A Trip to High Performance Lubricants

Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
1,214
Location
Palmer, Alaska, USA
Originally Posted by buster
Place looks immaculate.
It is immaculate! The owner(s) must be prior military. The plant has that look and feel to it. Most impressed!
 
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
2,264
Location
Arizona
Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
The high amounts of moly, ZDDP, and ester counter LSPI despite the high amount of calcium. This is a more effective way of dealing with LSPI.
I believe that Mg is generally more expensive than Ca in the DD package. I further believe _that_ is the primary reason oils have shifted away from Mg toward Ca over the years (decades?). Even in the '80s, we chose an all-fleet oil with higher Mg levels than the 'typical' oils were using at that time, because we believed it to be a technically superior approach.
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2015
Messages
5,733
Location
New England
Originally Posted by bulwnkl
Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
The high amounts of moly, ZDDP, and ester counter LSPI despite the high amount of calcium. This is a more effective way of dealing with LSPI.
I believe that Mg is generally more expensive than Ca in the DD package. I further believe _that_ is the primary reason oils have shifted away from Mg toward Ca over the years (decades?). Even in the '80s, we chose an all-fleet oil with higher Mg levels than the 'typical' oils were using at that time, because we believed it to be a technically superior approach.
It would probably take me a while to track it down, but some time ago I posted a link to a lubrication industry paper that reported that magnesium based detergents had the capability of interfering with the beneficial synergistic effects of ZDDP and MoS2 in motor oil. The fix that was reported for this was the use of a boron based additive, IIRC...the details are fuzzy. Anyway, I took this to be a possible reason for why calcium based detergents were far more prevalent before the LSPI issue raised its ugly head...using magnesium required some extra care in the oil formulation. Just my own thoughts and quite possibly completely wrong and useless...
 
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
2,264
Location
Arizona
Originally Posted by Virtus_Probi
Originally Posted by bulwnkl
I believe that Mg is generally more expensive than Ca in the DD package. I further believe _that_ is the primary reason oils have shifted away from Mg toward Ca over the years (decades?). Even in the '80s, we chose an all-fleet oil with higher Mg levels than the 'typical' oils were using at that time, because we believed it to be a technically superior approach.
It would probably take me a while to track it down, but some time ago I posted a link to a lubrication industry paper that reported that magnesium based detergents had the capability of interfering with the beneficial synergistic effects of ZDDP and MoS2 in motor oil. The fix that was reported for this was the use of a boron based additive, IIRC...the details are fuzzy. Anyway, I took this to be a possible reason for why calcium based detergents were far more prevalent before the LSPI issue raised its ugly head...using magnesium required some extra care in the oil formulation. Just my own thoughts and quite possibly completely wrong and useless...
That would be interesting to read. I assume you mean a Mo compound other than the disulfide(?). I don't think a reputable formulator would put MoS2 in an engine oil, would they? In the timeframe I mentioned, Mg deposits were also reported to be ‘softer' than Ca deposits, another factor in the decision to use the fluids we used.
 

Strjock81

Thread starter
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
423
Location
Illinois
Wrapped up a 15k interval on the oil I got on this trip and had a UOA done. Enjoy!


 
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
1,214
Location
Palmer, Alaska, USA
Very impressive and great right up & nice pics to boot also. Dave and Dave seem like very courteous and kind men. Good for them overall!!! Dale
Sure! I always worry about the Goliaths out there... HPL is not that!

This oil looks to be great stuff. HPL has and maintains a wonderful facility. Impressive.

And, Strjock81's Blackstone report, noted just above, is impressive as well.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
1,167
Location
TX
I love a nice boutique product, normally. But with small oil producers, I wonder how they can even come close to having the R&D budget that Exxon, Shell, etc do. I am a casual observer, at best, but it seems like proper R&D in this field would be very expensive, at best. How do the small guys do it?
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
9,208
Location
Indianapolis, IN
I love a nice boutique product, normally. But with small oil producers, I wonder how they can even come close to having the R&D budget that Exxon, Shell, etc do. I am a casual observer, at best, but it seems like proper R&D in this field would be very expensive, at best. How do the small guys do it?
For one thing, the smaller companies don't have to put any money into R&D for base stocks or additive development; they only have to deal with blending. They essentially just shop around for the bases and additives they need which are available on the market. Then they target a customer's goal of what they want to achieve, and then try different base/additive package combinations to achieve the desired effect. They more experienced ones have very little guessing to do; they can get very close very quickly. Then they may only have to "polish" the final lube formula with a tweak here and there.

HPL has a host of impressive folks who know chemistry well. They then use their lab equipment (very impressive set of tools!) to fine tune their products for the customers.
 
Top