A Short Time Line for Development

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
What kind of "thickener" are you referring to? I think you are confusing Viscosity Index Improvers with higher viscosity basestocks; they are not the same. The newer oils will incorporate BOTH improved and highly stable VIIs with small percentages of high viscosity GroupIV and GroupV or special polymers to achieve the needed HTHSs.
Sure, VII's increase viscosity at the hot end, and higher visc base oils raise visc over all temperatures, understood. The point here is to get the GF-6B oil's extra boundary lubrication performance in an oil that has an HTHS of around 3.0 as in current oils speced for 30 viscosity engines. I'm primarily considering leaving VII alone, and adding thicker base oil only.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
If you want to take one of these oils and thicken it, at least start with a straight 40 HDMO...at least it's got a full compliment of traditional additives, and VII free, there's less to muck up.
The advantage of using STP Oil Treatment is that the stuff is so thick it takes very little to raise viscosity. I doubt if the small concentrations of additives in STP would clash with the new GF-6B oils new tech, yet Molakule appears to be concerned about interference, although he probably has never actually tried it.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Another thing we have to consider is that if a new, hypothetical GF-6B oil is loaded up with a bunch of additives for boundary lubrication, even if you could thicken the oil without reducing the additive concentration, what would be the point? Having extra additives for boundary protection in a sub-SAE 20 doesn't seem, at least to me, to be terribly useful if you thicken it up to a 40.
There still is some boundary lubrication, and mixed, using a 30 weight oil. I'd only want to increase HTHS to 3.0 ( a 30 weight, not a 40 as you suggest ).
 
I exaggerated intentionally, not knowing how high you were intending. Of course, there are going to be at least some moments of a boundary regime, regardless of viscosity. I still would maintain there are enough off the shelf options in 30 grades to preclude me from tampering. One can get all kinds of different VI levels, from monogrades to high VI 0w-30s, plus high HTHS and lower HTHS varieties. Mola doesn't have to monkey with STP, mostly because he doesn't have to with what he has available, and, additionally, he probably doesn't see the need.
 
MI as in MolaKule's Input, not M1 as in Mobil 1. You wrote 'AW, AO, MI, DI, etc. chemistry'. The others I understand but not MI. I'm sort of assuming it's a typo but I thought I'd ask...
 
Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Originally Posted By: Benito
Who is doing the disallowing and allowing of your mixology? Your wife? grin
You have a lot to learn about load, viscosity, bearing surface area, hydrodynamics, etc. if you have to ask that. Also, engines now often specify >2.8 HTHS, very common. Also you are totally missing the main point: GF-6B oils alone are targeted to have the same or slightly worse wear performance as current thicker oils. Combining BL/MH performance of a new GF-6B oil with better load carrying of a 2.9 or so HTHS would be superior. If you looked into "Motor Oil 101", this wouldn't be so difficult for you.
ExMachina, I hear you, and I know exactly what you want. The best add pack in a good 'ol high HTHS oil. Don't worry, Penrite will make it for you, as a off- the- shelf product. That is the whole point of their "extra ten" oils. No need for that STP goop. Come to the Dark Side ExMachina.
 
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
MI as in MolaKule's Input, not M1 as in Mobil 1. You wrote 'AW, AO, MI, DI, etc. chemistry'. The others I understand but not MI. I'm sort of assuming it's a typo but I thought I'd ask...
Oh, okay, MI is short for "Metal Inhibitors," which inhibits oil oxidation when metal molecules get mixed into the oil. It was found in the early days of motor oil chemistry research that when iron, and especially copper molecules get mixed into the oil, those metallic molecules act as a catalyst to accelerate oil oxidation. So you add MI's to inhibit that action.
 
I always thought metals 'swung both ways'. A bit of Copper Oleate used to inhibit oxidation. Too much and things went the other way which is when you start slapping in the Metal Deactivators. Anyways, I now know what MI stands for something other that Military Intelligence (itself a contradiction in terms)..
 
Originally Posted By: ExMachina
The advantage of using STP Oil Treatment is that the stuff is so thick it takes very little to raise viscosity. I doubt if the small concentrations of additives in STP would clash with the new GF-6B oils new tech, yet Molakule appears to be concerned about interference, although he probably has never actually tried it.
On the contrary, I have tested it and the combination of OCP and mineral bright stocks in STP only increased piston deposits. The GF-6 formulations will actually have a decrease in VII content because the engine engineers want to see less piston deposit contributions from VII's. The newer VII's that will be incorporated are specially architected polymers called, "comb" polymers, which are a reacted combination of PAO and polymethylacrylates (PMA's), which are very stable. What we don't want in the upcoming formulations is some other ancient polymer "mucking up" the stability or other characteristics of the enhanced VII's. It matters not to me what you add to your motor oil, but you have to ask yourself this question: How much of something like STP actually increases viscosity and how does it affect the overall stability of the formulated oil?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Solarent ^^^ sorry I'm not being clear or something, because you're still not understanding. First of all, we already said in the thread above that the GF-6B oils will be so thin that they will likely have to use some advanced additives+basestocks not needed in higher HTHS/KV100 oils. Now take that as fact, assume it for now. Secondly, most engines these days call for an HTHS of 2.6, many times 3.0, and the euro engines get over 3.5, using current oil technology. Therefore, if one wanted to combine the GF-6B's thin oils with the desirable HTHS of 3.0 for thicker oil films, one would think about how to slightly increase viscosity of a new GF-6B oil, getting the best new Boundary Lubrication tech with an acceptable HTHS for cars on the road today. For example, if you own a 2012 GM car that calls for a 0w-20 or 0w-30 dexos1 oil, you wouldn't be allowed to use a GF-6B oil unless you could raise its HTHS to 2.9 or so by adding a small amount of thickener. (Stribeck, load, viscosity, journal bearings, you know.) A small amount of thick oil basestock added might "dilute" the total additives down by only 5 or 10 per cent, not much.
How do you know a so-called "thickener" like STP will raise the HTHS? You continue to confuse ancient VII's with thicker basestocks, it seems.
 
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
I always thought metals 'swung both ways'. A bit of Copper Oleate used to inhibit oxidation. Too much and things went the other way which is when you start slapping in the Metal Deactivators. Anyways, I now know what MI stands for something other that Military Intelligence (itself a contradiction in terms)..
smile Alkyl amine compounds, Imidazolines, Thiazoles, Benzotriazoles, and the Triazoles are used to combat corrosion and inhibit metal catalysis. Multi-Functional Additives
 
Last edited:
Good grief! I haven't played with comb polymers in 25 years. They're okay-ish for wax crystal modification. Not sure how they might make half decent VIIs. PMAs were IMO, always they worst VIIs. All that polymer glugging around. Yuk!
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
How do you know a so-called "thickener" like STP will raise the HTHS?
You mean, it might be akin to a garbage, low HTHS 10w-40 that concerned GM back in the day? wink
 
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
All this stuff is pretty ancient tech. Wouldn't reckon on any of this to be that relevant to GF-6A/B. Sorry...
Multi-Functional Additives Post #530330 Not ancient. The basic, functional (family) names haven't changed. The children chemistry is always being upgraded. The new children chemistry's that have been introduced are too numerous to add to the list. Some new friction modification (FM), anti-oxidant (AO), and VII chemistry's are the latest stuff to be introduced into the performance improvement packages. Comb polymers, and specifically the new architected comb polymers will definately make a comeback with the GF-6's and upgraded Dexos1. If you have some new chemistry's to add to the above list be our guest. smile
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
How do you know a so-called "thickener" like STP will raise the HTHS?
You mean, it might be akin to a garbage, low HTHS 10w-40 that concerned GM back in the day? wink
I guess STP Oil Treatment, used as a thickener, may destabilize the pudding chemistry. And yes, I was assuming STP would raise KV100 & HTHS both. This is going to be harder than I thought. Shannow suggested using a straight 40 oil, which might be better. However, what if one kind of went in the other direction and made the sump 10% M1 Racing 0w-50 (additive rich) mixed with a new GF-6B Mobil1 ? There must be a way to raise HTHS just a tad, up to like 3.0 and still retain the cutting-edge boundary lubrication performance of the new GF-6B low-HTHS oils.
 
Originally Posted By: ExMachina
This is going to be harder than I thought. Shannow suggested using a straight 40 oil, which might be better. However, what if one kind of went in the other direction and made the sump 10% M1 Racing 0w-50 (additive rich) mixed with a new GF-6B Mobil1 ? There must be a way to raise HTHS just a tad, up to like 3.0 and still retain the cutting-edge boundary lubrication performance of the new GF-6B low-HTHS oils.
I'd use V twin if that's the path that you were after, next to no alternative VII to mess with it, and HTHS>6 means that you won't be adding much.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
I'd use V twin if that's the path that you were after, next to no alternative VII to mess with it, and HTHS>6 means that you won't be adding much.
That is thick! Best thickener yet. I couldn't find HTHS info on the Mobil PDS though, taking your word for it.
 
Originally Posted By: ExMachina
And yes, I was assuming STP would raise KV100 & HTHS both.
Remember that years back, SAE J300 allowed for 10w-40 to have HTHS in the ILSAC 30 grade range, with KV100 in the 40 grade range. That was a bit problematic. As it is, I'm not terribly concerned about the boundary regime performance of a 30 grade, rightly or wrongly, at least in an application for which it's appropriate.
 
Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
How do you know a so-called "thickener" like STP will raise the HTHS?
You mean, it might be akin to a garbage, low HTHS 10w-40 that concerned GM back in the day? wink
I guess STP Oil Treatment, used as a thickener, may destabilize the pudding chemistry. And yes, I was assuming STP would raise KV100 & HTHS both. This is going to be harder than I thought. Shannow suggested using a straight 40 oil, which might be better. However, what if one kind of went in the other direction and made the sump 10% M1 Racing 0w-50 (additive rich) mixed with a new GF-6B Mobil1 ? There must be a way to raise HTHS just a tad, up to like 3.0 and still retain the cutting-edge boundary lubrication performance of the new GF-6B low-HTHS oils.
This was my original point that you contested (sorry I took the long weekend off to enjoy the last sun of summer). GF-6A will be formulated with high performance additives and meet the higher HTHS requirements.If you want an oil with higher HTHS viscosity and the requisite matching additives then you should choose a GF-6A oil. GF-6B will be formulated with high performance additives and meet the lower HTHS requirements.If you want the benefits of fuel economy from lower HTHS oils, then you choose a GF-6B oil. Both parts of the new Category (A&B) will be held to the SAME standards when it comes to wear protection. Incidentally this is also going to be similar or better levels of protection to the current category (at least that is what we are hearing from the groups developing the new test protocols.) Choosing between A&B is the only difficulty you will have. You don't need to mess around mixing things into a GF-6B oil which may or may not give you any extra benefit. For sure you will be killing the fuel economy advantage... I see no advantage for improved protection as both will be held to the same standards. If you want higher HTHS, then choose GF-6A. Of course this is all an academic hypothetical question until at least another year or so when the category tests are finalized, then we will have a better idea of what the formulas for these categories will look like.
 
Originally Posted By: Solarent
Choosing between A&B is the only difficulty you will have. You don't need to mess around mixing things into a GF-6B oil which may or may not give you any extra benefit. For sure you will be killing the fuel economy advantage... I see no advantage for improved protection as both will be held to the same standards. If you want higher HTHS, then choose GF-6A.
The main point here is that GF-6B oils will have better boundary lubrication performance, since that oil will be at a low HTHS (for fuel economy). We like the boundary lube superiority of a GF-6B, but want to add a slightly higher HTHS (to about 3.0) for the typical load carrying oil film strength we also want. Therefore, raising HTHS slightly in a GF-6B will give us BOTH great boundary lubrication AND thicker oil films. Thats the last time I will explain that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

wwillson
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Pennzoil Q&A GF-6 and GF-7 with the American Petroleum Institute (API) - Answers
2
Replies
22
Views
6K
eroberts82
D
Using Liqui-Moly 6200 0W-20 in a 2019 Subaru Impreza?
Replies
10
Views
510
02zx9r rev2
Gokhan
ILSAC GF-7 only five years away, to debut in Q2 2028: details
Replies
17
Views
1K
Snagglefoot
A
PUP 0w-20 (GM dexos1) vs. M1 EP (GM dexos1: Gen3)
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
AJW001
KingGeorge
Is 5w20 Dexos becoming obsolete?
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
Cuemark8
Top