy for 1% by mass to be 800 ppm of each.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
This. The MSDS is for hazardous spill cleanup crews and firefighters, not people reading the tea leaves trying to discern composition. And like I and others have said they are often written in a way to conceal proprietary information.

Yes. The only time I'd write someone up is if they were hauling something that had totally different emergency responses. If you haul gasoline and call it PYB, that's a problem. If you call it PYB 5w-30 but it's really Red Line 5w-30, there's no difference.

 

[spiderbypass]

Go to German websites and look for the word Volsynthetiches-which indicates a synthetic oil has more than 50 percent pao basestock. For example Liqui Moly 0w40 is one of their few oils that are labeled as such. Nearly every Motul oil on the German Website has the German Synthetic Technology-I think their 508.00 0w20 is one of the few with the word Volsynthetiches. Most Amsoil signature series oils on a German Website were also labeled with synthetic technology.