Aircraft oils on cars

[azsynthetic]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
I don't think it can be any more clear when they said in their product spec and I quote verbatim "Red Line lubricants are unique because they contain PE Polyol Ester base stocks, the only lubricants which can withstand the tremendous heat of modern jet engines."


Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Redline is the only one specifically stated using the same base oil as jet oil.


Their quote above does not say they use the same base oil as jet oil, it says they use "PE Polyol Ester base stocks", and then states these (PE Polyol Ester base stocks) are the only lubricants which can withstand the tremendous heat of modern jet engines.

Tom NJ



The quote is in the same sentence and if it is not then why do they even mentioned it. My point is outside of Redlines there is no other manufacturer currently even have it in print specifically, much less in a product spec.

 

[azsynthetic]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
No other ester based auto oil manufacturers even mentioned the same class of ester as jet oil, much less PE POE.


Nor do you speak for Redline.

I think you misunderstood the meaning of the "class" statement. POE is a class of base oils with subclasses (As Tom mentoined above).

In the earlier days (1970's), Amsoil and NEO used similar advertising language when they were using majority diester base oils from Hatcol.

But as we know, diesters are a class with many many subclass "types."


Stop putting words in my mouth, do you have problem reading? I never claimed to speak for Redlines whereas you said Tom answer my question. Show me where Amsoil and NEO used similar language in their product specs, which was my original question. Having a little blurb in a promo ad is different then having it spelled out specifically in a product spec.

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
The quote is in the same sentence and if it is not then why do they even mentioned it.


They mention it to make the point that they use the same class of esters used in jet engines, not the same esters. The specific PE esters used in jet engine oils are not ideal for automotive applications for the reasons I noted above, and the folks at Redline know their esters.

Most automotive oil manufacturers who use POEs prefer TMP type polyol esters, as do some jet engine oils, but again not the same esters. TMPs offer better low temperatures properties without sacrificing lubricity. PEs offer better high temperature properties.

Tom NJ

 

[azsynthetic]

Tom, I respect your opinion since we don't really know what Red Line is using. My curiosity is that they mentioned PE POE base stocks (more than one class?) and also that they are the only lubricants that can withstand the heat of jet engine. If they are indeed the only lubricants then they are the same as PE POE in jet oil. It could be just marketing lingo but it happens in the product spec and not a promo ad. BTW, I did talked to Red Line but got no further than what is stated in the product spec. They would not tell me what percentage is PE POE.

 

[Tom NJ]

I think what Redline was saying is that PE polyol esters (as a class) are the only base stocks used in jet engine oils, and this is basically true (there are some TMP POEs used as well). But as I noted earlier, "PE Polyol esters" is a large class with many sub-classes (MonoPEs, DiPEs, Complex PEs, Poly PEs, etc), and each of these sub-classes contains many different specific esters. Our PE POE product line at Hatco contained scores of different PE esters.

I feel their statement and reference to jet oils is absolutely valid, but should not be interpreted as meaning they use the exact same esters used in jet engine oils, but rather that they use the same type or class of esters.

Tom NJ

 

[MolaKule]

Here is another illustrative example of an exercise in the analysis of "Logic and Language."

Quote:
The synthetic base stocks have a natural multigrade property, which means that large amounts of unstable polymeric thickeners, like those used in petroleum oils, are
not required to manufacture our multigrades.


Now notice what it does NOT say, "we use 0% VII's in our formulations." It says we don't have to use "large amounts" of VII's in out formulations, which is true, since esters and PAO's have large viscosity indices and can cover a wide range of viscosities (multiviscosity) or weight ranges equal to a multigrade. So one could use small amounts of VII's to give the finished synhthetic lubricant a high viscosity index.

Now Amsoil does say in their literature about certain lubricants that they contain NO VII''s, for example:

Quote:
SHEAR STABLE
Conventional automatic transmission fluids use petroleum oils with viscosity index (VI) improvers added to increase the oil’s operational temperature range. Over time, VI improvers shear down, promoting premature wear by leaving only a thin base oil to protect vital transmission components. AMSOIL Torque-Drive™ does not contain VI improvers, which means no VI improver shear down regardless of the operating environment. The unmatched film strength of AMSOIL Torque-Drive™ prevents wear, significantly increasing the transmission service life.



And one more example:

Quote:
ACD is formulated without viscosity index improvers (VI). This shear stable formulation stops viscosity loss and associated bearing and cylinder bore wear.

So here we have to interpret this as saying that in this particular product, they use 0% VII's. (Bolding mine for emphasis).

 

[sittingduck57]

neopentyl polyol ester base. As I remember it has triescal phosphate in it which is supposed to be bad for us peoples.

 

[Steve S]

Plane engines {recip and turbine} have different requirements.

 

[Steve S]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Here is another illustrative example of an exercise in the analysis of "Logic and Language."

Quote:
The synthetic base stocks have a natural multigrade property, which means that large amounts of unstable polymeric thickeners, like those used in petroleum oils, are
not required to manufacture our multigrades.


Now notice what it does NOT say, "we use 0% VII's in our formulations." It says we don't have to use "large amounts" of VII's in out formulations, which is true, since esters and PAO's have large viscosity indices and can cover a wide range of viscosities (multiviscosity) or weight ranges equal to a multigrade. So one could use small amounts of VII's to give the finished synhthetic lubricant a high viscosity index.

Now Amsoil does say in their literature about certain lubricants that they contain NO VII''s, for example:

Quote:
SHEAR STABLE
Conventional automatic transmission fluids use petroleum oils with viscosity index (VI) improvers added to increase the oil’s operational temperature range. Over time, VI improvers shear down, promoting premature wear by leaving only a thin base oil to protect vital transmission components. AMSOIL Torque-Drive™ does not contain VI improvers, which means no VI improver shear down regardless of the operating environment. The unmatched film strength of AMSOIL Torque-Drive™ prevents wear, significantly increasing the transmission service life.



And one more example:

Quote:
ACD is formulated without viscosity index improvers (VI). This shear stable formulation stops viscosity loss and associated bearing and cylinder bore wear.

So here we have to interpret this as saying that in this particular product, they use 0% VII's. (Bolding mine for emphasis).
That is the hard part. Then reading something you don't know anything about and not being able to discern if the material you read is fact or fiction.

 

[xzeroth]

broom broom

 

[userfriendly]

Can I use JTO 254 as a high mileage seal swell additive
instead of a high mileage engine oil?

 

[MolaKule]

I would not since the phosphorus content is too high and this ester is not the best for seal swell.

Stick to HM.

 

[HerrStig]

I have several electric motors which have decals saying "use 'turbine' oil to lubricate. They are clearly sleeve bearings. What's up with that.

 

[MolaKule]

That usually means use the plastic bottle with the extensible spout and labelled, "Turbine Oil."

http://www.amazon.com/Supco-MO98-Zoom-Spout-Turbine/dp/B008MG3T1Q

otherwise known as a hydrotreated heavy naphthenic (mineral) oil, sometimes noted as "Medium Pale Oil, Heavy Pale Oil."

This is a GroupV oil but it is not a synthetic oil.

 

[Pontual]

And what the people are here isn't discussing JET (AERONAUTICAL) ENGINE OIL, POE base oil? Not mere Turbine oil.

 

[MolaKule]

The original topic was whether one could use Jet Turbine Oils in internal combustion engines, and the answer is a resounding, NO.


Originally Posted By: MolaKule

There is more to consider than oil film thickness; additive packages differ between jet turbine oils (JTO) and automotive oils.

JTO's are mostly POE bases and may have kinematic viscosities ranging from 3 cSt all the way up to 20 cSt or higher.

Jet engine oils do not see hot combustion gasses as do recips and therefore do not have the proper set of additives for use in recips.

JTO's do have special anti-oxidants to keep them from oxidizing at hot soaking temps, with some anti-corrosive and anti-rust adds as well, and may not be compatible with automotive seals.

I would not [use] JTO's oils in any recips.

 

[Pontual]

JTO's are about 6Cst at 100C, roughly the same as synthetic ATF in vicosity. They're MIL-PRF-23699F-HTS specification. I use it in my cars at 10% and had a small leak cured by it in less than 3 days. But I use BP 2197 and it isn't the type TechPE base Polyol Ester, so there is no C5 acids on it to be agressive to engine seals. That's the way, so you can't rule it out as easy as dividing and conquering

Ditto.

 

[Pontual]

And I'm not trying to be a smart*ss here. I'm not using you guys knowledge against you guys. I'm just giving my thoughts on the matter with the know-whow of you guys that I absorbed some in here and maybe convince you guys or, more the case, probably not ...
Just a friendly and salutar discussion, ok?

 

[Shannow]

If you just ran the oils and used ethanol in the fuel, aren't you making jet turbine esters anyway ?

Why would you add, when they form naturally in the sump ?

(allegedly)

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: Pontual
JTO's are about 6Cst at 100C, roughly the same as synthetic ATF in vicosity. They're MIL-PRF-23699F-HTS specification. I use it in my cars at 10% and had a small leak cured by it in less than 3 days. But I use BP 2197 and it isn't the type TechPE base Polyol Ester, so there is no C5 acids on it to be agressive to engine seals. That's the way, so you can't rule it out as easy as dividing and conquering

Ditto.


Actually the BP 2197 base ester is a Tech PE polyol ester with over 50% C5 acid, the balance being C6 through C10, linear and branched. The finished oil is just over 5 cSt @ 100C and it is considered the cleanest fully approved jet turbine oil in the market for high temperature engines. I happen to be one of the inventors of this base ester and have a patent on it (#5503761). Shell and Mobil have oils in the same class currently in the approval process.

I have never added a jet turbine oil to my car engine oil, but I would not consider a 10% dose to be harmful and it should serve to slightly swell and condition seals at this level. I have added up to 10% of a different pure POE to my car oil provided the original oil has a robust additive package so that additive dilution would not be an issue.

Tom NJ